Human Service 411 : 1900

In addition, the “At-Will-Employment Law” gives the employer the capacity to unfairly change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences.

Throughout the Twentieth Century, the evolution of workers’ rights in the workplace has drastically evolved. Through the utilization of constitutional freedoms, workers across the nation came together to support the goal of receiving fair treatment from employers when it came to wages, work conditions, and benefits. However, this wasn’t achieved without great sacrifice from the average man as standing up for their rights was a brave act that usually resulted in consequences.

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.

However, the ruling in this case and others like it prove that employers can, in fact, be bound by articles written in an employee handbook when disciplining or discharging an employee. An abysmally written handbook can greatly jeopardize an employer’s right to terminate at will. Trends show that courts are increasingly acknowledging enforceable promises in the past employment practices of firms, in employer handbooks and in oral commitments. In addition to including an at-will disclaimer in employee handbooks, employers should also require employees to sign an acknowledgment confirming that they understand and agree to employment-at-will and that at-will employment can at any time be modified by a written agreement. Personnel manuals should explicitly state that the employer reserves the right to terminate employment at will. All written policies should also be free of any language that could be considered as a guarantee of job security. To be sure that these common pitfalls are avoided employers must retain the service of a labor attorney to draft and air-tight employee manual and acknowledgment

Employers should not treat their employees as a potential criminal. At the end of the book, it said, “Stop treating working people as potential criminals and let them have the right to organize for better wages and working conditions.” (238). When Barbara worked at Key West, Florida, the employer said they heard

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,

"Labor Code section 2922, which provides that an employment relationship of unspecified duration may be terminated at the will of either party, establishes a presumption of at-will employment. This presumption may be overcome by evidence of an implied agreement that the employment would continue indefinitely, pending the occurrence of some event such as the employer 's dissatisfaction with the employee 's services or the existence of a cause for termination. (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 680, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) `[Factors apart from consideration and express terms may be used to ascertain the existence and content of an employment agreement, including the personnel policies or practices of the employer, the employee 's longevity of service, actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment, and the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged. ' [Citation.]" (Soules v. Cadam, Inc. (1991) 2

One of the things everyone looks forward to is having security. However, the job market has not been strong enough to give job security. Since the Market crashed in 2008, there has been an increase in “at will” employees. At will employment means that the company or the firm has the right to terminate your employment at any given time for any reason with or without a legit cause. At will also give employees the flexibility to quit their job as they wish without giving any notice or reason. In “Employment at Will and Due Process” by Patricia A. Wethane and Tara J. Radin expresses their views on “At Will” employment. Radin and Werhane mention several views on ethical treatment of employees, in principle and in practice, against at will employment. In this article they believe it violates certain rights that employees have, it violates the principle of fairness, and there are certain legal objections.

The first issue to learn is the employment relationships are presumed to be “at-will” in all U.S. states except Montana. The U.S. is one of a handful of countries where employment is predominantly at-will. Most countries throughout the world allow employers to dismiss employees only for cause. The training should first define “At-Will”. According to (Pound, 2010),

| |How might managers in an organization use knowledge of employment-at-will and its exceptions | | |

1. What is the legal issue in this case? Linda Dillon appealed her case against her employer, Champion Jogbra, on the grounds of wrongful termination. The company’s progressive policy for disciplinary action was not applied. Therefore, Dillon makes her claim that her at will status was modified according to the employee handbook and practices. Employee’s handbook should be written clearly and reviewed by legal experts (Walsh, 2010). Champion Jogbra countered that Dillon was an at-will employee and she could be terminated at any time. Dillon also, argues against that the

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

Employment at will is a law that is present in all fifty states in the US; although, in Montana there requires a stated cause for termination. Employment at will creates dissent among employees when they have been terminated for a cause that is thought to be unsubstantial or when no cause is given. There are pros and cons to the presumption, and employees and employers have different views. Employment at will means that the employer can terminate an employee at any time, for any cause without warning. However, even an at-will employee cannot be terminated because of discriminatory reasons. Employment at will also means that an employee can leave a job at any time without the fear of facing any legal consequences. An employer can also

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