“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.

  • aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Aye, there’s the rub. If you can’t prove it was discriminatory then you’re SOL.

    • meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The great thing about bigots is most tend to be fucking stupid. Plenty of stories of people being explicitly told in writing they were being fired over something with title IX protections.