Two secondary resonses to any of the two except mine like the other I have only

timer Asked: Jun 15th, 2013

Question description

Author Date/Time*

Collapse Mark as Read Question Instructor Campbell 6/9/2013 4:09:13 PM


Isn't employment at-will better because the employee can also terminate his employment at anytime? Why or why not? 

Professor Campbell 


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Question Shirah Pope 6/11/2013 4:27:17 PM
Professor Campbell: Employment-at-will is better than being an employee in a right-to-work state because employees-at-will have union representation as well as statutory exceptions that discharges under the employee-at-will are subject to. An employee-at-will cannot lose their job over controversy with their employer over a public policy issue, nor can they lose it because of retaliation for worker's comp cases, because they are fulfilling a military obligation, or other reasons protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In some circumstances, even in employee-at-will situations, it's not enough for an employer to simply state that the employee was "let go for good cause, just cause or no cause at all." (Twomey, 2013, pp. 598). It is true, however, that when no specified employment duration has been determined, that either the employer or employee can terminate the employment, which has both advantages and disadvantages. (pp. 600) On the contrary, right-to-work states tend to have lower salaries than non-right-to-work states do because the employers are not concerned about unions requiring higher pay, safer work place conditions, etc. (US ) So, not only are the employees in these states receiving less pay than their counterparts in non-right-to-work states, they too also stand to lose their job quickly as well because they aren't afforded any protection that unions provide. A good thing about these states is their employees aren't forced to join a union and pay dues. (US References: National Right-to-Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. (2010). Right to Work States: Virginia. Retrieved on June 10, 2013, from Twomey,D.P. (2013). Labor & Employment Law. Pp. 597-610. Mason, OH: Southwestern Cengage Learning U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics (2001). Employment-at-will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions. Retrieved on June 10, 2013, from


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Question Shirah Pope 6/11/2013 4:44:22 PM
Class and Professor Campbell: I am using the mobile phone app on my iPhone so I apologize if the formatting isn't compatible. It appears right on my phone, but I am unable to see my post as you see it. So, I apologize if something is wrong with it. I'll see it when I get home later tonight. Thanks.


Collapse Mark as Read Main Post Linda Loffer 6/11/2013 11:03:54 AM

Employment-at-will doctrine generally means both the employer and the employee have the right to terminate the employee without cause, meaning no reason must be given, or with cause, where a reason for termination is given. However, there are certain other terms in a contract employment situation that may have an impact on the ability to act in this way. One of the contract terms having an impact would be if there is a duration clause. For example, if an employee is hired for a four-year period to work on a particular project, that is how long the contract will last unless the employer provides justification for the contract to end prior to the four-year period; typically, there may be an accompanying contract clause about early termination by the employer that states conditions that must be met or provides for early-out extra payments. (Twomey, D.P., (2013), pp. 597 to 599)

The advantages to working in this way include having the ability to terminate without cause for either party. This provides a boost for the employee and the employer to be able to part ways without any bad reasons for discharge. It also provides the opportunity for the employee to seek other employment without any negative background on the record, as well as provides the opportunity for the employer to seek new qualifications for an employee without running into negative human relations violations or questionable actions. Not everyone views the employment-at-will situation in the same way. Some people view the ability to terminate without cause as an inevitable axe that may be brought down without reason or justification; those people find it advantageous to work in a different environment than an employment-at-will situation. Additionally, if an employer is not required to state a reason for termination, some people believe there were underlying reasons, such as discriminatory discharge reasons, that will not come to light. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the American with Disabilities Act provide protection against discriminatory discharges. (Twomey, D.P., (2013), pp. 599-600)

In comparison, at right-to-work state provides the opportunity for people to choose to work as a union member or without a union membership. Under union membership and with a collective bargaining agreement, there may be a provision that the employer may not discharge an employee without just cause. “More than half of the approximately 15 million workers employed in the public sector by the federal government and state and local governments are protected by tenure processes or civil service against termination of employment without good cause.” (Twomey, D.P., (2013), p. 599)  

“In the private sector, workers covered by union collective bargaining contracts that protect against termination without just cause constitute some 6.9 percent of the nation’s work-force. Thus, more than 80 percent of the nation’s workforce is employed at will or for indefinite durations and does not have the ‘good cause’ or ‘just-cause’ protection against terminations negotiated by unions, granted by governmental bodies, or negotiated by individuals.” (Twomey, D.P., (2013), p. 599)

