RANT: All the Issues are My Fault and You Won't Answer My Questions
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
At-will has its points in that if I wanted to leave tomorrow, there is nothing my company can do to prevent me from going to one of our competitors.
At will does not protect this. Only California protects completely (or nearly so) against this, and they are not at will.
California is at-will. There are different employment laws in California that make it harder to fire someone for no cause, but it's not not at-will.
There is actually only one state that has anything that can be construed as not at-will and it's Montana.
If we consider California to be "at will", who is NOT at will?
Variations on a theme.
California has additional protected classes, like sexual orientation and gender identity, that even other state don't recognize. But if I have someone in my employ in California and want them gone because they like the Green Bay Packers, absent a contract stating otherwise, I can do it. It's the same way that if an employee says "F[moderated] this shit, I'm out!" and doesn't come back, the employer can't force them back to work or restrict them without consideration in the contract beforehand.
Montana is the only state that has any kind of protection for release without cause. But it doesn't stop an employee from saying "F[moderated] this shit, I'm out!"
-
@PSX_Defector At will and right to work (employee leaving) are to completely different things.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
At-will has its points in that if I wanted to leave tomorrow, there is nothing my company can do to prevent me from going to one of our competitors.
At will does not protect this. Only California protects completely (or nearly so) against this, and they are not at will.
California is at-will. There are different employment laws in California that make it harder to fire someone for no cause, but it's not not at-will.
There is actually only one state that has anything that can be construed as not at-will and it's Montana.
If we consider California to be "at will", who is NOT at will?
Variations on a theme.
California has additional protected classes, like sexual orientation and gender identity, that even other state don't recognize. But if I have someone in my employ in California and want them gone because they like the Green Bay Packers, absent a contract stating otherwise, I can do it. It's the same way that if an employee says "F[moderated] this shit, I'm out!" and doesn't come back, the employer can't force them back to work or restrict them without consideration in the contract beforehand.
Montana is the only state that has any kind of protection for release without cause. But it doesn't stop an employee from saying "F[moderated] this shit, I'm out!"
Actually California, like eleven other states, have clauses to make that specifically difficult for an employer to do just that. You have to have a cause for letting them go. It's the good faith clause.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@PSX_Defector At will and right to work (employee leaving) are to completely different things.
Right to work has to deal with organized labor. At will has to do with hiring and firing.
Me leaving a job is an at-will situation. Me paying union dues in a union represented position is a right to work situation.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
Me leaving a job is an at-will situation.
Not sure which state's laws you are referring to but, here it is not. at will in no way protects your right to leave a job. It just protects the employers right to fire you.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Actually California, like eleven other states, have clauses to make that specifically difficult for an employer to do just that. You have to have a cause for letting them go. It's the good faith clause.
Not codified in law like Montana. An implied consent doesn't equal a protection codified. But one can still fire for no reason or cause. You just have to be much more on the ball and know the game well to keep it from coming back on you.
And that's not to say that I can't just change the rules mid-stream. If I hired a Packers fan, then changed the rules in the office, they either can suck it up and root for someone else or leave.
It's like union employees. People think they can't be fired. My friend used to do it all the time at AT&T, so well that my CWA steward friends knew about him. You have to have your ducks in a row, know your contracts and ensure that folks are lined up properly to be spanked. Hasn't had a single one come back yet.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@PSX_Defector said:
Me leaving a job is an at-will situation.
Not sure which state's laws you are referring to but, here it is not. at will in no way protects your right to leave a job. It just protects the employers right to fire you.
It cuts both ways. If an employer can fire you for no reason, an employee can leave for no reason. There is professional decorum that comes into play, like two weeks notice and such, but if I got a job offer tomorrow I have no legal obligation to my employer to tell them anything in an at-will situation.
Without a contract stating otherwise, it's pretty much like that everywhere. There is the implied things Scott was talking about, but not like what happens in Montana. There is the only true non-at-will employment situation in the United States.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
It's like union employees. People think they can't be fired. My friend used to do it all the time at AT&T, so well that my CWA steward friends knew about him. You have to have your ducks in a row, know your contracts and ensure that folks are lined up properly to be spanked. Hasn't had a single one come back yet.
