this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
130 points (87.8% liked)

You Should Know

33117 readers
502 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"I live in a right-to-work state, so my employer can shitcan me for any reason".

-Linus K. Lemming

Sorry friends, that's at-will employment, *and you still can't be terminated for any reasons that are protected by law, but we're not here to discuss that. Right-to-work laws mean one thing: that non-union employees cannot be required to contribute to the cost of union representation.

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibits "closed shops", where union membership is a condition of employment; however, union represented positions can still be required to contribute to the cost of that representation. Right-to-work laws prohibit that requirement, allowing employees in union represented positions who choose not to join the union to also choose whether or not they contribute to the union's costs, i.e., if they pay dues or not.

I see this mistake frequently and thought folks might want to know the correct information so they don't unintentionally perpetuate it.

Edit: updated to include link to info about at-will employment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Who is down voting this info?

If you believe this is incorrect, please state it lol

[–] doingthestuff 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I downvoted because it doesn't give a good description of right-to-work and/or at-will employment, or include differences or the way the law applies in different areas. It's too broad of a post without enough specific relevant application to local law scenarios. It's opening a can of worms and could be misunderstood.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're got to be kidding. The post is about right to work laws. It includes a summary of what that means, plus links for more information. So you downvoted because OP didn't compare and contrast two unrelated laws or write a dissertation on how right to work laws vary by state/county/city. Laws that by definition literally only do one thing. This shit is why people don't post more.

To highlight how ridiculous your comment is, I'll help OP out and provide what you found to be so lacking. I know this is going to make OP look pretty bad, so I'm sure they'll provide at least a partial refund of what you paid for their post.

At-will employment: you can be fired for anything not protected by law.

Right to work laws: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues.

Compare: they are applied to employees Contrast: neither does anything similar

For my next trick, I'll provide specific relevant application for local law scenarios by state.

Alabama: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Arkansas: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Georgia: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Idaho: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Indiana: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Iowa: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Kansas: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Kentucky: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Louisiana: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Michigan: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Mississippi: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Nebraska: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

North Carolina: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

North Dakota: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Oklahoma: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

South Carolina: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

South Dakota: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Tennessee: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Texas: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Utah: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Virginia: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Washington: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

West Virginia: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Wisconsin: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

Wyoming: employees in unionized workplaces cannot negotiate employment contracts which require that non union employees must pay union dues

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Thank you for your service.

So far we have yet to ID what is wrong with OP beyond that tdownvoters did not like the message or how it was delivered.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What if you contribute instead of or in addition to downvoting? That way, people understand the downvote and/or get more information and clarity.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw 5 points 5 months ago

GTFO of here, this is ~~Reddit~~ Lemmy. Anyone providing anything useful for free must be subjected to intensely unfair scrutiny or the whole system falls apart.

/s

But really, this place is increasingly turning into Reddit and it's depressing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate the intent but this is just what happens when you put yourself out on the Internet. Hell, on an old account I made a post about how to use a waffle sandwich maker with cheddar biscuit mix and it was 10% downvoted. I think it's some combination of valid (if unstated) criticism, accidental downvotes, and some people just being assholes.

I don't care, I'm just trying to provide what I think is useful information. If people have a problem but don't speak up about it, I can't do anything so I'm not going to worry about it. As another poster mentioned below, they're welcome to a full refund. I'll even triple it. Triple refund!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

All fair points, i like the vibe.

I look at down vote ratio for sentiment and to ID who else is commenting. With bot nets, paid shills and shit nowadays, got to keep an eye on what is going beyond what people are saying was more of my point about it.

Tinfoil on: for example anti labor positioned actor would down voted factually correct post like this merely because it benefits some wage slave. They act like this when they can't engage on the topic honestly.

tankie litmus test: Did Mao and Stalin do anything wrong... watch them work that one 🤣

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why worry about the downvoters. This isn't reddit yet.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

on reddit you don't get to see the ratio and spytube removed downvote all together, i think you need an extension to view?

wonder why?

Seeing the ratio can be useful

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago

I'm on blahaj so I don't see downvotes. I'm guessing people who (incorrectly) think my statement of the details of the law is my support for it.