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....
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now