The American objection to Just Cause is deficient. Supposedly, the American system of private property and freedom of contract rests on fairness and autonomy. This contradicts their practice of contract at will. Just Cause should be practiced on two counts: firstly, it is more ethical -- it would prevent against unfair dismissal; it may be less costly -- it will prevent against costly litigation where employers will be fined post facto for wrongful dismissal. Precisely how Just Cause should be implemented is discussion or another article. I personally agree with McCall. Arbitrate dismissal can result in a situation where the new employer arbitrarily dismisses a dedicated and capable employee based on personal judgment alone. The personal judgment can often be faulty and unethical including instances of age, gender, appearance, and so forth -- any of which can disturb the employer. The employer is legally not allowed to dismiss on these factors, but he can work his way around this doing so in an innocuous manner or framing the case so that it seems as though he is dismissing based on other factors. Moreover, the employee may be too old, poor, helpless, naive, or in other ways incapacitated to take on her powerful employee. He -- and his organization -- intimidates her. It is a case of strong against weak, and the strong often win even if they have to turn to absurd strategies to do so. A case in kind is that of the 68-year-old employee of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage who was fired last week. The justification: in 1963, when a teenager, he plopped a cardboard cutout of a dime in...

Eggers has no other blemishes on his record and is reported to be a fine, hard-working employee but banks are relying on new rules that anyone convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust or money laundering must be fired regardless of the type of crime committed. The result: "Across the country, banks have fired thousands of workers as a result of the new rules" (the Hawk Eye. (Sep. 11, 2012)). And much of this is not only ridiculous, but also wrongful. And ultimately (since they are often dismissing their most dedicated workers) detrimental to corruption and detrimental to country since unethical and foolish.
Epstein writes that the employee is given a chance to find new employment as well as that he is offered severance pay. For many, however, severance pay may not be the solution. They have become attached to their place of work, attached to those whom they work for, attached to their work and may do it regardless of the money. Others too may lack the skills to find other labor aside from which the shock of dismissal alone is unethical and can never be justified.

America, as McCall observes, has historically aligned itself with the 'poor and downtrodden'. It claims a system of democracy. If that were indeed the case, it needs to show that democracy is practiced in all areas and this includes that of job employment too. Otherwise, the public would remain unprotected.

Source

The Hawk Eye. (Sep. 11, 2012) an overreach

http://www.thehawkeye.com/story/Edit-090212