Introduction
Among the fundamental aspects of a job is the security it provides. However, employees in the contemporary business environment suffer a lack of security due to employment at will contracts. Cavico (2003) describe these agreements stating “At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences”. Employment at will gives corporations right to unexplained termination of an employee’s contract. Such agreements may seem astounding, especially when some employees voluntarily opt for the same since it provides significant flexibility (Stone, 2009). Economists have proven that at-will employment is mostly beneficial for small scale businesses that record fluctuating profits and staff demands. Despite the privileges offered by employment at will agreements, a contract cannot be terminated for discriminatory reasons such as disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and race (Stone, 2009). Several arguments have been presented against and for employment at will arrangements including the violation of essential employees’ and employers’ rights and enhancing flexibility for both parties as analyzed in this paper. Additionally, this analysis will offer supporting actual cases that defend and oppose employment at will contracts.
Arguments For and Against Employment at Will
A ruling by the California Court of Appeals that favored a union employee who was terminated following his refusal to provide faulty information to company auditors investigating fraud significantly shaped the provisions of employment at will agreements (Marx, 2014) . The court concentrated on upholding its judicial role since the employee was sacked for declining to commit perjury, as the jury stated, his dismissal was “obnoxious to sound morality” (Blanpain & Bisom-Rapp, 2014) . Regardless of the nature of the decision, other jurisdictions failed to follow suit until after the formulation of various exceptions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The first argument in defense of employment at will was laid down by Stone (2007). According to Stone (2007) , these agreements ensure reduced firing and recruitment expenses and encouraged freedom of association between employers and employees, considering that each party has a say on who they wish to professionally and legally interact with. Therefore, businesses governed by at-will policies benefit more from valuable employee contributions through workers’ suggestions and useful feedback. Also, at-will employment provides a reliable way of dispute resolution. Such arrangements protect employers from discrimination claims from disgruntled workers who may seek compensation.
On the other hand, opponents of employment at will policies have argued that employees who feel threatened by a company may not make extra efforts to sustain business productivity, impact, and growth; instead, they are likely to keep their opinions and ideas to the detriment of the organization. Authors such as Blanpain and Bisom-Rapp (2014) outline objections to at-will employment practice and principles. Among these are the complaints that they violate particular workers’ rights and freedoms including the right to fair treatment. Other rights being violated include property privileges, due process, employee privacy, and free speech. For instance, a 1999 case between Seekins vs. Era Aviation Inc. in Alaska noted that at-will arrangement "enables an employer . . . to unfairly deprive an employee of a benefit contemplated by the employment contract" (Blanpain & Bisom-Rapp, 2014) . The employee sued her employers for a breach of an implicit fair dealing and good faith pledge since her dismissal arose “as the result of a personality conflict," and not reasonable causes such as mismanagement of company property (Blanpain & Bisom-Rapp, 2014) . The court, however, dismissed the case stating that the agreement only effectuated the parties’ expectations and did not alter the contract’s provisions, thus placing the employee on at-will employment. The court also required proof that the employers did not formulate the contract in good faith.
Another case proving the manipulative nature of at-will employment is a 1999 case between Goff-Hamel vs. Obstetricians & Gynecologists (Blanpain & Bisom-Rapp, 2014) . In the case, the employee was terminated before the reporting day due to a third party objection to the contract. The employee had resigned from her previous employment in anticipation of the job, before being sacked after collecting her new uniforms and work schedules (Blanpain & Bisom-Rapp, 2014) . In this case, the court ruled that since the employee signed employment at will contract, there were no damages considering that she had not rendered any services. Also, Stone, (2009) argues that successful employers are those working against at-will policies, thus the need to eliminate these arrangements.
Conclusion
In summary, while several reasons have been presented to support or oppose employment at will contracts, these agreements can work best when both parties are willing to embrace the arrangement, rather than being imposed on them. In such provisions, workers are offered increased abilities to engage in more promising endeavors as soon as they arise, while the employer reserves the privilege to dismiss a worker when more affordable and viable options occur. These matching need fulfillments create a parity. It is important to acknowledge the significant roles of both employers and employees for organizational success. Thus, to appreciate at-will policies, it is essential to consider the whole employment arrangement settings and the context in which they occur.
References
Blanpain, R., & Bisom-Rapp, S. (2014). Global Workplace: International and Comparative Employment Law Cases and Materials . Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Cavico, F. J. (2003). Private Sector Whistleblowing and the Employment-At-Will Doctrine: A Comparative Legal, Ethical, and Pragmatic Analysis. S. Tex. L. Rev. , 45 , 543.
Marx, P. (2014). Labour market risks and political preferences: The case of temporary employment. European Journal of Political Research , 53 (1), 136-159.
Stone, K. V. (2007). Revisiting the at-will employment doctrine: Imposed terms, implied terms, and the normative world of the workplace. Industrial Law Journal , 36 (1), 84-101.
Stone, K. V. (2009). Dismissal Law in the United States: The Past and Present of At-Will Employment.
