Okay. Sigh. I can't seem to get through to you, despite my best efforts.
My base argument isn't that all states are equal. In fact, if you actually read and understood my posts you would probably know that. My base argument is that you, and several other people, have misused the term "right to work" and confused it with "at will." That is all.
You said this:
If you really think that in every state you can let any one go at any time for any reason after their probationary period then you've either been mislead, ill-informed or simply lack experience. Instead of trying to educate every one via Google or Wikipedia at least consider taking in what not one, but several Chef's with decades of combined experience are trying to convey to you.
You seem to think that I said anyone can be fired for no reason. I don't think that. In fact, I think the opposite of that. You are using this one sentence I wrote-- "Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason" out of a whole set of paragraphs I wrote about the dangers of simplifying statements like that. If you want to take that once sentence, quote it in your post, and then accuse me of being to broad, while ignoring the mountain of follow up sentences I wrote in that post, and later posts, that expound on my idea, then you fail at arguing. Taking out one sentence and using that as some sort of evidence based "GOTCHA!" moment is misleading. I'll go ahead and quote MYSELF on that statement, and if you take the time to read it, will see that you agree with me. So accusing me of "being too broad" by just using that one quote is, again, misleading. I go on about it at length actually:
I was simply responding to chefhow's suggestion that anyone can be fired at anytime for anything as being too broad and frankly untrue.
There are several "reasons" that an owner or manager can fire someone and it can be illegal, even in an at will state
Firing someone that is part of a protected class (i.e. disabled, minority race, gay, religion, age etc) for that reason is illegal. So if you fired John Smith because he was African American, that would be illegal. The hard part would be John Smith proving in court that you fired him because he was black, since no person in their right mind would list that as the reason they were fired.
So when you say that you CAN fire anyone at anytime, this may be true. But there are certain circumstances in which the firing is illegal and subject to wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuits. Just broadly stating that anyone can be fired at anytime for any reason (and putting it all in caps) can be careless and I want people that come here to read these posts to be informed. Hopefully these issues don't come up too often for our members.
Please, read my whole posts before deciding what to quote me on and argue with me about. In fact, my first post in this thread was taking issue with someone doing what you seem to think I was doing, and that is making a broad statement about the ability to fire anyone at anytime. My INITIAL post to this thread was a direct response to that mis-information.
The main point I'm trying to convey to you is that you have misused and interchanged the term "at will" and "right to work." If anything needs to be "sunk in" its you understanding my basic argument. Thats what the wikipedia quoting was all about. I didn't and don't want this to become a discussion on the nitty gritty of unions, and labor laws, etc. I just wanted to make sure that you, everyone else, and people in the future who might read this post/thread use the correct terminology when referring to "right to work" and "at will." Since they are different, and you (and several others) used the incorrect term for what you meant.
I also wrote that I didn't understand what point you were trying to make, not because I didn't understand what you were saying, but why you were saying it. You basically said the same things I said a post or two above the one you posted (and as evidenced in my multiple self-quotes above)....so why are you using something we seemingly agree on to prove your point? That's what I didn't understand. We clear?
For example, if I wanted to have a discussion with you about the differences between citrus fruit, we could talk all day about sugar content versus acid content, aroma of limes versus aroma of lemons, which are best for what applications, blah blah blah. But if, for example, you keep calling lemons oranges, that is something we should clear up before we move forward. You want to talk about sugar and acid, I want to make sure you stop calling lemons oranges.
I have no doubt in your experience or practical applications in this matter. I recognize that you have more "real world" experience dealing with this stuff than I do. You may have done it in different states, with different laws, etc. But, for the love of God, please make sure you use the right term. That is all. If nothing else, it makes stubborn younger people such as myself more prone to listen to you if you get the basics correct. Call a lemon a lemon.
So, you've addressed about 3 sentences of what I wrote. If you want to take small snippets of the wall of text that I wrote and only address that, while ignoring the other, larger issues that we are having, than I can't help you. You have yet to comment on the whole "at will" vs "right to work" thing, and if you choose to ignore 90% of what I wrote, and take the other 10% out of context in a failed attempt at proving me "wrong," then I guess there isn't much I can do at this point.
Sorry everyone, I truly didn't mean to hijack this thread. Like I said, I just think we should all be on the same page in terms of making sure we call things what they are. I'm actually a little embarrassed that it has gone on like this. Truly sorry.