I agree with this, but I don’t think the employer’s power is so much greater that the answer to the question “Can you fire your employer at any time for any reason?” is “no”.
Wait a minute, you can’t quit in a “free to work” state?
You CAN quit in a “free to work” state.
ETA: making an assumption here that “free to work” = right-to-work = “at-will”. If that’s wrong, please clarify what you understand “free to work” to mean.
Can you elaborate? I don’t understand what you mean when you say the employee can’t fire their employer?
Are you saying that in some states in the US, employees are bound to contracts of servitude? 
I think you’re setting up a false dichotomy, that exactly the same rules have to apply to the employer and the employee.
The likely answer is that given the power imbalance between the employer and the employees, there can be different rules for each in ending the relationship. The legislature can set different rules and obligations for the employer and the employee.
“Free to work” is a title to disguise “Free to fire” laws from voters.
is there any state in the union where an employee can’t just quit their job?
Having the legal right to quit a job for any reason or no reason is not a right that’s equivalent or parallel to having the legal right to fire someone from a job for any reason or no reason.
So, being allowed to quit is not the same thing as being able to fire your boss. Being able to fire your boss would be the right to keep your job and get rid of the person who is your boss.
That’s what I’m puzzled by. Posters seem to be saying the employer has to be able to fire at will, so that employees can quit at will. That seems a false equivalence.
You can have employment laws where the employer can quit at will, but the employer either has to have cause, or pay some sort of severance for firing without cause.
It’s not as “either - or” as some of the posts here seem to suggest.
You certainly can quit your job, but, if your current job required you to sign a non-compete clause, then you are not allowed to get another job in the same field without moving to another city or state for some period of time. That certainly is a pretty strong disincentive to quit. Also, if you quit, you can get blacklisted. When I quit working for the cable company, they told me that I would not be able to work for them, or for any of their affiliates ever again. So, you are not just quitting an employer, you may be being forced to leave an entire industry.
They can keep you from getting another job to replace the one you quit, but you can’t keep them from hiring someone to replace the employee that quit.
“Firing” really is one way. You don’t fire your employer when you quit. You just quit. Sometimes people call it “firing” their employer to make themselves feel better, but it’s not the same thing, not at all.
Sure, there can be consequences to quitting, but what’s got me is that some of the posts seem to suggest that if employers can’t dismiss at will, then employees can’t quit at will.
I’m asking if by law that is the case anywhere in the States: that employees can’t quit without cause.
They can, but there can be strong financial disincentives:
These Americans are trapped in their jobs: they need to pay $10,000 to quit
One should read a contract before signing it.
In case you didn’t notice, there’s a very limited number of openings for news anchors.
What does that have to do with anything?
This is actually an interesting discussion, and a branch of a larger concept I’ve been wrestling with in my spare time. HD is absolutely correct concerning the obligation of an individual signing a contract. In fact, I would be surprised if every state doesn’t have some legal machinery binding a signor to the word of the contract, even if the signor later says, “I didn’t understand” or “I didn’t read it.” Contracts would be meaningless if they didn’t have teeth.
On the other hand, in the real world, the majority of us are whores who sell our lives in exchange for never enough money. TV people are no different, they have to eat, pay bills, spend hundreds of dollars a year on school supplies for their kids… And they, as well as the rest of us, know that if they stand up for their personal dignity and best interests, there will be someone along shortly who will accept the unacceptable terms. Short of something like a universal ‘workers union’ this situation is inescapable.
I wish I had an answer because I’m facing the same thing in my industry–employers are placing insane demands on their employees while whispering in our ears, “Love it shove it.” Wrongful termination suits, however slimy they seem, are the best way keep the sons of bitches in check, while also making public the conditions workers are being forced to accept. Everywhere people are being given the choice to starve on their feet or eat on their knees.
Non-compete agreements vary from state to state. California bans them completely (which has been argued to be part of the strength of Silicon Valley, and another reason why other states have struggled to match).
So, that’s the end of it? You signed it, so too bad? That’s a childish way to view the world. I call shotgun! No backsies!
That attitude pretty much ignores the idea of unequal negotiating strength, the realities of oligopolies, and a lot of the context in which we have to live our lives. One of the reasons that Sinclair has the power to demand such terms is that the government has allowed them to gain control over a huge number of television stations.
There are things we don’t allow in contracts. For example, we don’t allow contracts for illegal acts. There are things we don’t allow in employment contracts and in non-competition contracts as well. A contract term that essentially binds an employee to servitude because of harsh liquidated damages should simply be unenforceable.
Some of these terms may very well be unenforceable, but an individual employee might go bankrupt in the course of winning a case. The outcome of that shouldn’t be “too bad, you signed it.”
You’re smarter than that. It’s that pesky “Rule of Law” crap cutting both ways. I’m not a big fan, personally, but I’ve yet to think of a less troubling standard. But you are partly right, it is absolutely possible some clause in a given contract might be unconstitutional or otherwise in violation of a higher statute, and those should by all means be contested. I just wouldn’t get my hopes up–I’m willing to bet Sinclair employed a number of highly qualified lawyers to draft their contracts. The only realistic hopes of having the contact voided in court would be to demonstrate that, or to pray for jury nullification.
Just someone who tries to look at and question all sides of an issue.
The power imbalance depends solely on the current job market. There are times when jobs are plentiful and people jump from one to another often, there are times when there are many more people looking for work that there are available jobs. There are times where there is near equilibrium.
I have been “downsized” without warning twice in my life. It well and truly sucks. OTOH, I have also quit twice for a better job. I don’t see why I should be able to leave at any time, for any reason, but employers should be held to a much higher standard.
Some higher standards, like non-discrimination laws, are logical and necessary in my view but beyond that I begin to question the necessity. Where, exactly, is the balance point? If I knew the answer to that, I wouldn’t need a job - I’d be independently wealthy from the book rights!