That’s a different thing entirely.

“Right to Work” is about the relationship between workers and unions. Specifically, it bans mandatory membership in unions and union-member-exclusive benefits. The most important part of that is it keeps unions from being able to collect union dues.

“At-will employment” is about the relationship between employer and employee, and is what allows someone to be fired for any non-protected reason or no reason at all. It’s also the standard almost everywhere and has little impact most places because firing someone without cause still incurs payment for unemployment benefits.

Trust me, as a former manager, it’s still very hard to get corporate permission to fire someone who shows up on time, sober, in dress code no matter how toxic or lazy they are.

That’s “at-will” though, isn’t it?

And naming it honestly would go against spin doctors’, advertisement professionals’, and capitalists’ right to work — which in their case is sugarcoating exploitation. But I guess they have that right 😡

Because they’re brainwashed to support things that are against their own best interests.

The most common argument I’ve heard, totally boiled down: “unions just protect the bad workers and if there weren’t unions the best workers would be able to get get paid more than those guys”.

But I also hear this kinda stuff predominantly from people who aren’t in professions that commonly benefit from collective bargaining. Most pipefitters understand that even a free rider benefits from collective bargaining, and that without unions it’s more often a race to the bottom rather than getting obscene raises for meritous reasons. The dude who drives parts for NAPA or whatever is usually the guy to say unions are dumb

All I know is that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.