Cyberlaw paper thus far...

Ok, so what I've learned thus far: there are 49 states that have a "rebuttable" presumption of "at-will" employment, and 1 that has a "just-cause" presumption. So 49 states say that an employer can just axe you on whim. One, the great state of Montana, says they have to have a "just" reason. Which leads me to two thoughts. 1.) is there really a practical difference b/w these two systems of employment? Where one says the boss can drop you for any reason so long as it doesn't violate "public policy", and the other says bossman must have a valid reason for dropping you? and 2.) with the only justification for the alternate systems being a deference to the market to sort things out, does that mean Montana just hates business or that they value people, their lives, their families, and the stability that acts as a key component to raising a family? Laws are a mirror of how a society, broadly speaking, ranks its values.

Addressing the first questions: could it be, that in Montana, having a shitty day is just as "just" a reasons to fire Joe Shitforluck as it would be in the other 49 money loving states? (on a side note: answering questions with questions can be hazarous to your mental health). So this is where legal research and fancy tools like Lexis-Nexus and Westlaw come in handy. If I was a diligent student of law I would present a study of the practical differences and cases and numbers regarding various excuses for firing someone. But I'm not. Why I'm not is probably the cathartic, self motivated reason why I'm writing this "thing"' (more on the thing thing later). But more broadly I want to refine myself, and my thinking. The only way to do that is by subjecting yourself to criticism, especailly in an open "ideas" market.