I get the "at will" argument, but that's not really what happened here, is it? In fact it would have been better if it had, and they'd simply terminated her, but they didn't. They appeared to try to make some sort of accommodation, which was wishy-washy of them.
I also get what's really happening here: The owners have a flaccid business in a depressed economy, and so in an effort to prop it up, they hit on the brilliant idea of having their waitresses dress up like sluts. Beautiful. Maybe they should try offering, oh I don't know, good food and good service and stop resorting to gimmicks?
Missy should get out while she can and thank the owners for the lesson they've inadvertently given her.
BTW not that anybody cares, but I despise unions and the whole notion of collective bargaining. I prefer to negotiate on my own behalf and would much rather work as a contractor than an employee. It's a lot less messy.
I won't give them that much credit. My guess is they didn't lay her off so as to avoid having their EDD policy premium increased. They figured they could just reduce her hours until she voluntarily left.
Legal protections don’t apply on priv prop? I said that? Why are you attacking an argument that I did not make?
If I shoot you on my priv prop because I don’t like the way you comb your hair, I suspect that legal protections would come into play.
If I decide to change my priv prop from a business that sells beer and chicken wings to one that sells books, I don’t need the permission of my waitresses to do so.
Nor do I need their permission to change the lighting, the uniforms, the hours, the pay, the flooring, the tablecloths, or anything else.
The owners can decide what they want to do when it comes to their business.
Your suggestions almost sound like a dictate.
We have a restaurant around my city call “Twin Peaks” that makes Hooters look like a G rated movie. They have a waiting list for servers. Good food, cheap cold beer and a view!
Good business model.