Unions can make it easier to fire too. All depends on the union.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
It cuts both ways. If an employer can fire you for no reason, an employee can leave for no reason.
But that's not in at-will employment law, some people think it is. That right comes from not having an employment contract. In VA we are at will but, if you have an contract you don't have the right to quit until the contract is expired.. they still can fire or terminate you.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
In VA we are at will but, if you have an contract you don't have the right to quit until the contract is expired.. they still can fire or terminate you.
Really? You actually cannot quit?
Depending on the contract, wouldn't it equally stop them firing you? Never heard of contract law that was binding to only one party in the contract.
-
Honestly, why would anyone work in Virginia?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Honestly, why would anyone work in Virginia?
Pretty much only teachers and some other odd jobs are contract based like that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Really? You actually cannot quit?
Well, they can't physically stop you. but you open yourself up for a law suit.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Honestly, why would anyone work in Virginia?
Pretty much only teachers and some other odd jobs are contract based like that.
Only people who can't afford lawyers, I suppose
Why would an employer not always use that, if it gives them effectively unlimited power?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Really? You actually cannot quit?
Well, they can't physically stop you. but you open yourself up for a law suit.
Well obviously you can physically stop working. But you don't have a right to stop working? I didn't know anyone but places like India had anything like this.
-
One thing you can do is move to a civilized location. Even contracts that forbid working elsewhere normally die at the border. Maybe NC won't protect you from onerous contracts in VA, but NY and CA sure will. NY will laugh at a contract like that and actually go after VA for interfering with NY business (NY did this to Florida last year.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Honestly, why would anyone work in Virginia?
That's the exact same reason I left that ISP job years ago, they wanted me to move from NYC to Dulles, Virgnia, but now they've moved some of their HQ back there, guess they got bored too.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@PSX_Defector said:
It cuts both ways. If an employer can fire you for no reason, an employee can leave for no reason.
But that's not in at-will employment law, some people think it is. That right comes from not having an employment contract. In VA we are at will but, if you have an contract you don't have the right to quit until the contract is expired.. they still can fire or terminate you.
Contract work is different, just as if I had a union contract. Yes, if I had a contract I couldn't just up and quit, not without suffering the remedies the contract has. The company also faces liability if they up and "fire" you, as they would also suffer the remedies the contract had. Unless you are dumb and negotiated a contract where they can fire you without cause, slap a non-compete for the entire world, and make it so you have to pay the contract back in full if you quit.
If I agree to work for a company without a formal contract, I am at-will. If I work for a company with a formal contract, I am a commodity. An apple can't quit the grocery store.
There are different kinds of employment, at-will is what people would consider a "job". I apply for the job, get interviewed, then start working for them. There is no formal agreement of when I start or when I am done working there, just they offer a job and I get money certain times of the month for it. They pay me out of an account identified as "payroll" and is reported to the various tax agencies and government bric-a-brac. A "contract" worker is usually (not even delving into the usual 1099 abuses from people) hired for a set of tasks or jobs that has a start and end date. I am not paid out of payroll but out of capex. I have a document that says what I will do, what I don't do. I am no different than the guy they buy their widgets from. I am just selling my labor.
-
Yes, 1099 I would understand, as that is not a form of employment but is the tax paperwork for a corp2corp contract.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yes, 1099 I would understand, as that is not a form of employment but is the tax paperwork for a corp2corp contract.
Not to say that there couldn't be a W2 "contract worker", but seems to be counterintuitive to offer a contract that way, both for employer and employee. Which dovetails back into the main point I was going for before this train derailed, consideration.
If I was offered an at-will W2 employee position, with benefits, 401(k), time off, etc. etc., what would the consideration be for signing a non-compete? The prestige of working for someone? Now, if the going rate for the job was plenty more than other comparable positions, that would be consideration in that regards. Hence why on the face some of the non-competes are unenforceable. In our Jimmy John's example, if one were to fight it, there is nothing proprietary nor magic about making a sammich. When someone can go "sudo @Dominica make me a sammich" that is not a trade secret and couldn't be protected by making an employee sign a non-compete because he is gonna take his talents to Subway. Since the amount of money isn't significantly more (plenty of indication that it's less than market rate working for that prick) then what consideration was given to the employee to compensate them for their inability to work in the industry? On the face of it, they appear to be unenforceable.
