Again:
USE FRED'S POST TO SHOW ANY OF IT WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS RIGHT TO WORK.
Seriously, any string of words he posted. Hell, I'll even let you move them around to make new sentences. Nothing in what he posted deals with right to work.
A dentist is being sued for harassing staff by constantly playing Christian music
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Again:
USE FRED'S POST TO SHOW ANY OF IT WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS RIGHT TO WORK.
Seriously, any string of words he posted. Hell, I'll even let you move them around to make new sentences. Nothing in what he posted deals with right to work.
You said A) there is no such thing as at will states (which is absurdly, hilariously wrong, which you even change later)
and B) that he's confused it with right to work (which is, again, absurd in its wrongness)
Look, jackass.... here's fred's exact quote:
ALL STATES ARE "AT WILL".... Fred was wrong. People who say "At Will" followed by "states" are confusing concepts and probably don't know what "Right to Work States" refers to, either. They're trying to act like they know something about HR when they don't. It very common (which is why you're erroneously accusing me of not knowing the difference -- because you were too quick to try and play gotcha.
Go find someone else to play troll with.
A) No, I said ALL states are "at will" states.
B) He said "if your state isn't an 'at will' state" which is obviously wrong in it's premise.
Give it up. Your attempt to be a know-it-all jerk FAILED.
Uhhhh, no? People do confuse the terms, but not like you are trying to invent. A person saying, "I have the right to work so you can't fire me" may have confused the term. People saying that you can be fired for any reason and then calling it At Will are NOT confusing them.
You've clearly demonstrated you didn't know the difference before the other poster educated you.
Hell, your post just now disagrees with your post trying to call out Fred.
It is right there.
You've clearly demonstrated you didn't know the difference before the other poster educated you.
Hell, your post just now disagrees with your post trying to call out Fred.
It is right there.
Upon further review, I should have written "there's no such things as states that aren't at will states" to comport with Fred's use of a negative.
Your attacks on me are basically about the wrong use of a negative.
Congratulations counselor, you busted me on a grammar error. You win the internet. Happy now?
Your attacks on me are basically about the wrong use of a negative.
Congratulations counselor, you busted me on a grammar error. You win the internet. Happy now?
Some people mistakenly think "right to work" has something to do with workers' rights. How silly of them.
Sort of like "free trade." I mean who could be against free trade or a right to work - except when neither term means what it says.
As for "at will" states, my understanding is that that means any employer can fire any employee for any reason (or no reason) at any time.
There are, of course some federal laws that apply everywhere. Other than that, if the state doesn't layer on any additional restrictions, then employers are free to fire "at will."
I used to get into arguments with the owner at one company I ran stores for. He would sometimes get it in his head that an employee needed to be fired and would ask me to build a case, keep records, etc. I always refused. My argument was that as long as a worker was trying, I would work to get him there. If I didn't think he was trying, then he was toast - and that was all the reason I needed. I would not set him up to be fired at the same time as I was trying to help him succeed.
The problem with Fred's comment is the use of the word "states" vis-a-vis the term "at will".
Those two don't go together.
Capisce?
It isn't even a grammar error because you doubled down immediately, saying he was confusing it with right to work. Literally nothing in his post could be considered as right to work.
And At Will is a concept used in States and used differently, so claiming "every state is at wil" is just as ignorant a response...demonstrated by your own earlier post about public policy.
And At Will is a concept used in States and used differently, so claiming "every state is at wil" is just as ignorant a response...demonstrated by your own earlier post about public policy.
See above.
Saying "At Will" states is stupid because all states are "at will states".
It's like saying "religious churches" implying that some churches aren't religious.
Yes, they do. For a guy who goes to EEOC hearings, are you really claiming it isn't regularly brought up?
Are you really claiming it doesn't differ by state?
WHEN PEOPLE PUT "STATES" and "AT WILL" together, THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG!
And you freaking know it. Go away, troll.
I see, so in this analogy, you called out the guy who said that by claiming he confused it with "Anarchist Cookbook book review meetings"?
False, and especially historically.
I get it though, you are a trained HR goon. If I had to guess you were specifically taught to bring up/confront that term vis-a-vis it's confusion with right to work and now it is just what you do, even when wrong.
"At Will" is not brought up in the concept of states.
Yes, different states have different protections. "At will" means the employer or the employee can end the employment relationship at any time for any reason that's not prohibited by law. Different states have different things that are prohibited by law, but all of them recognize "at will" employment if a termination is not based on any prohibited reason.
Historically? This should be good. Please tell me the history of the "at will" employment relationship.
This link is interesting on the "at will" issue:
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/what-states-are-at-will-employment-states-ps.rl
All states recognize at-will employment. However, some states place limitations on it. These limitations are in addition to the ones that federal laws apply to all states.
The basic exceptions that some states require are the public policy exception, the implied contract exception, and the covenant of good faith exception.
The link then goes on to explain each exception briefly and to list the states that have each exception.
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/what-states-are-at-will-employment-states-ps.rl
All states recognize at-will employment. However, some states place limitations on it. These limitations are in addition to the ones that federal laws apply to all states.
The basic exceptions that some states require are the public policy exception, the implied contract exception, and the covenant of good faith exception.
The link then goes on to explain each exception briefly and to list the states that have each exception.
Simple googling for your pleasure:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx
http://dli.mt.gov/resources/faq
The only time Montana employers can practice "At Will Employment" in Montana is during the employee's probationary period.
And that's ignoring various states' exceptions making them incomparable as "all states are at will."
If anyone was trying a "gotcha" it was your idiotic response to Fred. One I wasn't even going to respond to, other than my facepalm-like post, but you demanded my response and doubled, tripled down.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx
http://dli.mt.gov/resources/faq
The only time Montana employers can practice "At Will Employment" in Montana is during the employee's probationary period.
And that's ignoring various states' exceptions making them incomparable as "all states are at will."
If anyone was trying a "gotcha" it was your idiotic response to Fred. One I wasn't even going to respond to, other than my facepalm-like post, but you demanded my response and doubled, tripled down.
Your example from the state of Montana's website is woefully lacking in details. Reading that description would indicate employers could not, for example, lay off workers due to a company's poor financial position, which is clearly not the case.
In any event, you finally got me as I'm not up to date on all the Montana laws, since I've never had any employees there, and given this obscure law, I won't be recommending that we have any employees there in the future.
What a way to walk back your pointless and ignorant snipe on Fred.
At Will was the proper term to use and the proper consideration.
Even if your premise was correct, it didn't change anything that fred wrote, because Fred's hypothetical occurred, specifically, where at will wasn't the standard.
You proved yourself to be an HR goon who reads from a script.
At Will was the proper term to use and the proper consideration.
Even if your premise was correct, it didn't change anything that fred wrote, because Fred's hypothetical occurred, specifically, where at will wasn't the standard.
You proved yourself to be an HR goon who reads from a script.
The only way it was proper is if Fred said, "If you're in Montana and you've been employed longer than six months...."
Otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Nope.
Poster--as do most liberals--wants to have his cake & eat it too. Being disingenuous is an all-too-often seen trait of liberalism. My only regret is that I've contributed to a thread that is about 87 posts too long.
My bad.
Last edited:
His hypothetical WAS in a NON-at will state, he specifically said so.
He didn't have to specifically name a state, he created the hypothetical.
Your HR script-reflex apparently required you to ignorantly chime in.
His post was very clear on that, that it wouldn't apply to an at will state.
Similar threads