 In right-to-work states, workers not joining a union may also benefit from the negotiated collective bargaining contract terms without paying union dues. (Twomey, D.P., (2013), p. 169). This free-ride situation for non-union members continues to be a developing area of law, with unions being against this development. Each state has the ability to either pass legislation to become a right-to-work state or to not develop those laws. (Twomey, D.P., (2013), p. 87) As of February 1, 2012, there were 23 states with right-to-work laws. (Twomey, D.P., (2013), p. 169)


Twomey, D.P., (2013), Labor & Employment Law, Fifteenth Edition, Mason, OH; South-Western CENGAGE Learning


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Instructor Campbell 6/11/2013 11:36:18 PM

Hi Linda,

What is the future of unions? Are all states destined to become Employment at-will states? You may review the article below and tell me your thoughts.

Professor Campbell 


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Linda Loffer 6/13/2013 4:49:52 PM
Professor Campbell, thank you for the additional link to review information. I followed the process while it occurred in Michigan because it was so interesting to me at the time that a state would consider in this day and age changing to be a right-to-work state. This is main due to the fact that, at the time of reading Michigan's change, most other states reported having no significant change in jobs, employers, or really any of things that were promised.

However, I live in Oregon, and Oregon does not have right-to-work laws. Unions co-exist in our state with private employers without much interaction or issues that I am aware of, except when the union employees at our west coast ports cause problems for businesses receiving their shipped goods through the ports during a strike or walk-out situation. Those in the private sector do not have strike or walk-out privileges, but are usually agreeable to existing in the same state with those that do except when their status has a negative impace on local private businesses (which can have a tremendously negative impact on an entire local economy).


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Glendaliz Perez 6/12/2013 6:45:36 PM
Good Post! You have raise an interesting point about the free riders. The controversy of obtaining the same benefits as being unionized but without paying the quota is a growing issue were employees are better willing to become free riders than to be part of the union. Considering that employees can enter in collective bargains with their employers and obtain the same benefits by their own by negotiation, what do you thinks will be best, maintaining the unions or  become a right to work state?


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Linda Loffer 6/13/2013 4:54:23 PM
First, I think I need to clarify that my understanding is that a state becoming a right-to-work state still allows the existence of unions. With that said, the two types of work status abide side-by-side in the same state, with the free ride situation being able to occur. In states that do not have right-to-work laws, unions and private sector non-union employees still work side-by-side.

The employees under a right-to-work state are said to have the free ride (as in benefits without paying union dues), but do they have all benefits the same as the union members? Are they able to vote on union matters? I think they have some of the benefits typically thought of as union benefits, but they do not have the "say" in union matters.


Collapse Mark as Read main post for discussion week 9 Glendaliz Perez 6/11/2013 8:44:33 PM

Main post for discussion week 9: (post and question)

What are the advantages to working under the “employment at will” rule versus working in a “right to work” state? Explain in detail

Under the Employment at will doctrine , an employer can terminate an employment contract at any time for any reason or no reason, meanwhile it adjust to policy as stated in the contract of employee handbook. Under such doctrine the employee may have a union participation as a condition for the employment, and/or is subject to pay union fees. Also contract under such doctrine have no duration terms. Although, the doctrine states that the employer can terminate contract for any reason, exceptions as the constitutional rights of the employees are part of such doctrine. In other words, discrimination and any other reason under Title VII or any other law as administer by the EEOC are considered unlawful.

Under right to work laws employees have no obligation to participate in a union in order to be employed and are not subject to pay union fees, although they must enter in direct contract agreements with the employer rather than a unionized covenant between the representative and the employer. This may seem like a benefit (to enter direct in such agreements) but in certain companies and in dependence of the type of work, it is better for the employee to have a representative that knows well the work area and the necessities of the employees.

Isn't employment at-will better because the employee can also terminate his employment at anytime? Why or why not?

Employment at will is a better option when you are entering a job where you are willing to maintain for long term. This provides you with the choice of not being subject to a contract that will hold you into a work when you find a better option.  Unions have proven to be good representative of the employee benefits as to maintain the proper environment and lawful work area.

However, if you are in a work you want to maintain and keep for a long period of time, employment at will would not ensure or guarantee your position in case of recessions or other issues that can obligate the employer to dismiss employees. Here is an example;

  A pharmaceutical plant dedicated to the assembly and manufacture of surgical blades, with several areas of work including a quilt area, sterile room, multi back, and needles. Due to a minimization on the work and the lost of several contracts of productions the plant is obligated to close several areas inside the plant. Several employees were working as regulars with contracts signs for two years, others were under employment at will contracts, and others were temporary or seasonal. Temporary and seasonal employees were the first to go, then the employees working under the employment at will contract which could not be re-trained or relocate in other areas were taken out. The only ones that stayed in the employment were those made regular under two year contract terms in which contract also specify that the employee was obligated to announce any change with one year anticipation (this is a real situation from a pharmaceutical here in PR , were a sibling works).


