A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
that, on companies sites, they do not always put the LOCATION of the company and you have to search for it? I think that is odd. You would think that would be the first thing that they do. I find it strange.
Certain States have Labor Laws which seem to be more favorable to Employers than to their Employees with regard to at-will employment. Large corporations that want to minimize their liabilities tend to incorporate and locate their Headquarters in those States.
One of the biggest considerations is being sued for Wrongful Termination. These lawsuits are costly to corporations who have thousands of Employees. Therefore, these corporations tend to headquarter in States that favor them when it comes to what recourse Employees have after being terminated.
There are 3 exceptions that tend to lean more favorably toward the Employee (Details: below).
Throughout the 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, all but 4 States have adopted 1 or 2 of the three major exceptions, and 7 States have adopted all 3.
The 4 States that have NOT adopted any of the 3 exceptions (favor the Employer) are:
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Rhode Island
The 7 States (interestingly – all Western States) that have adopted ALL 3 exceptions (favor the Employee) are:
Alaska
Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Utah
Wyoming
What does that mean to the Employee working for companies in those States? In Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Rhode Island, if an Employee is fired and tries to sue for Wrongful Termination, it is nearly impossible for the Employee to win.
On the other hand, in the 7 Western States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, if an Employee is fired and sues for Wrongful Termination, the Laws lean toward the Employee and against the Employer. Employers in those States have to carefully document any and all infractions by the Employee, what is included in their Employee Handbook, and more often fire for cause after a series of disciplinary actions. Most large corporations do not want to add more Human Resources staff to handle that. California has the most Employee-leaning Labor Laws of any State in the United States.
I am not suggesting that all MTSOs will eventually end up with Headquarters in those 4 States. Some large MTSOs, (such as MedQuist) that started in the 1970s or early 1980s, probably found it too costly to move their Headquarters out of their original State. I am sure, however, that they have found a way to locate their Human Resources Departments in one of those 4 States to handle any possible Wrongful Termination lawsuits. I also assume other MTSOs were started by people who just love living in the State they are in and do not want to relocate.
That kind of explains why some people are being told the MTSO they applied to does not hire residents of California.
It also explains why one MTSO puts this in their job post:
“Can hire as employee status in FL, AL, GA, NC, AR, and KY. All other states would be ICs.”
It is hard enough trying to find a new job without having all these added restrictions.
DETAILS (from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics):
The majority of corporations in the United States use at-will employment.
In the United States, employees without a written employment contract generally can be fired for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all; judicial exceptions to the rule seek to prevent wrongful terminations
Historically, since the last half of the 1800s, employment in each of the United States has been “at will,” or terminable by either the employer or employee for any reason whatsoever.
Rather than seeing the relationship as being on equal footing, courts and legislatures slowly began to recognize that employers frequently have structural and economic advantages when negotiating with potential or current employees. The recognition of employment as being central to a person’s livelihood and well-being, coupled with the fear of being unable to protect a person’s livelihood from unjust termination, led to the development of common-law, or judicial, exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine beginning in the late 1950s.
The 1960s marked the beginning of Federal legislative protections (including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) from wrongful discharge based on race, religion, sex, age, and national origin. These protections reflected the changing view of the relationship between employer and employee.
The bulk of the development of these exceptions did not take place until the 1980s, but with the new millennium, the employment-at-will doctrine has been significantly eroded by statutory and common-law protections against wrongful discharge.
Three major exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine emerged, as developed in common law, including recognition of these exceptions in the 50 States. The exceptions principally address terminations that, although they technically comply with the employment-at-will requirements, do not seem just.