e. By quitting or staging a work slow down. Employers must treat their employees properly or they will gain a reputation for mistreatment, a notoriety that will likely cause severe damage to their businesses as they will be unable to hire and retain qualified workers. Lastly, by perennially facing the threat of termination if they do not prove themselves worthy of employment, workers actually hone their employment skills. The "arbitrariness" of the relationship raises the emphasis on skill and devotion to duty. In Epstein's example, workers do not commonly hold two or more jobs because most individuals are incapable of properly performing so much work at the same time. Their devotion to one, or at most two, jobs must be recognized and rewarded by their employers who must pay them more, give them greater benefits, and so forth..

In many ways, the argument of public vs. private good is a difficult to impose universally on any employment scheme. Tradition stands on the side of Employment at Will. It is a system that has worked well for a very long time, and appears, on the surface, to satisfy the needs of both employer and employee. However, extreme or unusual circumstances may necessitate government involvement. Workers do have rights as do their employers. Ultimately, the rights of both are those that are enshrined in the laws and customs of the United States. An employer has no more right to exploit a worker than that worker has the right to intrude upon the way that employer conducts her or his business - so long as each side honors its commitments....

The potential for abuse exists most notably where the "usual" conditions" are absent. The company town with one employer, or the factory with uncommonly easy access to excessively cheap labor, might be seen as examples. In either case, the employee is placed at a gross disadvantage to his or her employer. The employee cannot be expected to make "demands" of his or her employer, but rather must accept what is offered or leave the area... If that is possible. Clearly, in some cases, the "At Will" relationship must be altered in the greater interests of the public good.
Works Cited

Epstein, Richard a. "In Defense of the Contract at Will." University of Chicago Law Review 34. 1984.

Werhane, Patricia J. And Radin, Tara J. "Employment at Will and Due Process." Ethical Treatment of Employees, 266. 1995.

Richard a. Epstein, "In Defense of the Contract at Will," University of Chicago Law Review 34, 275, 1984.

Patricia J. Werhane and Tara J. Radin, "Employment at Will and Due Process," Ethical Treatment of Employees, 266, 1995.

Richard a. Epstein, "In Defense of the Contract at Will," University of Chicago Law Review 34, 275, 1984.

Patricia J. Werhane and Tara J. Radin, "Employment at Will and Due Process," Ethical Treatment of Employees, 271, 1995.

Richard a. Epstein, "In Defense of the Contract at Will," University of Chicago Law Review 34, 277-280, 1984.

Richard a. Epstein, "In Defense of the Contract at Will," University of Chicago Law Review 34, 279, 1984.