Is it legal for an employer to fire you for talking about...

[KareBear]

Is it legal for your employer to fire you for talking about unionization if done outside of work hours and off of the employers property?

I've been asked by a few people about this, and it seems that noone is quite sure what their rights are on it. The feeling is everyone would just be fired on the spot no questions asked. Even if they couldn't fire for unionization talk, it seems they could fire for anything else their minds could think of.

The people inquiring are in Missouri, so keep that in mind. I believe it is one of those infamous "Right to Work" states.

[Dr.Phool]

1. It's not legal

But more than likely, they'll find some other excuse to justify it.

[MnFats]

2. no and NO!

federal law permits such activity, protects it in fact.
i went through a union organizing campaign once. the employer almost always will play dirty.

in my case, for example, management made all kinds of offhand comments (it seemed that way - in fact it was an organized part of the anti-organizing drive) about how we would all be fired. Of course it was bullshit but it scared off a lot of people.....be prepared for a big fight if you go forward. From management's point of view, it's worth almost any cost to keep a union out. good luck.

[notadmblnd]

3. No, they can not.

they can't fire you for talking about it on your lunch or breaks either. have you approached a union about your shop unionizing or are you just talking about unions?

[KareBear]

6. No nothing that formal

But they have cut pay for three consecutive years, cut manpower when there already wasn't enough, and shifted schedules to weird times to cover the lack of manpower. There has been spontaneous talk of presenting a "unified front" to management to demand better treatment. Noone excpects the person who is talking about that to be there much longer even though I think a lot of us agree we need that kind of bargaining power. People have been fired for MUCH less.

[Kool Aid]

4. Right to Work State

In a right to work state your employer does not have to give you a reason for termination. So I guess it would not be against the law.

[prairierose]

5. Which is why I call therm...

"right to be fired" states. those laws are for the benefit of business not workers. I live in one.

:grr:

[CanOfWhoopAss]

7. AKA Hire at Will

[PowerToThePeople]

8. Yup Right-to-Work states are slave states

I worked in Idaho for many years. It was right-to-work state. They can get rid of you for ANY reason they want to for at any time. Also, there are some anti-union laws in these states-such that it is illegal for unions to try and organize people. Grassroots is only way and they will just fire the people who start the talks and scare the rest of sheep into compliancy. You need to get organized to change the right to work laws. Right-to-work states are the last slave states in the country.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Actually those states are "Employment at Will"

Which basically means that the employer can fire an employee for any reason as long as it is not covered under state or federal law.

They could say your fired because your 1 minute late for work or your not dressed right.

If you belong to a union then the contract supercedes "Employment at Will" because procedures are in place that have to be followed. Instead of being fired you might get a verbal warning or a few days off. Sometimes you can file a grievance and get paid if it is settled.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. No, that is 'At will' employment

'Right to Work' mean that workers can choose wheather or not to pay union dues at a unionized work site.

[KareBear]

13. Yup you guys are all right, its At-Wil not Right-To-Work

I had the terms confused I guess. Though I am really surprised this isn't a "Right-To-Work" state as I've always heard it was. This must be a commonly confused concept.

In any case, its still not a good thing :) From what I'm reading they could fire someone here if they walked in wearing a yellow shirt, and the manager didn't like the color yellow. There doesn't need to be a reason as long as it doesn't blatently (read proveably) violate a protected class.

This isn't that great of news.

[karlrschneider]

10. Here's a good link for info on this

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

[karlrschneider]

12. MO isn't one n/t