[tsurantino]

Doesn't this person deserve some form of severance or the equivalent of?

It's kind of ridiculous that he was "cut out" from a job like some kind of child who was no longer part of the "club". It's grossly unprofessional to disconnect an employee without any due process or policy.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the events leading up to the situation.

[AdieuToLogic]

> It's grossly unprofessional to disconnect an employee without any due process or policy.

In the US, it depends on what state the company is headquartered. Many are "right to work" states, which means any employee can be fired so long as it is not for reasons such as age, sex, weight, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.

In those states, an employee literally can be fired for a reason such as "you upset the owner" with no further obligations.

[hwstar]

Why do people confuse "Right to Work" with "Employment At Will"?

Right to work means that you can work for an employer without having to join a union or pay union dues. Right to work is used in conservative states to keep unions from forming.

Employment-at-will means your employer or you can terminate the employment relationship for (most) any reason whatsoever. If you are an employer, you can fire someone for wearing the wrong color shirt (This really happened). If you are the employee, you can say "I quit" and leave with no notice for not having coffee available in the workplace (also, really happened at one of my previous employers).

The problem with employment-at-will is that the employer has more power because the employer-employee relationship is asymmetrical.

We need to teach this stuff in high school civics so everyone can see how disgusting employment-at-will really is.

[AdieuToLogic]

> Why do people confuse "Right to Work" with "Employment At Will"?

You are right, I used the wrong term (Right to Work) where I meant "Employment at Will." Thank you for pointing this out as they are different.

While 22 states practice Right to Work laws[1], Employment at Will appears to be much more prevalent:

  Virtually all states are employment at
  will states, meaning that all states
  uphold the Doctrine to some degree. To
  what degree states uphold the Doctrine
  regarding employers' rights to discharge
  employees varies by state.

  EmploymentIssues[2]

1 - http://employment.laws.com/right-to-work-states

2 - http://employeeissues.com/at_will_states.htm

[hwstar]

49 states are at-will in various degrees. Montana is the exception: it practices "Just Cause" like the rest of the developed world.

[KJasper]

Just because you can doesn't make it more professional imo.

[tdicola]

Actually I don't think sexual orientation and definitely not weight are 'protected classes' against discrimination with hiring and firing. Sexual orientation might be protected now with some of the recent Supreme Court rulings, but weight is sadly something employers can discriminate against with no repercussions.

[joe5150]

States where sexual orientation or gender identity are protected are still in the minority in the US

[cryoshon]

Welcome to the US... employees have no rights, even to sick time.

Professionalism is a concept that serves mostly to keep employees orderly. There's frequently no real professionalism in one-way relationships.

[TheGrimDerp1]

depending on the existence of a contract, not if he lives in a right to work state. 'Right to work' generally sucks like that.