The Ethics of At-Will Employment Those in favor of the at-will employment doctrine point out that it is only fair that if an employee can quit at any time, giving the employer the same freedom is only fair. While this may sound fair and logical, the reality is, different I believe it just gives an employer the ability to discriminate against employees. In 2012, New York’s court of appeals upheld the employment at-will case Sullivan v. Harnish. Chief Judge Lippman issued a dissent, expressing strong concern that giving employers the right to fire compliance officers for doing their job could lead to more financial scandals like the Madoff Ponzi scheme (Hamid, 2014). At-Will Employment Doctrine The at-will employment doctrine is the belief that employers have the right to fire anyone at any time for any reason, …show more content…
This is the case with most union employees, the union enters into a collective bargaining agreement that helps protect members from termination without cause. Public Sector Traditionally public sector employees have not been subject to at-will employment. Laws and regulations enacted to try to insulate public employees from political whim. At one time, it was commonplace to see public employees fired to make room for a newly elected politician’s supporter. Civil Service commissions were set up to control the political nature of public jobs, these laws made it hard to fire a public employee without cause. The state of Georgia in 1996 started to embrace at-will employment for public employees (Jordan, 2014). The rational for this was to make public entities more efficient, by allowing the dismissal of poor performing employees. They also believed that existing employees would be more motivated, knowing they could be fired for poor performance. This deregulation has severely limited due process rights for employees (Jordan,
An “at will” employee is an employee who agreed to a contract in which they can be fired at any time, for almost any reason. The law generally presumes that employees are employed at will unless they can prove otherwise.
In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts,
A wrongful discharge case is a major exception to at-will employment. There is a Common Law of the exceptions to a wrongful discharge case to At-Will Doctrine includes terminations that violate state policy. It also includes termination after the creation of an implied contract of employment. Furthermore, termination of service in violation of an implied covenant involves good faith and fair dealing. Moreover, unlawful termination includes termination that violates federal, local, or local laws to combat discrimination.
In the state of Maryland, all employment is considered “at-will”. From the text, the definition of at-will employment is employers have the “…discretion to fire employees ‘for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.’” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012) From Maryland’s Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, employment at will is defined as “In Maryland, employees work "at the will" of their employers. This means, in the absence of an express contract, agreement or policy to the contrary, an employee may be hired or fired for almost any reason -- whether fair or not -- or for no reason at all.” (https://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/wagepay/wpatwill.shtml) Because of the employment at will doctrine, people risk losing their jobs for
When we are dealing with the employment relationship between employers and employees, ethical issues are most likely to emerge. Especially, if a manager fires a worker without a proper reason, critics will follow this employer’s behavior. In Patricia Werhane’s paper, “Employment at Will and Due Process”, discusses two doctrines which are Employment at Will (EAW) and Due Process. It also addresses some justifications and objections for EAW, and shows Werhane’s supportive view to Due Process. In contrast, EAW is defended by Richard Epstein in his article “In Defense of the Contract at Will”. In my paper, I will attempt to develop my argument in favor of Employment at Will that could improve flexibility and efficiency of
“At- Will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, expect an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability” (At-Will Employment). It crazy to think that every state expect Montana is at will and that US is one of a few countries where employment is at will. We work so hard in American and yet no job security unless we are in a union. At will mean employers can change your contract with no notice or consequences. In the article What Do Employment At will mean it states “Employers are also not required to provide notice or explanation when terminating an at-will employee and the court would deny any claim attempting to seek benefits for losses as a result of termination (Doyle). These employees were not fired due to race, color, religion, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation. So even though it was wrong and not fair that they were fired. It still wasn’t illegal and it doesn’t qualify as exceptions to the at will
Employment at will is one of the types of employment commonly seen in the hospital these days. The establishment of the laws regarding employment at comes from the common law employment-at-will doctrine. Traditionally, employment at will was an arrangement where the employer or employee could terminate employment for any or no reason (Pozgar et. al. [date needed]. More recently, termination of at will employment has become more restrictive. Much of the limitations on the employer have been set by public policy or implied good faith and fair dealing covenants.
There are legal protections in place for wrongful discharge and may be classified as arising from grounds of constitutional, statutory or common law regulations. As with all laws, some employees are only protected if employed in the public sector, unionized sector, or those employees who hold individual employment contracts. All things considered, the public policy exception to employment-at-will holds employers liable in tort for wrongful discharge when employees are terminated for taking actions that public policy requires. This type of wrongful discharge claim is recognized in about 40 states and if the courts allow the terminations to stand, it would offend and undermine public policy. In summary, employers cannot legally terminate employees
The articles I choose for this paper will cover different areas on this topic. The first area covered is what steps employers and employees must take to work together to fully provide adequate job security and maintain the best labor force. I’m also going to cover what the process of termination would look like under a better “Just Cause” policy, and the reasoning behind why most employers like the current policy. The next article will compare the labor data from Montana, the only
Based on facts and legal laws, the judge can look over the evidence and rules and make a decision. The employment-at-will doctrine clearly states that the employer can fire the employee at any time for any reason. There are many exceptions to the employment-at-will
At will employment is a policy of American law that describes an employment relationship in which either party can end the relationship with no legal responsibility, given there was no express contract for a certain term regulating the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a union. Under this legal policy, any hiring is assumed to be “at will”, meaning the employer is at liberty to terminate individuals for good cause or bad cause or no cause at all. The employee is also permitted to terminate a position or job, at any time, with no adverse legal consequences.
Warhane and Radin, in their article “Employment at Will and Due Process”, suggest that one of the major reasons employment at will is acceptable is that it protects the proprietary rights of employers. In particular “the proprietary rights of employers guarantee that they may employ or dismiss
In the world, it is hard to sometimes hard to balance life between things that don’t involve work and things that involve your work. At-Will Employment is a contractual relationship between an employee and an employer that allows dismissal for any reason without just cause. The idea of at-will employment originated in 1877 with Horace Gray Wood. Horace Gray Wood dealt with master and slave relations. The question with at-will employment becomes is it ethical to let an employee go based on non-work difficulties. The ethical decision that is being examined is “Is it ethical for a manager to terminate an employee whose performance has markedly declined non account of dealing with non-work personal difficulties?” The at-will doctrine is
Employment at will is a common-law rule used by employers to assert their right to end an employment relationship with an employee at any time for any cause. I disagree with this concept that that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, as long as they don’t discriminate in doing so, because it is reverse physiological way to motivate an employee and causes anxiety. This concept was originally introduced to promote flexibility in the labor market, but I think it hurts business.
The employment-at-will rules states that because employers are the managers they have the right to terminate their employees whenever they choose (Peregrine Academic Services: Global Educational Support, n.d.)