SmashesIt t1_iujgbzy wrote
This is the flip side
"Montana is not a right-to-work state, which means union membership or continued membership can be a condition of employment."
derpingandlurking t1_iujkqp7 wrote
Right to work has nothing to do with at-will employment, this is the biggest misconception out there. Right to work just means you can work and not pay union dues even if your covered by the bargaining unit. So in this case because they are not a right to work state if you take a job that is covered by union representation you will be forced to pay the dues even if you prefer not to be in the union. Right to work was drummed up by republicans to attempt to defund unions.
SmashesIt t1_iujmfvn wrote
Im just quoting the document OP posted from a law firm.
derpingandlurking t1_iujmnbu wrote
Sure but it’s not the flip side, it’s an entirely different thing.
SmashesIt t1_iujn4h0 wrote
OP said... "Montana, a very conservative state, prohibits firing employees at will. Why doesn't Vermont have a similar law?"
You can't prohibit firing at will but you can if someone is in a union.
If you are arguing about my use of "flip side" relax this is reddit. No one cares.
derpingandlurking t1_iujnju4 wrote
That’s not what the link says at all but Ok! The two items have nothing to do with each other, it’s literally an overview of different employment laws that Montana has. I think you have a comprehension issue.
SmashesIt t1_iujoc8o wrote
Yes, and I am saying one plausible reason Montana doesn't have at will employment is that it is also not a right-to-work state. As in a political trade-off.
Just call me stupid and cut the BS with this comprehension issue shit.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments