flop_leash_973@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 4 天前Trump Justice Department says it has fired employees involved in prosecutions of the presidentapnews.comexternal-linkmessage-square154fedilinkarrow-up1703arrow-down18
arrow-up1695arrow-down1external-linkTrump Justice Department says it has fired employees involved in prosecutions of the presidentapnews.comflop_leash_973@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 4 天前message-square154fedilink
minus-squareLordCrom@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down3·3 天前Right to work means they have the right to fire you for any reason. Sure you can also quit for any reason, but who really needed that?
minus-squareSoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up3·3 天前 Right to work means they have the right to fire you for any reason. It literally and definitively does not, hence my prior post. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://www.epi.org/blog/data-show-anti-union-right-to-work-laws-damage-state-economies-as-michigans-repeal-takes-effect-new-hampshire-should-continue-to-reject-right-to-work-legislation/
minus-squareBradleyUffner@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 天前No, that’s “at will” employment. “Right to work” is a completely different thing related to non union members paying into the union.
Right to work means they have the right to fire you for any reason. Sure you can also quit for any reason, but who really needed that?
It literally and definitively does not, hence my prior post.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
https://www.epi.org/blog/data-show-anti-union-right-to-work-laws-damage-state-economies-as-michigans-repeal-takes-effect-new-hampshire-should-continue-to-reject-right-to-work-legislation/
No, that’s “at will” employment. “Right to work” is a completely different thing related to non union members paying into the union.
I’ll stand corrected