The Republicans have demonstrated that no, these things do not take time.
post
Only in amurica would they sell people on the right to be fired for no reason and call it "right to work"
Getting fired is right to work. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
At-will employment and "right-to-work" are distinct ideas. The first has some real benefits, while the other is just union-busting bullshit.
At-Will Employment means that the relationship of employee to employer is technically voluntary. Your employer can fire you or lay you off for almost any reason or no reason, but you are likewise free to just walk away without even finishing your shift and get another job. (Non-discrimination laws and professional continuity-of-care rules are common exceptions.)
Right to work doesn't affect whether or not your employement relationship is voluntary. Instead, it means only and exclusively that you can freeload off the union, getting all of their benefits and leaving them with all of the expenses of negotiating your salary and work rules.
In the USA most (but not all) states are "at-will employment", and most red states have the same sort of bullshit anti-worker "right to work" laws that MLK was campaigning against when he was murdered. And, unfortunately, thanks to SCOTUS fuckery all of the USA is essentially "right to work" since the same assholes behind "corporations are people" and "money is speech" decided that payroll deductions for union dues are terrible in way that payroll deductions for taxes or insurance aren't.
The problem with at-will is the unequal relationship corporations and employees have. If I, as an employee, simply walk off the job, that hurts my chances of employment at other corporations. A company, however, will never see any consequence no matter how badly they treat employees.
Exactly. You can walk away and get evicted and starve vs. they can make you walk away and get evicted and starve… This is what constitutes fairness by modern democratic standards, apparently.
Understand that the precursor to at-will employment was that you walk away from your job and get arrested for breaking contract, and your family gets evicted without you able to earn money to pay for their food or shelter.
Like the other commenter says, it's extremely flawed but serves a purpose.
"There used to be something worse" is not the same as "the current thing is good"
Absolutely not, I agree.
But it's also kinda like Republicans saying they'll "repeal then replace" the ACA. You need the plan for the replacement beforehand, otherwise you just return to the old problems.
I mean, sure if you take anything a Republic pol says at face value. The real agenda is that they want to return to the old problems because they don't view it as a problem. Insurance companies having capped margins, fewer people being able to afford care… These are good things to them. What they say they want to do serves only to get their voting base on board with it.
That's still the law under at will employment, if you sign a contract, you can't just quit anymore. We lost the protection of one year contracts, like you really think it's better for employers to be able to fire you with no warning than having one year contracts?? This all happened centuries ago of course
No one is saying that at-will isn’t also bad for workers, but it’s less bad than what came before it.
"Right to work" means you can't be required to join the union, but the union is still required to bargain for you without you contributing to it. Its designed to defund and kneecap organized labor. It has nothing to do with firing.
At will employment is what lets the employer fire at any time, and that is the law in 49 of the states.
Welcome to the age of bad faith laws! Because if they were honest, they couldn't lifestyle market conservatism to "people who like tradition".
Power is never given, it is taken.
I see a lot of discourse around this theory that when Democrats are in power they’ll reverse everything this regime has done. Yes this is a comforting thought but it’s way too much to expect from the Democratic Party as we know it now.
The Executive branch has been given (and has taken) an extreme amount of power to the point where the balance we once knew is now nonexistent. Does anyone think for one second the next president will just forfeit those gains? What incentive is there? And as we’ve seen and continue to see, who will hold them to account?
My bet is that we’ll see a few easy ‘gimme’ reversals that are enough to enable our slide back into the complacency we so desperately crave.
Spanberger is part of the paid opposition party. She will never do anything to take power away from capitol, and Republicans will do everything to give more power to capitol.
They'll give Trump a golden parachute, wish him the best, then continue the ratchet effect. Neo-liberals are as much enemies of democracy as the reactionaries.
we must move forward and heal which is why we won't push for charges or do any investigations
Just like they did with the bushes and Nixon and Reagan
He already has his golden parachute. He's been appointed the chair of "The Board of Peace" for the rest of his life.
until they rehabilitate him in 10 years as the reasonable example, compared to Emperor Bloodvein Crusader.
See George W Bush . . .

Assume that Democrats win the next presidential election and enough seats in both the House and Senate to take meaningful actions.
Assume that there will be a peaceful transfer of power.
Assume that Trump doesn't die in office.
If all of the above come to pass, and Trump doesn't face real legal consequences for his actions, then it's another in the long line of flashing neon signs telling would-be dictators that America is up for grabs for whoever strikes first.
This is part of what just erodes the hope out of me. We all know there are periods of regression and periods of progress, but whatever damage is caused by the regression period is
1- Caused much more quickly than any progress.
2- Is usually beneficial to the ruling class, thus they have less of an incentive to fix it.
3- Might just become normalized, at which point you're just starting from square one all over again.
Like, age/identity verification. We are in a period of mass and widespread regression right now and age verification is making progress, eroding freedom and privacy on the internet. Do you think that when we enter the period of progress, the age verification systems of today will just be reverted? Fuck no. They'll stay. They'll become normal. And the fight against them will need to start from scratch, with an ever bigger amount of opposition.
I'm really jealous of the people who can maintain hope.
Right to work is great, they just use the term to justify awful laws.
Right should mean if you demand a job the government has to give you one instead of this forced labour version the yanks use.
Americans are fucked either way, and that's the crux of it. Both highly corrupt parties blowing smoke up their ass and they've all been socialized to regard third options as jokes, meanwhile the establishment is the real joke. There is no good solution, only shades of shit.
I have concluded that the Established Democrats would rather that Trump or somebody like him is POTUS than to concede to the Left on anything, even on a morally highly charged subject like the mass murdering of tens of thousand of children (in Gaza) which at least for some people would make the Democrat candidate so repugnant that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for her even "to stop Trump"
Had Kamala genuinelly conceded to the Left on some things and not latched on to none other than the Cheney familly (honestly, I don't thing the Israeli subject was by itself enough to cause that loss), she could very well have won, but that faction of the Democrats would rather loose than stop cozing with the hard-right, so they lost to none other than Trump.
If what the Democrat tribalists were parroting back them about how Trump was so horrible and the Democrats needed to win to stop his policies was indeed how the Established Democrats felt, they would NEVER had risked a Trump victory by adopting a Reject The Left strategy at all levels.
All this to say that these people will never undo what Trump did to the broader society (though the parts that make them less electable - i.e. that affect their own personal upsides - I'm sure they'll undo) because they're totally fine with it, as shown by how in the last election they would rather risk a second Trump presidency to keep on going Right politically than to pivot Left in the slightest of ways.
Without a Revolution inside the Democrat Party, the US will keep on going in the same direction as these Democrats will do nothing but talkie-talkie on reversing Trump's policies and then in a few years another Trump character (or, worse, a genuinelly intelligent one) get in power again.
I remember having this same conversation 20 years ago, except instead of Harris and Trump it was Kerry and Bush, and instead of Gaza it was Iraq. We didn't get somebody smarter than Bush, though, we got Trump.
Here's the thing. You don't need to be a smart president to do a lot of damage. You can have smart people in your cabinet. You also don't have to be very smart to break a ton of shit.
Then it's too bad that we have one party that loves that shit and one party that's willing to tolerate that shit as long as the minimum wage never rises again.
I'll give you that.
The "smarter" part is just something I threw in but which I did not really pondered on all that much.
In all fairness "nastiness" is the only thing which seem to have moved (upwards) consistently.

top 82 comments