Question 1
At will employment is an American law which allows the termination of the employer-employee relationship without any liability thereafter. It should be protected because of various reasons. It gives the employee is freedom to strike, quite or cease working at any time without following any procedures. This makes the life of the employee very interesting in the work place for they are free to act according to their will. The employee is protected against being forced to act contrary to public policy. Employer cannot sue the employee for refusing to do what they consider to be immoral. The employee is also free to take a family leave when they need. This grants the employee an opportunity to cater family issues when they arise. Employment at will should therefore be protected for it enhances a smooth life of the employee in the workplace.
Question 2
The main purpose of Sarbanes-Oxley is to protect employees from being discriminated if the information they provide regards a fraud act by a public company. The employee is free to file, testify, or participate in proceedings that are yet to be filed or have already to be filled against a fraud by a public company. The whistleblower is free to provide information in regard to general fraud, fraud related to securities and any fraud related to shareholders. However, the information provided must be reliable. The law can be made more effective by diversifying it to protect even oversees employees who may disclose information regarding home corporate. This will improve transparency, efficiency and accountability of public companies and also concretize the public’s faith in corporations hence more will participate in the stock market.
Question 3
The effective balance that should be set in place between unfettered free speech and the duty of public employees is by ensuring the government is working transparently. There should be no penalty or any effective punishment to the employees who engages in free speech. The whistleblowers should not be deterred in order to ensure that the rights of the employees are protected (Hollingsworth, 2000). Public employees should be given a chance to speak out about the inefficiency in the labor market in terms of government abuse, fraud or waste. This will ensure that the whistleblowers do not risk the potential job opportunities whenever they conduct unfettered free speech.
An example of balanced unfettered speech and duties of employees include a case of Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Pickering was in a position to speak out about the inefficiency of his school where he teaches through writing to the local newspaper. The court balanced Pickering interest with those of the school administering by favoring Pickering argument since it touched the public concern.
Question 4
Recommendations for encouraging employees to report ethically questionable corporate practices involve warning the employees to avoid the ethical questionable conditions. The employees should bring their ethical question to their supervisors so that they can help them out. There should also be established clear consequences of unethical behaviors to the employees. This may also involve threatening the employees with effective and reliable disciplinary action. (Norman-Eady, & Connecticut, 2001)There should be a training mechanism in the labor market to teach the employees on the measures to take when they encounter behaviors that might questionable. The employees should know how to react in cases when the unethical situations arise.
References
Hollingsworth, P. J. (2000). Unfettered expression: Freedom in American intellectual life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Media, B. P. P. L. (2012). Employement Law Explained: Employement Law. London: BPP Learning Media.
Norman-Eady, S., & Connecticut (2001). False Claims Act. Hartford: Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research
United States. (2002). Sarbanes-Oxley Act in perspective. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson West.
