|
|
Question
|
Instructor Campbell |
6/9/2013 4:09:13 PM |
---|
|
Class,
Isn't employment at-will better because the employee can also terminate his employment at anytime? Why or why not?
Professor Campbell
Respond
|
|
|
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 BLS.gov )
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 BLS.gov) References: National Right-to-Work
Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. (2010). Right to Work States: Virginia.
Retrieved on June 10, 2013, from http://www.nrtw.org/c/vartwlaw.htm
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
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
Respond
|
|
|
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.
Respond
|
|
|
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)
Reference:
Twomey, D.P., (2013),
Labor & Employment Law, Fifteenth Edition, Mason, OH; South-Western CENGAGE Learning
Respond
|
|
|
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-michigan-watershed-on-right-to-work/2012/12/14/b161d80c-4557-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html
Professor Campbell
Respond
|
|
|
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).
Respond
|
|
|
Linda:
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?
Respond
|
|
|
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.
Respond
|
|
|
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).
References:
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:
http://work.chron.com/compare-right-work-employment-1927.html
Respond
|
|
|
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-michigan-watershed-on-right-to-work/2012/12/14/b161d80c-4557-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html
Professor Campbell
Respond
|
|
|
Professor:
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.
Respond
|
|
|
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)
Reference:
Twomey, D.P. (2013). Labor & Employment Law, Text and Cases (15th
Ed). Procedures and Remedies, Chapter 13. Mason, OH: Southwestern
Cengage Learning
Respond
|
|
|
Shirah:
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.
|
|
|
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.
Respond
|
|
|
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.
Respond
|
|
|
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
Respond
|
|
|
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. (BLS.gov) 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 http://www.bls.gov/ro3/valaus.htm
Thank you.
|
|
|
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
http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/business-law-advisor/free-trade-zones-what-are-they-and-how-can-smal
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: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1027987
Respond
|
|
|
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.
References
National Institute for Labor Relations Research (2008). Right to work: A wining issue.
http://www.nilrr.org/node/62, 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: http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/ns08262003.cfm
Rakowski,
R. J. (2010, June 3). Employment-at-will in the workplace. Retrieved
from
http://ronald-j-rakowski.suite101.com/employment-at-will-in-the-workplace-a245885
Respond
|
|
|
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.
References: http://lobotero.com/2008/08/27/employment-at-will-vs-right-to-work/
|
|
|