I'm so tired of the assertion that it's "difficult" to fire someone, even insofar as "difficult" means "HR won't allow it." HR's reasons are stupid, particularly if you're in a so-called "right to work" state. I work on multi-million dollar lawsuits for a living, and in every single employment suit I've worked on involving an individual who was fired from a large organization, that person had already been through some kind of PIP.
When talking about employment law, "the right to work states" is often used as a generic category used to refer to states with weak employee protections, since the right to work states generally are also red states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_Work_states.svg
Can you find an example of where "right to work" is used as a generic category instead of its actual meaning:
"Right-to-work laws are statutes in a reported 26 states in the United States that are an effort to give employees the right to work without being required or compelled to join to a union."
It does. I'm talking about the fact that the fictional employee we're talking about is most likely non-union in a right to work state, thereby making it easier to fire them (without union intervention).
