It was also not immediately known how many of the fired prosecutors intended to challenge the terminations by arguing that the department had cast aside civil service protections afforded to federal employees
That tells me federal employees have different rules and they may have a path to make things uncomfortable for a while. Whether that’s worth the effort is up to them.
I live in a at-will right to work state, so I understand that. But not every state is an at-will right to work state, and surely the way federal employees are treated is legislated differently and not on a state level. Do federal employees have zero protections?
Right to work means non-union employees can’t be forced to pay dues in a unionized workplace. It has nothing to do with at-will employment, which allows an employer to terminate an employee without cause at any time.
Its US. You can be fired at any time. What do you think this is? Europe?
Literally, from the article:
It was also not immediately known how many of the fired prosecutors intended to challenge the terminations by arguing that the department had cast aside civil service protections afforded to federal employees
That tells me federal employees have different rules and they may have a path to make things uncomfortable for a while. Whether that’s worth the effort is up to them.
By private companies. Federal employees have a lot more protections.
I live in a at-will
right to workstate, so I understand that. But not every state is an at-willright to workstate, and surely the way federal employees are treated is legislated differently and not on a state level. Do federal employees have zero protections?Right to work means non-union employees can’t be forced to pay dues in a unionized workplace. It has nothing to do with at-will employment, which allows an employer to terminate an employee without cause at any time.
The only non-at-will state is Montana.
Right to work means they have the right to fire you for any reason. Sure you can also quit for any reason, but who really needed that?
It literally and definitively does not, hence my prior post.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
https://www.epi.org/blog/data-show-anti-union-right-to-work-laws-damage-state-economies-as-michigans-repeal-takes-effect-new-hampshire-should-continue-to-reject-right-to-work-legislation/
No, that’s “at will” employment. “Right to work” is a completely different thing related to non union members paying into the union.
I’ll stand corrected
On paper or in practice?
Because seems like whatever president says goes.
Fair question. On paper. On paper is what actually matters, long term… So long as the checks in balances in place aren’t all totally neutralized.
deleted by creator