Twomey David P, 2013, Labor and Employment Law, 15th Ed., South-Western Cengage Learning

Asmus R., 2013, How to Compare the Right to Work Law & Employment at Will, retrieve from Chron website at:


Collapse Mark as Read RE: main post for discussion week 9 Instructor Campbell 6/11/2013 11:37:33 PM

Hi Glendaliz,

What is the future of unions? Are all states destined to become Employment at-will states? You may review the article below and tell me your thoughts.

Professor Campbell 


Collapse Mark as Read RE: main post for discussion week 9 Glendaliz Perez 6/12/2013 6:35:53 PM
I believe that states will become right to work states and that unions are not going to be part of our future. As statistics prove, states with unionization are the highest also in unemployment. Economically talking, people are struggling to survive due to the hardship on the economy during this recent years, they want such money and even though union may help them to maintain their rights, they can still have the same benefits without being unionized.
Another point is that such money is beneficial more to the government than to the unionized employees.


Collapse Mark as Read Main Post Shirah Pope 6/12/2013 1:59:50 PM
What are the advantages to working under the “employment at-will” rule versus working in a “right to work” state?

Advantages of Employment-at-Will
Employment at will employees that have the benefit of collective bargaining units representing them in the event they have a grievance with their employer. They are afforded an opportunity to appeal "through a negotiated grievance arbitration procedure."  (Twomey, 2013, pp. 338) They also benefit from better working conditions bargained for through union representation than employees of right-to-work states enjoy.  Federal employees-at-will have the right to form, join, or refrain from joining a union "without fear of penalty or reprisal."  (pp. 335)  Statutorily, employers have to "meet at reasonable times and consult and bargain in a good faith effort to reach agreements with respect to conditions of employment."  (pp. 335)  The wages of blue collar workers are comparable to wages of individuals in the same job in the private sector.  (pp. 335)  Employees-at-will have remedies available through the Federal Labor Relations Authority.  (334)

Advantages of Right-to-Work States

In right-to-work states, employees aren't bound by union representation and collective bargaining procedures, although they are subject to be "let go" for just cause, no cause, or any cause at all (just like employees-at-will).  They do not have to be concerned about paying union dues, although they benefit from the actions the union take that benefit all employees.  (pp. 169)  They are not bound to employment contracts that have mandatory arbitration clauses that restrict their remedies when an employer has practiced unfair employment acts.  (pp. 515) 


Twomey, D.P. (2013).  Labor & Employment Law, Text and Cases (15th Ed).  Procedures and Remedies, Chapter 13.  Mason, OH:  Southwestern Cengage Learning


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Glendaliz Perez 6/12/2013 6:40:51 PM
Good post!! Unions can be have their benefits and disadvantages, it will depend form the view its seem. Advantages as to have their rights protected by the union in contrast with the payment they must provide for quota its a very good issue at the moment of deciding to participate in a union, this is a point much people think when it becomes to be part of such union, counting on the difficult economic recession they are living through at this moment. In an example, here in PR employees are obligated to be part of the union if they want certain jobs in the public area. However, most of the individuals prefer to seek opportunities in the private sector, some of them contrasting the such advantages and disadvantages.

Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Shirah Pope 6/12/2013 11:37:13 PM
Hi Glendaliz:

Thank you for your comment.  There are definitely advantages and disadvantages on both sides.  It seems to be a trend of states to lean towards right-to-work laws because of the perks or benefits the companies receive for coming to states that don't require workers to join unions.  However, those benefits don't necessarily transfer to the employees in income or working conditions, so what is an advantage for the company is not necessarily an advantage for the employees. 

So, are you saying that most of the private sector in Puerto Rico is non-unionized?  Is there a disparity in income versus the jobs that have union representation versus the ones that don't?

Thank you.


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Glendaliz Perez 6/13/2013 2:51:44 PM
Puerto Rico still and employment at will territory were the public sectors are unionized but only a 1% of the private sector is unionized the rest of the unionized sector are governmental employees. The authority of aqueducts and sewers, electric power authority, authority of truckers, and teachers are some of the unionized employees.


