Okay so first off if this a job you are thinking about taking just don’t. Legal or not I have never had a job do anything like this or anything close. At the very best they are looking to screw you, at worst they are stealing.
As for if this is legal (nal) my understanding is that for no reason can a company in the US dock, fine or in any other way deny you wages for any work already performed. It doesn’t matter if you did the work you need to be paid at the agreed rate. They can come up to you and just say that from this point forward the pay will be different, but only for future work.
The one exception to this that I am aware of is if you sign an agreement with them that lets them do this. Such as fines for lost uniforms. Often this will end up in a legal grey area though very few good businesses will do this.
TLDR business have to pay you for time worked. Crash the company truck they can fire you, but that last check has to be in full.
The vast majority of employment is not under contract. That is why employment can be severed by either party at any time. So an employer could change a wage on an employee but there is nothing saying the employee has to accept it.
No there is an employment agreement, but not a contract. So the employee and employer both agree to the terms of the work. This is just no requirement for the agreement to continue if either party wants to sever the agreement.
I think you might be confusing at will and right to work.
At will has been the basic format of employment for the 20th century. It in its most basic form said that the possible employer relationship can be severed by either party at any time. When this is coupled with both protected classes and unions seem to work okay to protect the worker. It is the system of employment seen during the post WWII boom. It is not without its flaws, but seems to work okay.
Right to work is a classic case of misnaming to confuse voters, because everyone likes the idea of having the idea of having the “right to work” but all it really is a way to reduce union power. In a right to work state, workers cannot be compelled to join a union even if they are working at a union shop. In the short run this seems great to any individual worker. They are getting union pay without the dues. But overtime removes the protections that come with unions too by reducing the power of a union strike.
Workers are much better off in an at will state than a right to work state.
Edit in right to work states you can still be fired without cause.
Okay so first off if this a job you are thinking about taking just don’t. Legal or not I have never had a job do anything like this or anything close. At the very best they are looking to screw you, at worst they are stealing.
As for if this is legal (nal) my understanding is that for no reason can a company in the US dock, fine or in any other way deny you wages for any work already performed. It doesn’t matter if you did the work you need to be paid at the agreed rate. They can come up to you and just say that from this point forward the pay will be different, but only for future work.
The one exception to this that I am aware of is if you sign an agreement with them that lets them do this. Such as fines for lost uniforms. Often this will end up in a legal grey area though very few good businesses will do this.
TLDR business have to pay you for time worked. Crash the company truck they can fire you, but that last check has to be in full.
Businesses can tell you from this point onward your wage will lower in the US?
That can’t be legal can it? That’s a one sided change of contract.
The vast majority of employment is not under contract. That is why employment can be severed by either party at any time. So an employer could change a wage on an employee but there is nothing saying the employee has to accept it.
Not under contract? What does that mean? Do people just walk in and work there whenever?
No there is an employment agreement, but not a contract. So the employee and employer both agree to the terms of the work. This is just no requirement for the agreement to continue if either party wants to sever the agreement.
Removed by mod
I think you might be confusing at will and right to work.
At will has been the basic format of employment for the 20th century. It in its most basic form said that the possible employer relationship can be severed by either party at any time. When this is coupled with both protected classes and unions seem to work okay to protect the worker. It is the system of employment seen during the post WWII boom. It is not without its flaws, but seems to work okay.
Right to work is a classic case of misnaming to confuse voters, because everyone likes the idea of having the idea of having the “right to work” but all it really is a way to reduce union power. In a right to work state, workers cannot be compelled to join a union even if they are working at a union shop. In the short run this seems great to any individual worker. They are getting union pay without the dues. But overtime removes the protections that come with unions too by reducing the power of a union strike.
Workers are much better off in an at will state than a right to work state.
Edit in right to work states you can still be fired without cause.