Employment at Will

Employment at Will: Definitions of Terms
The principle of employment-at-will is one of the major concepts governing labor relations in the United States. Employment-at-will is a doctrine that gives employers the liberty to terminate an employee, or change the terms of an employment contract, at any time without any reason, warning, or explanation. Additionally, the principle also implies that an employee can quit his/her job at any time and for whatever reason. However, in an unstable labor market, or one in which unemployment rates are high, the employer possesses a significant amount of power through the invocation of employment at will. Employment-at-will is a principle that has traditionally been utilized to govern employment relations except in some situations such as in cases where employment contracts, implied contracts, public policy, and good faith and fair dealing exist. Employees rarely if ever have the right to demand greater job security. Therefore, the suitability of this doctrine is questionable from a moral or ethical perspective because it seemingly favors employers over employees. The principle or doctrine of employment-at-will, which is the default arrangement in employment relations, should be abolished and cannot be morally justified since it gives employers more control and power over employment to the detriment of employees.
Confers Too Much Power Onto the Employer
The doctrine of employment-at-will is a common-law rule that has been utilized to govern employment relations with indefinite duration of time. With the exception of labor contracts in the state of Montana, all employment relationships are by default presumed be “at will,” unless the contract specifies otherwise.[footnoteRef:1] Because of this, employers have a far greater degree of control over their relationship with the employee than vice-versa. Based on the at-will principle, employment relations with indefinite period of time can be terminated either by the employer or employee for whatever reason and at any time.[footnoteRef:2] Yet with few exceptions, being fired for no reason harms a worker who is dependent on that job. This is especially true in areas with high rates of unemployment, or when labor supply outweighs labor demands. Similarly, when the labor market is tight and jobs are scarce, loosing one’s job can lead to mental health issues, exacerbating community-level problems like poverty, and contributing to income disparity throughout the nation. When people lose their jobs and struggle to find work, they also lose their “professional identity.”[footnoteRef:3] Therefore, employment-at-will should be an opt-in clause, allowing both the employer and the employee to determine the parameters of their relationship. Because most wage earning employees in blue collar and other non-specialized, non-professionalized positions already lack bargaining power due to the absence or weakness of labor unions, the at-will common law principle should be abolished. [1: National Conference of State Legislatures. “The At-Will Presumption and Exceptions to the Rule.” http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx ] [2: Alison Doyle, “What Does Employment At-Will Mean?” The Balance, February 10, 2018, https://www.thebalance.com/what-does-employment-at-will-mean-2060493] [3: Liz Ryan. “How At-Will Employment Hurts Business.” Forbes. May 1, 2014, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2014/05/01/how-at-will-employment-hurts-business/#6d282d1934d5]
Dishonest
Another reason why employment-at-will is unethical and should be abolished is that it permits too little transparency and too much potential for dishonesty and even corruption. When terminating employment relations, employers and employees are not required to provide any warning, explanation or reasons for doing so. While anti-discrimination laws do prevent employers from citing gender, race, or religion as the means for terminating a contract, “you can get fired for being a Cubs fan, or for preferring Elvis to the Beatles...or being a Republican.”[footnoteRef:4] The arbitrariness of reasons could even cloud over instances in which the employer actually is terminating the person’s contract based on discrimination, but is making an official claim that the reason is due to something else like poor performance or simply downsizing. [4: Liz Ryan. “How At-Will Employment Hurts Business.” Forbes. May 1, 2014, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2014/05/01/how-at-will-employment-hurts-business/#6d282d1934d5]
In fact, under the at-will doctrine, employers can reduce an employee’s wages, change his/her benefits coverage, limit his/her working hours, and even change the employee’s work schedule and job description.[footnoteRef:5] Therefore, the employer can easily pull the plug on the employee or reduce wages that had originally been agreed-upon, which is categorically dishonest and unethical. Many organizations are starting to realize that the at-will principle is actually bad for business, harming the firms as much as the employees they hire. For example, when employees know that their position is dreadfully insecure, they will be less invested in the firm.[footnoteRef:6] Their lack of engagement and commitment to the organization results in potentially poorer worker outputs, reduced employee morale, higher turnover rates, and lower productivity. [5: Alison Doyle, “Exceptions to Employment at Will”, The Balance, September 13, 2017, https://www.thebalance.com/exceptions-to-employment-at-will-2060484] [6: Liz Ryan. “How At-Will Employment Hurts Business.” Forbes. May 1, 2014, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2014/05/01/how-at-will-employment-hurts-business/#6d282d1934d5]
Arguments in Favor of Employment-at-Will
The main argument in favor of employment-at-will is the preservation of human freedoms and liberties. Potentially, workers as well as managers stand to gain from a liberal employment policy that presumes the employee is as free to come and go as the employer is to terminate the contract. Upon closer inspection, though, it is clear that American law already prevents employers from mandating a worker remain on the job: that would be just another type of slavery. Even without the at-will principle, employees would be free to determine their own career paths, opting for a better position elsewhere. If employers are concerned about employees prematurely terminating their contracts, they should instead focus on greater incentives to encourage employee engagement and commitment rather than create an antagonistic relationship between management and employees.
Conclusions
While the at-will doctrine has played a crucial role in promoting good relations between employers and employees, its biased in favor of employers, cannot be morally justified, and should therefore be abolished as the default arrangement in employment relations. This doctrine is ethically wrong since it creates concerns regarding an employee’s job security. Moreover, the at-will doctrine enables corruption and prevents communications transparencies. The principle overwhelmingly favors employers who can terminate an employee and recruit another while placing the employee’s job security at risk. In essence, it does not provide a balance with which an employer can guarantee an employee some level of job security.


Bibliography
Doyle, A. “Exceptions to Employment at Will.” The Balance. September 13, 2017, https://www.thebalance.com/exceptions-to-employment-at-will-2060484
Doyle, A. “What Does Employment At-Will Mean?” The Balance. February 10, 2018, https://www.thebalance.com/what-does-employment-at-will-mean-2060493
National Conference of State Legislatures. “The At-Will Presumption and Exceptions to the Rule.” http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx
Ryan, Liz. “How At-Will Employment Hurts Business.” Forbes. May 1, 2014, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2014/05/01/how-at-will-employment-hurts-business/#6d282d1934d5