“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.

  • sunzu@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Who is down voting this info?

    If you believe this is incorrect, please state it lol

    • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      I downvoted because it doesn’t give a good description of right-to-work and/or at-will employment, or include differences or the way the law applies in different areas. It’s too broad of a post without enough specific relevant application to local law scenarios. It’s opening a can of worms and could be misunderstood.

      • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re got to be kidding. The post is about right to work laws. It includes a summary of what that means, plus links for more information. So you downvoted because OP didn’t compare and contrast two unrelated laws or write a dissertation on how right to work laws vary by state/county/city. Laws that by definition literally only do one thing. This shit is why people don’t post more.

        To highlight how ridiculous your comment is, I’ll help OP out and provide what you found to be so lacking. I know this is going to make OP look pretty bad, so I’m sure they’ll provide at least a partial refund of what you paid for their post.

        At-will employment: you can be fired for anything not protected by law.

        Right to work laws: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues.

        Compare: they are applied to employees Contrast: neither does anything similar

        For my next trick, I’ll provide specific relevant application for local law scenarios by state.

        Alabama: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Arkansas: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Georgia: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Idaho: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Indiana: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Iowa: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Kansas: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Kentucky: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Louisiana: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Michigan: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Mississippi: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Nebraska: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        North Carolina: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        North Dakota: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Oklahoma: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        South Carolina: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        South Dakota: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Tennessee: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Texas: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Utah: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Virginia: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Washington: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        West Virginia: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Wisconsin: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        Wyoming: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Thank you for your service.

          So far we have yet to ID what is wrong with OP beyond that tdownvoters did not like the message or how it was delivered.

      • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        What if you contribute instead of or in addition to downvoting? That way, people understand the downvote and/or get more information and clarity.

        • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          GTFO of here, this is Reddit Lemmy. Anyone providing anything useful for free must be subjected to intensely unfair scrutiny or the whole system falls apart.

          /s

          But really, this place is increasingly turning into Reddit and it’s depressing.

    • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      I appreciate the intent but this is just what happens when you put yourself out on the Internet. Hell, on an old account I made a post about how to use a waffle sandwich maker with cheddar biscuit mix and it was 10% downvoted. I think it’s some combination of valid (if unstated) criticism, accidental downvotes, and some people just being assholes.

      I don’t care, I’m just trying to provide what I think is useful information. If people have a problem but don’t speak up about it, I can’t do anything so I’m not going to worry about it. As another poster mentioned below, they’re welcome to a full refund. I’ll even triple it. Triple refund!

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        All fair points, i like the vibe.

        I look at down vote ratio for sentiment and to ID who else is commenting. With bot nets, paid shills and shit nowadays, got to keep an eye on what is going beyond what people are saying was more of my point about it.

        Tinfoil on: for example anti labor positioned actor would down voted factually correct post like this merely because it benefits some wage slave. They act like this when they can’t engage on the topic honestly.

        tankie litmus test: Did Mao and Stalin do anything wrong… watch them work that one 🤣

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        on reddit you don’t get to see the ratio and spytube removed downvote all together, i think you need an extension to view?

        wonder why?

        Seeing the ratio can be useful

    • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m on blahaj so I don’t see downvotes. I’m guessing people who (incorrectly) think my statement of the details of the law is my support for it.