How long has the whole "at-will employment" thing been around? Is it relatively new, or has it been around ever since? #jobsearch #termination #jobhunt
At will has been around at least from the late 90’s. I worked for a county agency and most upper management is at will. This way if a head person Losses the election for a certain position or a head of a department it allows for the new person to bring in there own people. Most at wills are based with politics or the need to easily remove someone without going through the whole battle of doing discipline. .
At-will employment gradually became the default rule under the common law of the employment contract in most U.S. states during the late 19th century, and was endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court during the Lochner era, when members of the U.S. judiciary consciously sought to prevent government regulation of labor.
It’s been around since early 1990’s at least.
It depends on if the state has laws to protect unions or not. But in no state is discrimination legal. Specifically discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and age are strictly prohibited, but you can sue based on any discrimination.
It's been around, in small print, they know people don't and won't read that small print that is where they got you, at will has been around since I had my first job, and it's even plainer now for everyone to see when you fill out an application. I just feel like, the people that really need a job and that is very desperate, should read a little more, because it's clauses and other little terms and kinks in that application, but if you don't read it, the company that you are applying for, "GOT YOU"!!!!!
At-will just means you can leave the job without cause, and your employer doesn't have to provide a reason to terminate employment at any time, but still has to follow the law on terminations of employment. In California, they usually provide cause because laws here allow you to get unemployment based on your wages (unless you broke your workplace rules and a lot of employers will try to avoid paying you for that if they can) or sue if you feel wronged by the termination.
The rule is mostly based on allowing flexibility for the employee and employer on employment terms. If business goes south - the employer can lay-off the employee rather than keep the employee for work that is not needed. If the employee finds better work - they can leave at any time. Prior to that - work was contract based for set terms like up to a year at a time before it was terminated, and had no flexibility - you worked the terms you were given or either party can sue for damages regardless if there was work or not; or if you wanted to do something else. Both parties were stuck to those terms regardless of changes that happened afterwards.
This is the same thing as the right to work. They just changed the name to make people think it was something new. In essence it allows employers to terminate you without cause if they choose to do so. It is what makes it so that they can prevent you from getting unemployment insurance coverage, which has to be paid for via the employer. At least that has been my experience. I personally feel it is ok for an employer to lay people off, if it is needed and is not discriminatory, but not to terminate without just cause. But that is my opinion.