The quote is probably accurate, but is misleading without some additional understanding of how things actually work.

In all US states, employement of a person in the most general case is described as "employment at will," and the employment can be terminated by either employee or employer, for almost any reason, or for no reason.

IF an employee is hired "under contract," the contract can state (but doesn't have to) conditions for termination, and can limit the employer to "dismissal for cause" reasons.

Throughout the US, individual employment contracts are fairly common in some occupations, and virtually non-existent in others.

In the more common circumstance, employees may form a union. No state can prohibit the forming of a union, with a few exceptions for "public service employees," although some states put up artificial barriers to such formation. To form a union, a "bargaining unit" consisting of a particular type of employees within a company must be defined, and if a sufficient percentage of that group signs a petition in favor of forming one, US Federal Law requires that the company must permit a vote by all the member of the group. If the vote passes, the union is created.

The ONLY OTHER THING that the existence of a union provides for, is that the bargaining unit as a whole is entitled to have a contract with the employer(s). Such contracts usually include provisions about when and how employees may be terminated, but there is no truly "standard form" to say what must or must not be part of the contract.

Once a contract is agreed to by both parties it applies to all members of the "bargaining unit," which means that the contract applies to all employees in that group, regardless of whether or not they actually are members of the union.

The union is required to oversee enforcement of the contract for all employees in the bargaining unit, whether or not the individuals involved are union members or pay dues to the union.

Some states have enacted "Right to Work" law, which prohibit collection of dues from employees who choose not to be members of the union.

Other states permit collection of dues from all employees in the bargaining unit, regardless of whether they choose to be voting members of the union.

A few states have passed "check off" laws, that may (if the contract provides for it) require the employer to collect dues from all members of the unit by payroll deduction.

In a few "union states" (which generally includes all the "checkoff states") union membership - or at least dues payments - may be a requirement for employees within the bargaining unit, but the union is required to admit anyone who is willing to pay the dues.

A very few states permit "closed shops" where the union representing employees in many places controls who may be a member from outside the individual companies, and membership is required before the employer is permitted to hire someone. (memberships in some unions in those places is usually only by inheritance - or purchase- from a deceased or otherwise departing union member).

All states in the US permit "employment at will" and in many jobs mobs form at the entrance each day, and the employees wanted for that day are picked to work - each day. A majority of "hourly paid" workers in the US, in all states, have no contract, and their employment may be terminated at any time and for any reason.

Some companies do have "employment policies" that amount to "one-sided contracts" and existence of such policies may place some limits on working conditions and hiring and firing. Some laws requiring such policies apply to some occupations and some company sizes and configurations.

The impact in the story cited is that if an employee is "terminated for cause" (such as insubordination) the employee is generally not entitled to the unemployment compensation provided (generally) by the states. If the employee qualifies for the unemployment benefits, the employer for whom he last worked is quite likely to see the payments that company is required to pay into the unemployment benefit fund increased. In some states, an "unjustified termination" may be seen as a violation of state standards, and the increase in payments to the fund may be "punitive" (although seldom what would seem justifiable in many cases).

Now if you want the whole story ... ...

John