Employment-at-Will Today's working or business environment is increasingly changing and generating several issues that employers have to contend with. These numerous issues have considerable impacts on organizational operations since they affect the relationships between employees and their employer as well as interactions between employees. The most common issues that can threaten an organization's effective operations include insubordination, privacy issues, personal problems, and use of the Internet in the working environment. Employers are increasingly faced with the need to establish suitable mechanisms and measures for addressing these issues in order to enhance organizational productivity. The Employment-at-Will doctrine is one of the major ways through which employers can address some of these issues. As a recently hired Chief Operating Officer, I'll use the Employment-at-Will doctrine to address some issues that have been identified in mid-sized firm preparing for an IPO.

Overview of Employment-at-Will Doctrine

The National Conference of State Legislatures (n.d.) states that employment relationships or contracts across the United States are presumed to be "at-will" except in Montana. Unlike many countries across the globe that permit employers to dismiss workers only for a reason, the United States is one of the few countries where employment is largely at-will. The doctrine of employment-at-will is retained across the United States because of the respect for freedom of contract, employer deference, and belief that employers and workers prefer at-will relationships. This doctrine gives employers the freedom to terminate their employees at any time for any reason except in cases where the reason is an illegal one. Similarly, employees have the liberty to freely leave their jobs at any time and for any reason or a reason without significant legal ramifications or implications.

Despite these freedoms provided by this doctrine, the presumption of at-will can be modified by an employment contract. An employment contract can change this presumption by establishing specific terms of employment or provide specific reasons for termination. In most cases, companies in the United States use this doctrine in most of their employment relationships. Actually, companies across the country typically negotiate employment contracts only with high-level workers who usually account for a small percentage of their working population. In situations where employees negotiate for collective bargaining agreements or are unionized, employment relationships specify conditions for termination of employees. Generally, the Employment-at-Will doctrine has some exceptions including contractual agreements between employers and their employees, common law exceptions, and statutory exceptions that limit its applicability (National Conference of State Legislatures, n.d.).

Analysis of Workplace Issues

As a newly hired Chief Operating Officer, I've discovered several workplace issues that threaten the effective operations and overall success of the mid-sized company on the verge of an Initial Public Offering. The first issue involves John who posted an angry outburst on his Facebook page regarding the company's most significant customer. While the motivations for John's criticisms are relatively unclear, it is becoming evident that the company does not have a social media policy. Given the freedom provided by the Employment-at-will doctrine, the most suitable action for the company to take is to either sanction or suspend John for his action. The lack of a social media policy does not imply that the firm's employees have the right to make all manner of comments on their personal social media pages, especially when such messages damage the company's credibility. Suspending or sanctioning John will not only help in damage control but also help in establishing a social media policy for the firm. This decision is supported by the utilitarian ethical theory in which an action is considered acceptable if it generates the greatest benefit to everyone (Pasternak, n.d.). John's actions do not align with the utilitarian ethical theory since his outburst only benefits him while damaging the credibility of the company as well as his job and trust. Suspension or sanction will help John realize that even though he has the freedom to do anything and express himself on social media, that freedom cannot be exercised at the expense of others by damaging their credibility. In addition to suspending or sanctioning this employee, the company should establish a social media policy to help govern privacy and confidentiality. Once the policy has been established, employees should be trained about it, about what they can disclose outside the firm, and probable consequences of non-compliance with policy.

The second scenario involves Ellen who has started a new blog where she protested about the CEO's bonuses and noted that no one below the director have received a salary increment in 2 years....

However, Ellen utilized harsh statements in which she portrayed her seniors as incompetent and clueless. While Ellen has the right to complain about workplace treatment, her angry outburst on social media is unacceptable and punishable because of probable consequences. By using harsh statements, Ellen's actions are tantamount to insulting the company's management though the motivations behind her outbursts are clear and understandable. Therefore, Ellen has not only insulted the management but has also shown disrespect for her seniors. The best possible measure for dealing with her actions is to initiate disciplinary action based on organizational policies regarding insubordination. The disciplinary action should focus on dealing with her attitude and behavior as well as warning her of further action including termination if the insubordination continues (Hendricks, n.d.). Similar to the previous scenario, this decision is supported by utilitarian ethical theory to promote the greater good of all. While initiating the disciplinary action, the firm will promote the greater good of all by addressing employees' concerns, punishing Ellen for her insults, and mitigating the probable impacts of Ellen's actions on the status of the working environment.
The third issue involves Bill who is using a company-provided Blackberry to conduct his own business on the side. Generally, when workers are given company property, they are usually reminded that it's for official use only and warned of consequences of using such property for personal agendas. In this case, it's relatively unclear whether Bill had received such instructions or warning. If such information wasn't issued, Bill should be warned of the consequences of such actions and given instructions to ensure that the Blackberry is only utilized for company purposes. Nonetheless, if such warnings were issued, suitable disciplinary measures should be carried out depending on policies relating to the use of company property. This would also entail requiring Bill to pay any expenditure the company may have incurred as a result of his use of company phone for personal business. This decision is supported by deontology ethical theory in which the intentions behind an action instead of its consequences determine whether it's good or bad (Pasternak, n.d.). Therefore, the motivation behind Bill's action depending on whether necessary instructions were issued when company phone was issued determines the morality of his actions.

Alabama's Policy on Employment-at-Will

Alabama does not acknowledge a generalized exception to the Employment-at-Will doctrine since the state's Supreme Court has determined that exceptions to this doctrine must be instituted through state legislature. Actually, when the Alabama Supreme Court was faced with an obvious gender or race discrimination, it wouldn't make an exception (Wrady & Michel, 2015). Despite these factors, there are few legal exceptions or public policy exceptions in Alabama's Employment-at-Will. The first public exception to the state's Employment-at-Will doctrine is the protection given to employees who expose a company's illegal activity i.e. whistleblowers from protection. Secondly, Alabama's policy on Employment-at-Will doctrine forbids termination of employees in retaliation for filing a lawsuit regarding compensation.

A real world example of an employer utilizing Alabama's Employment-at-Will doctrine is the recent situation at Morgan County's Turner Industries involving Phillip Sims. Sims was a plant superintendent of these industries who drove to work with the confederate flag on his truck (WKRG Staff, 2015). Even though Sims admitted that he didn't normally drive to work with the flag, he didn't take it down on this occasion because he was running late for work. When he arrived at his workplace, the company's manager asked him to take down the flag or they'll fire him though they love his work. Sims refused to take down the flag and was subsequently fired from his workplace. Sims has since contacted the American Civil Liberties Union on the premise that his First Amendment right of free speech was infringed. While the company has called him three times and offered to re-hire him if he'd take down the flag, Sims feels he made the right decision. This is a real world example of a situation in which the employer (Morgan County's Turner Industries) utilized the Employment-at-Will doctrine in firing Phillip Sims given that his actions were not among those in which employees are exempted in Alabama's Employment-at-Will policy.

In conclusion, the Employment-at-Will doctrine is an employment policy that has been used for a long period of time to govern work relationships across the United States. This doctrine provides freedoms for employers to terminate their employees and employees to quit their job at free will though there are some exceptions to this doctrine. The doctrine is utilized when deciding appropriate action in several issues that emerge in the workplace.…