At Will Employee?

[Hooter]

Are u an "At Will Employee" if you also have a signed contract with the employeer you work for? In other words can you be contractural and at will?

[MP]

Are u an "At Will Employee" if you also have a signed contract with the employeer you work for? In other words can you be contractural and at will?

Yes.  A contract can be written that will supercede the at will provision.  ie, a union, in an at will state, can have a contract with an employer that supercedes the at will provision.  ND has them.

[dreamaker]

Sorry the term "at will employee" kind of went over my head, I don't believe I have ever heard the term.  What does it mean?

[MP]

Can be fired and hired at the will of the employer.  Essentially the same as a right to work state.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Can be fired and hired at the will of the employer.  Essentially the same as a right to work state.

There are some differences in the way right to work states deal with unions. But for the most part I agree.

[MP]

Can be fired and hired at the will of the employer.  Essentially the same as a right to work state.

There are some differences in the way right to work states deal with unions. But for the most part I agree.

Agreed.  Each state has unique laws concerning this. 

[Willow]

Can be fired and hired at the will of the employer.  Essentially the same as a right to work state.

Actually, MP, that goes both ways.  "At will" says the employment relationship may be terminated at any time at the will of either party.  You're correct, though, in that it comes into play most often as the employer does not have to justify a firing.

Whether "at will" is in conflict with a contract certainly depends entirely upon the wording of the specific contract, doesn't it?   

[Rams]

My understanding is that all "salaried" employees are "at will".

If incorrect, please feel free to enlighten me.   

[baldo]

My understanding is that all "salaried" employees are "at will".

If incorrect, please feel free to enlighten me.   

I'm pretty sure it can be either salaried or hourly...

[MP]

Can be fired and hired at the will of the employer.  Essentially the same as a right to work state.

Actually, MP, that goes both ways.  "At will" says the employment relationship may be terminated at any time at the will of either party.  You're correct, though, in that it comes into play most often as the employer does not have to justify a firing.

Whether "at will" is in conflict with a contract certainly depends entirely upon the wording of the specific contract, doesn't it?   

Technically correct.  Although the forced employment of a person who wants to leave, is seldom enforced.  Who wants to force a employee to keep working for them, having access to their secrets and equipment, when they want to leave?

My mother used to be on the School Board.  Teachers were offered contracts for the following year in early spring.  Thus committing to teaching at that school the following year.  But, there was almost always one or two teachers who would come in in July or August, telling the Board that they were leaving, always for a better job.  They were always let go, because of that reason.  The Board did not want someone there, who wanted out.  Sure left the Board scrambling to try to find a teacher, scraping the bottom of the barrel.

However, trying to let a teacher go, who has a valid contract, is almost impossible.

It is VERY one sided towards the employee in that regard.

[cookiedough]

along these lines,  what do you all say about this:

If you sign a formal piece of paper (offer of employment) indicating your salary and other benefits, most important to me being accruing (earning) PTO (paid time off/vacation) right away starting first day of hire and then 2 months later after hired find out that was incorrect information I signed (went to HR and all mgrs/supervisors) being accruing PTO time starts AFTER 90 days of employment, does the employee have a legitiment gripe with HR and fight it since was a signed and dated, formal, offer of employment specifically stating PTO time accrues starting first day of hire. 

It amounts to basically 11 hours of PTO time should start accruing right away first day of employment vs. waiting 90 days to start getting PTO time. 

[MP]

along these lines,  what do you all say about this:

If you sign a formal piece of paper (offer of employment) indicating your salary and other benefits, most important to me being accruing (earning) PTO (paid time off/vacation) right away starting first day of hire and then 2 months later after hired find out that was incorrect information I signed (went to HR and all mgrs/supervisors) being accruing PTO time starts AFTER 90 days of employment, does the employee have a legitiment gripe with HR and fight it since was a signed and dated, formal, offer of employment specifically stating PTO time accrues starting first day of hire. 

It amounts to basically 11 hours of PTO time should start accruing right away first day of employment vs. waiting 90 days to start getting PTO time. 

I would suggest a lawyer.

[lordofchaos]

along these lines,  what do you all say about this:

If you sign a formal piece of paper (offer of employment) indicating your salary and other benefits, most important to me being accruing (earning) PTO (paid time off/vacation) right away starting first day of hire and then 2 months later after hired find out that was incorrect information I signed (went to HR and all mgrs/supervisors) being accruing PTO time starts AFTER 90 days of employment, does the employee have a legitiment gripe with HR and fight it since was a signed and dated, formal, offer of employment specifically stating PTO time accrues starting first day of hire. 

It amounts to basically 11 hours of PTO time should start accruing right away first day of employment vs. waiting 90 days to start getting PTO time. 

While not technically a contract in the same legally binding sense as say a teacher's contract (mentioned above), there may be some grounds for filing a civil claim to have those hours of PTO granted based on the wording of the offer letter. Smart companies put clauses in the offer letter that state that while this is an offer of employment, it is not a contract and that employment is "at will" and that where there is conflict with corporate policies, the corporate policies will take precedence. If there's anything like that in your offer letter, you're likely not going to win. If there isn't, you have a fair shot.
 
Of course, what do you think it's going to do to the working relationship if you do that? Is it really worth it? Do you really want to continue to work for a company that would pull something like that? All things to consider.

[art]

I'm an at will retired and loving it.

[cookiedough]

along these lines,  what do you all say about this:

If you sign a formal piece of paper (offer of employment) indicating your salary and other benefits, most important to me being accruing (earning) PTO (paid time off/vacation) right away starting first day of hire and then 2 months later after hired find out that was incorrect information I signed (went to HR and all mgrs/supervisors) being accruing PTO time starts AFTER 90 days of employment, does the employee have a legitiment gripe with HR and fight it since was a signed and dated, formal, offer of employment specifically stating PTO time accrues starting first day of hire. 

It amounts to basically 11 hours of PTO time should start accruing right away first day of employment vs. waiting 90 days to start getting PTO time. 

While not technically a contract in the same legally binding sense as say a teacher's contract (mentioned above), there may be some grounds for filing a civil claim to have those hours of PTO granted based on the wording of the offer letter. Smart companies put clauses in the offer letter that state that while this is an offer of employment, it is not a contract and that employment is "at will" and that where there is conflict with corporate policies, the corporate policies will take precedence. If there's anything like that in your offer letter, you're likely not going to win. If there isn't, you have a fair shot.
 
Of course, what do you think it's going to do to the working relationship if you do that? Is it really worth it? Do you really want to continue to work for a company that would pull something like that? All things to consider.

I agree with all points mentioned,  11 hours is not much, but I have to take off only 4 hours of work UNPAID now 10 days short of 3 months coming up in May to take my mom to the dr.  I was thinking when signed the letter before hired near 3 months ago, it was factual.  A new ownership bought out the company 5-6 months ago, cutting benefits of course,  and HR was using 'what was' the OLD benefits prior apparently not knowing what the heck they are doing.  I called the HR lady out on it, but she said sorry,  is a 3 month waiting period now to accrue PTO time off.  I'm tempted this week to go to my supervisor and ask for an advancement of ONLY 4 hours PAID on my PTO time since only 10 days short of 3 months.  I feel I should get that at least and then just take off 4 hours on 'earned' time AFTER the first month is over with in June.  I cannot make up 4 hours of work in only 4 days which my boss said was do-able, but maybe 1 to 2 hours in those 4 days. 

A lawyer is not needed nor worth it, but still is not fair to me that HR didn't know the facts on their benefits from new ownership who before just recently, was taking an OFF HANDS approach to our company.

[baldo]

It's been my experience that new owners generally SUCK.