“I live in a right-to-work state, so my employer can shitcan me for any reason”.

-Linus K. Lemming

Sorry friends, that’s at-will employment, *and you still can’t be terminated for any reasons that are protected by law, but we’re not here to discuss that. Right-to-work laws mean one thing: that non-union employees cannot be required to contribute to the cost of union representation.

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibits “closed shops”, where union membership is a condition of employment; however, union represented positions can still be required to contribute to the cost of that representation. Right-to-work laws prohibit that requirement, allowing employees in union represented positions who choose not to join the union to also choose whether or not they contribute to the union’s costs, i.e., if they pay dues or not.

I see this mistake frequently and thought folks might want to know the correct information so they don’t unintentionally perpetuate it.

Edit: updated to include link to info about at-will employment.

  • ____@infosec.pub
    2·
    2 months ago

    I do not know why these two concepts are so frequently conflated and misunderstood, but they absolutely are.

    Thanks for the solid clarification. At-will and RTW are two very different concepts, and off the top of my head, forty-nine of the fifty states are at-will. The 50th state isn’t all that different (MT), just a bit nuanced: “Montana defaults to a probationary period, after which termination is only lawful if for good cause”