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Instructor Campbell 6/12/2013 8:13:11 PM
Hi Shirah, 

Do you live in "right to work" or "employment at will state"? Do you think that this has any effect on the employment rate in that state? 

Professor Campbell 


Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Shirah Pope 6/12/2013 11:49:26 PM
Hello Professor Campbell:

Virginia is a right-to-work state.  Based on the figures I reviewed in the link below, the majority of the counties in Virginia have experienced a decrease in the unemployment rate since 2012.  (  I can't say if Virginia being a right-to-work state contributed to the decline because the government is one of the largest employers in Virginia, which means that those employees are subject to unions.  However, those in the private sector tend to not be unionized.  So, I guess specific unemployment rates depend on the location/county, and the type of industry that town supports. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics.  Unemployment Rates by County in Virginia, March 2013.  Retrieved on June 12, 2013, from

Thank you.

Collapse Mark as Read RE: Main Post Linda Loffer 6/14/2013 7:06:05 AM
It is difficult to find information about right to work or union impacts on state economies, jobs, businesses, etc. without any tendency to be politically charged or backed. There is one study I found that reported that while there are some differences noted in states having right to work laws, the differences may not all be attributable to the right to work laws. For example, the differences appear to result more from lower taxes, lower wage rates, climates, etc. (Stevans, Lonnie K., (2007), p. 1)

As you pointed out, the unemployment rates also depend on location, county, and type of industry supported. There may be additional factors such as tax incentives given or not given to businesses to locate or relocate to an area. Another more recent consideration is whether or not a business may establish a free-trade zone in order to lessen the impact of import fees and taxes; this takes federal and local officials supporting a business' application for the free-trade zone. (D., Jamie, (2010), p. 1)

D., Jamie, (2010), Free Trade Zones, Small Business Administration retrieved from

Requested by author citation:  Stevans, Lonnie K., The Effect of Endogenous Right-to-Work Laws on Business and Economic Conditions in the United States: A Multivariate Approach (November 6, 2007). Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 595-614, 2009. Available at SSRN:


Collapse Mark as Unread Main Discussion Post week 9= Nicole Mccarthy 6/13/2013 4:03:47 PM

Employment at will is the essential lead of the relation between superintendent and representative in North Carolina. Under it, any superintendent, private or administrative, is allowed to choose all employment aspirants which one to enlist and to reject all others, for any excuse for why that fits the executive (Rakowski, 2010). So also, the management is allowed to choose at whenever to release any representative recently working for the business, for any explanation for why or for no excuse for why whatsoever (with the exception of a handful of explanations made unlawful under elected law, for example age, race or gender separation). The superintendent is allowed to downgrade, suspend, or exchange the worker and to increase or bring down his or her salary. On the other hand, an aspirant is faultlessly allowed to decrease an offer of vocation, and a worker is free essentially to stroll off the employment. Basically, the vocation relationship keeps going just so long as both the superintendent and the representative yearning it. Assuming that either misses the will, the relationship is ended.

Right to work is the term that is material just where the employees are unionized and the manager and the union have joined a group bartering contract (National Institute for Labor Relations Research, 2008).

Right-to function implies that provided that you are operating at a place that has a union, you can't be solicited to enter into the union as a state of business (AFL-CIO, 2003). Assuming that you don't prefer the union, you can stop the union without letting your employment. In a non RTW state, you need to pay for the union whether you suppose its profiting you.


National Institute for Labor Relations Research (2008). Right to work: A wining issue., Retrieved June 11, 2013

AFL-CIO. (2003, August 22). New Reports: Unions Benefit Union and Nonunion Workers. Retrieved June 10, 2013, from AFL-CIO News Archive:

Rakowski, R. J. (2010, June 3). Employment-at-will in the workplace. Retrieved from


Collapse Mark as Unread Main Post: Pamela Nerison 6/14/2013 7:37:03 PM
What are the advantages to working under the “employment at-will” rule versus working in a “right to work” state? Please explain in detail.

Employment at-will means that an employer or an employee can end the working relationship at any time for basically any reason. If you quit or get fired, no notice or reason is required.

Right to work means that job seekers have the right to work for a company without being required to join or financially support a labor union. Those who do not live in a right to work state could be required to join or financially support a union as part of employment. Jobs is these states include railways and airlines.

Employment at-will laws to whether reason or notice must be given if an employee is fired or quits. Right to work laws make residents of certain states exempt from being required to join a union in order to work.


Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Studypool Tutor
School: Purdue University
Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students
flag Report DMCA
Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors