Start A Petition
Group Discussions
The right to work at will...
9 years ago

What makes people think that they are "entitled" to be employed by any employer just because they were hired to do a job?

I don't get it.

I am all for the "at will" employer.

If I am a business owner and I hire someone to do a job, they better do it or they are out. Pretty simple huh?

Not to the parasitic Lefties who think that once you hire them that they are now a new appendage to your asss... lol.

"At will" means "at will"! I should be able to hire and fire anyone I wish from my company without explanation...



9 years ago

Lena, I agree and disagree. I agree that if an employee is not doing his or her job that they should be let go, but what about the employee who is doing his or her job and the boss decides (for whatever reason) that he/she wants to let them go?

Should an employee be terminated because he/she did not want to have an affair with the boss?

Should an employee be terminated because the new supervisor decides to change the racial makeup of the crew?

Should an employee be terminated because he/she is not a minority?

9 years ago

I can see & empathize with both sides but, in the end, I have to back the employers. The more regulations we have, the bigger the govt is in our lives. Let's face it - no one has a "right" to a job... at least not in a free society.   

Besides, can you imagine if there were no more wrongful termination or sexual harassment cases? Think of all those poor, starving lawyers who'll be forced out on the streets! The inhumanity!!!   

9 years ago

Hi Carol - You have a good point there regarding the employee who refuses to be sexually harassed by her/his boss...

There are exceptions to that rule of course and it is in the courts under wrongful termination. If the employee has sufficient proof, then by all means, file suit.

However, there are those who think that just because they think that they are the ideal emloyee, that they can never be let go. It is that mindset that I am against.

As an employer, I have the right to hire and fire at will. It is my company and no one should be able to hold me to something I disagree with. Not in America.

To use another example here - work with me on this lol - Suppose you work for me and I like your work. Barb approaches you and tries to get you to go to work for her at a higher rate and better benefits... Suppose I don't want you to go... Don't I have rights over Barb since you worked for me first? Don't I have recourse against you and Barb for conspiracy to leave my employ? Should the state side with me and make you stay with my company because of the conspiracy?

At will gives both the employer and the employee the right to work at will... FREELY and without constraint or prejudice.

Those people who feel that they can force an employer to keep them on the payroll are parasites and losers...


7 years ago

My experience is terrible concerning this law. I'm not a loser. I'm a hard working person working for a company that uses the right to work law to harass and humiliate their workers. Sure, I could leave and work for someone else in this state that would treat me the same way because, every boss in Arizona knows they can treat their employees however they want. When the right to work is a State law, you generally end up with %#&!*% bosses wherever you go. I have an excellent attendance record at my place of employment, great reviews, yet I am sexually harassed, humiliated, and yelled at by my bosses. I asked to be transferred to another department in hopes of having a better relationship with another boss. Of course, he didn't want me to go and wouldn't let me. I'm not free to work for someone who would treat me better. This is the third time I have changed jobs and have been sexually harassed. I am a cash cow and reported as having a bad attitude because I don't like having %#&!*% thrown in my face every day.

7 years ago

Regardless of the Right to Work, isn't sexual harassment still considered a criminal charge???

I agree with Barb ...
7 years ago

Is the state of AZ exempt from EEOC laws and regulations? 


In any case, though ... it is difficult to define sexual harassment because everyone has a different opinion on what sexual harassment or discrimination. What one person perceives as harassment or discrimination seems silly to another.


The compliant employer must take every complaint seriously.


That's sort of the way it should be, though, in my opnion. Otherwise, employers gets away with all kinds of sh1t they shouldn't get away with.


6 years ago

Here in FL, it's all for the employers.  The can let you go for smiling on a rainy day. 


Definitely makes me miss NY. 


I AM a hard worker, I also tend to take on responsibility that isn't even mine, to the point where, at my last job, I literally had to train my new supervisor how to do his job, that I was already doing in everything but name. And they didn't care, they didn't appreciate it, they let me go. 


But, I too, can see both sides of the equation.  We don't like big gov't, we don't like big corporate a-holes, so there's only one please-all solution: 

drop the gov't, entirely, and let anarchy, chaos, and survival rules take over.


Obviously, that's a bad idea, Sooooo....that means someone, presumably the gov't, has to step in and set some restrictions, and guidelines, to prevent such cruelty in the workplace. 


And, in order to stop them from getting too big for their britches, (too late on that one, in the here and now), you restrict the gov't in turn, making it so that elected officials, for as long as they're in office, give up many of their rights while they SERVE their country.  That means no corporate and gov't bedfellows.  Any capital exchange between such parties, would be high-treason, worse than bribing a cop, or a soldier.

     Soldiers, I might add, that DO give up many of their freedoms to serve their country, and put their lives on the line, as well.  That's why they deserve respect.  That's also why politicians do not.  They give the orders, but they forget they are servants, too.  Or they should be.  Not for life.  Just for as long as their term is.


Some might say that's harsh, but hey, as one of the 200 million-plus CEOs of this nation, whose taxes pay the salaries of our 500-plus-some-odd gov't officials, I find their performance wanting, and feel that some new rules are in order; and if they don't like them, they too, can be terminated. 


Think about it:  We put them in power, and we pay them through our taxes, to un this country, so we can live our lives and not stress about all that.  That's all it is.  Simple as that.  That, by definition, makes us their employers.  That makes them our employees.  Or it makes us their customers, and them the service providers (which can quite easily be dropped). 


Now, when you pay someone, to do something for you, to provide a service, or product, then you naturally espect to get something in return.  Something.  Anything.  Maybe they could tell some good jokes?  Free T-Shirts?  Shine a shoe?  Half a shoe? 


But we get nothing.  Our country spins more and more out of control, and instead of getting fired, our unruly little employees demand raises, and enforce and inflict these raises upon us, in the form of more taxes. 


We're the worst CEOs in the history of the world!  These guys should be polishing our streets with toothbrushes, begging to keep their jobs!  Instead we cheer for them, work our asses off for them, take orders from them. 


So, in the face of all that, all I can say is; WTF America?! 



6 years ago

Shane- NY is an employment at will state.  Most states are.  And I do disagree mostly with the idea, BTW.


But you should have CAUSE to fire someone.  And yes, not doing the job is CAUSE.

6 years ago

Well, yeah, I agree with that, definitely.  Makes room for someone who actually wants to work and wants to make a living. 


I haven't been in NY since 2002, but I remember you had to do something pretty stupid to lose your job.  THen again, I was working part time in grocery stores, back then, and we did all kinds of things in the back room that should have gotten us arrested, never mind fired,   With our supervisor's blessing, no less! 

2 years ago

‘Right To Work’ For Less Granny Exposed As A Right Wing Shill
October 10, 2015
Elisabeth Parker US


Meet Mary Jane Aurdal-Olson, a Tea Party grandma from Washington state. She hates the way our evil Big Government is forcing her to accept union wages while caring for her autistic grandson, and she demands the “right to work” for less.

“It makes no sense for me to be part of a union,” Aurdal-Olson complains to the News Tribune in Tacoma, Wash. The sprightly-looking grandma with the bright blue eyes and crisp dark curls provides care to her autistic grandson 20 hours a month. But she doesn’t understand why she has to join a union and pay dues in order to do this.

2 years ago

If she is so concerned, why doesn't she do her family a favor and do it for free?

2 years ago

ok, got it now

2 years ago

Whether it was on purpose or accidental-----today employers have the upper hand because there are more people looking for work than there are jobs for----at least the jobs that people can survive on and give them a little spending money beyond that.

When anyone has the "upper hand" there are opportunities for abuse. That's why unions are necessary so workers can get a fair share of the profits they help to make and protection from certain abuses.

There is a hard discussion going on whether we in the USA are over-populated or not. The nay-sayers like the fact there are more desperate people looking for the same job. The ones who look at the entire picture of what is going on with the environment, natural resources, increasing poverty, lack of good jobs for those over 50 see this country as fast eliminating the middle class and we'll be almost there shortly as a third-world country.

2 years ago

And then they say- at least you aren't a starving Somalian or in a war zone in Syria.



New to Care2? Start Here.