https://www.bakerdonelson.com/easy-guide-montana
Montana is the only state that has this law.
Comments
WolfReborn22 t1_iuj05yw wrote
I believe Montana is the only state that has such a law so the same question could be asked for any other state. That being said the law it is still pro employer, there is a 12 month probationary period where you are still at will without cause. Unfortunately It is also not very hard to find a reason that allows them to let someone go given a little effort for cause or thet can just default to business doesn't need that position anymore. If some one was let go for no cause it can be very difficult for the employee to prove and fight legally since most people don't know the law well enough or the time to know they should fight it.
The last part is most employers don't have any real reason or incentive to fire some one who is performing after 12 months as they already invested time and money into training. They are also likely are paying the employee less the market rate at that time since most companies don't increase pay of current employees to align with either new hires with same experience or the rest of the market.
yhl-cis OP t1_iuj0osv wrote
I see, so the law has loopholes basically.
WolfReborn22 t1_iuj15df wrote
Unfortunately most laws made by either party in this country are touted as good for the people but have some loophole that gives an out or benefits companies in some way.
worktimefollies t1_iuj8nfb wrote
Get the hell out-a-here with that both parties crap. There is a clear and overwhelming difference between the parties, thier agendas and, the laws they pass and the loopholes within them. Anyone saying otherwise it's just making a weak excuse.
WolfReborn22 t1_iujas2g wrote
All I was saying is both parties tend to favour companies when implementing laws. Yes I would agree one party does it to a lesser degree but they are both very guilty of it.
BothCourage9285 t1_iujavj8 wrote
That's exactly what our elected officials want you to think.
Keep working class blue and working class red fighting with each other instead of fighting them
kraysys t1_iuj9u1e wrote
There are clear differences in policy preferences etc. for sure, but the only people who think there’s a Good party and an Evil party are morons.
Kram941_ t1_iujjree wrote
> I see, so the law has loopholes basically.
The law has realistic application. Locking a business down to work with a employee they don't want doesn't do anyone any good.
Otto-Korrect t1_iuj6fts wrote
Because most if not all legislatures are pro-business so they can attract tax dollars to the state. If the worker has to suffer, well... there are others where that one came from.
I think it is a huge issue, not having the ability to have any real security in your job. Even if it is challenged when you get fired, it is a pretty low bar for a business to show 'cause'. All they really have to prove is that you are not in a 'protected class' and you were't fired for being part of that class.
Gay? Nope, didn't mind at all. But he was 2 minutes late 5 DAYS IN A ROW!!
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_iuj98f0 wrote
Have you ever had an employee?
twowheels t1_iujwnq3 wrote
Labor laws here are not very worker friendly.
I work remotely for a CA company, and my coworkers benefit from a lot of protections that I don’t.
In CA, PTO is not use it or lose it — it’s considered pay, and companies have to pay out any accrued PTO if you quite, are laid off, or fired. In CA, companies are not allowed to require you to agree to a non-compete agreement, you can leave and go work for a similar company w/o fear of being sued by your ex-employer. I’m guessing that there are others, but I’d love to see a few of these worker protections to be adopted here too.
z0mbiegrip t1_iuj42wz wrote
Montana has a fairly ugly history of labor practices, including union busting, in the mining industry that shaped their laws.
As conservative as the state has become in recent years, it's probably only a matter of time before this one (and others) gets walked back.
[deleted] t1_iujp4fw wrote
[deleted]
Oeslian t1_iuj244h wrote
If this was pushed here the right would cry about how it will chase all the employers out of our small state. Then if it ever managed to pass, Phil Scott would veto it.
Kram941_ t1_iujk2jy wrote
>If this was pushed here the right would cry about how it will chase all the employers out of our small state.
They are right thought. I would never run a business in a state if it wasn't "at will". Running a business is hard enough.
Traditional_Lab_5468 t1_iujwgb9 wrote
Are you a business owner, though? Because I'm guessing you just wouldn't run a business whether a state is at-will or not.
[deleted] t1_iujm7b1 wrote
[deleted]
YPG-Got-Raqqa t1_iujnebt wrote
In VT if you fire a person without cause you are on the hook for their UI benefits.
tacotruck7 t1_iuk5565 wrote
That is true in most places.
jsled t1_iujr298 wrote
Because the US is generally anti-labor.
At-will employment is a cornerstone of "free markets", don'tyaknow?
yhl-cis OP t1_iujtgrq wrote
So not even Vermont is progressive enough.
Vermonter623 t1_iuj734n wrote
Because despite all the legislative virtue signaling, they actually don’t give a fuck about the employees of this state. We have little to no protection. Unless you work for the state
Dadfart802 t1_iujorpk wrote
Because 49 other states don’t have this law probably
Room07 t1_iuj0rza wrote
Can't you also drink and drive on the highway in Montana?
VoyageursWitch t1_iuj4haq wrote
You can in Mississippi as long as you remain below the limit.
barstowtovegas t1_iuj3fwa wrote
After a brief google: No
Room07 t1_iuj99k8 wrote
Looks like the law was changed in 2005. TIL
sorrycharlie88 t1_iujuslr wrote
Was only outlawed in vt in 2000
Room07 t1_iuk3xy6 wrote
Is that true!? Did not know that if so.
tacotruck7 t1_iuk4z7r wrote
Not anymore. That ended 15 or 18 years or so ago. Supposedly.... We still have a very high fatality rate for drunk driving.
Kdj2j2 t1_iujqe2d wrote
Montana is surprisingly progressive at the state and local levels.
yhl-cis OP t1_iujtnep wrote
I think because coal miners used to be a major part of the economy there, and they needed good labor laws because of working conditions.
tacotruck7 t1_iuk4ntd wrote
Not coal really but copper and some other tri-metals...
tacotruck7 t1_iuk4tol wrote
That has been true in the past but we currently have some real backward idiot conservatives in charge now...
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.
AutoModerator t1_iuiuqrq wrote
Visiting Vermont? Check out other posts about visiting Vermont, or try the subreddit r/NewToVermont!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iujk71p wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iuiz6a3 wrote
Stupid ass post
Ducaleon t1_iuk1d89 wrote
Montana is not historically a conservative state. That’s why.
drinkingchartreuse t1_iuj0tib wrote
The largest employers in the state want to keep employees fearful of demanding rights and wages.
SirAidandRinglocks t1_iujji9o wrote
Because Montana historically is about 100x more progressive than Vermont has ever been.
yhl-cis OP t1_iujmdwk wrote
That is true, shame Montana mostly votes Republican nowadays. Vermont used to be a big business state.
Traditional_Lab_5468 t1_iuivr0j wrote
Can't say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet it's because our legislature hasn't passed a law like that here.
A good rule of thumb I like to use is "if one place has a law and another doesn't, it's because they made different laws". Helps me keep track of things.