Introduction
The doctrine states that occupation is supposed to take an undefined time and can be terminated by both the worker and the employer. The guideline has been applied historically by the courts in the interpretation of employment relationships. The employers and workers have been awarded unequal bargaining power. It causes criticism of the doctrine since the outcomes are seen to be harsh. The unions looked to, are seen as the certified employees’ representatives, thus trying to equalize the bargaining power. Various benefits are associated with the union powers such as job security and bonuses. With the acceptance of the “at will” document, the employers were stopped from terminating the workers, as it would lead to a violation of the public policy of the state which was well established (Cihon, Patrick and Castagnera, James Ottavio, 2008). There are certain states where the worker cannot be terminated. There are other situations when the employees may be too much such as destroying the reputation of the company which might lead to being laid off.
John’s Post
John used his Facebook page to attack the largest customer in the business. According to the doctrine of at-will employment, John can be legally fired. Though the act of being employed is at will, it can be terminated by either the employer or the employees. In this situation, the owner of the business has the right to terminate John from his work. He has already proved that he was a threat to the success of the company. When the most important customer learns that he is being criticized by an employee, he cannot trust the firm anymore and most likely, will withdraw their operations. Losing the most important company means that the business operations are hindered as the client is an essential factor for the success of the business. The employer gave John willingly, and when he does not contribute to the growth of the company, he is no longer useful and can be terminated (Twomey, 2013).
Virtue ethics explains John’s situation since it states that character is the most important factor among all. Doing the right thing is what is required of all people and they have to avoid attributes such as selfishness and jealousy. John might have been jealous of the success of the company, and he knew that losing the best customer would bring the business down. He would have acted ethically, and even if he was unhappy about the customer, he could have discussed it with the management (Ford, Notestine, Hill and American Bar Association, 2000).
At North Carolina the employment-at will doctrine states that paying sick days to the employees is a requirement. It acts as a motivating factor since they feel that the company cares about their welfare even when they are not feeling well. The performance of the workers improves as they feel they are part of the company. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts located in North Carolina is a real world example of a company which offers pay sick benefits to its staff members.
Ellen’s Blog
The blog Ellen started was meant to protest the bonus offered by the CEO since there was no person who was under the director got any raise in a period of two years. She went ahead and stated that her bosses were out-of-touch and knew nothing. Ellen cannot be legally fired in this case. Though she was abusive in her posts on the blog, she was correct; as they were meant to only exposing the acts of the CEO by stating that there were bonuses which were supposed to be given to the workers but they have never received. Only some people who did not receive the bonus, only those below the director; it shows Ellen was exposing the corrupt activities of the company.
At North Carolina, all bonus plans are decided by the management. The real-world example is where the manager of a company decided to ignore the bonus plan and benefit only a few, and the rest workers were angry. A real word example is at Carolina Wood Turning Company. There was a strike as the workers demonstrated for their benefits. The result was that the operations of the company stopped and decreased the profitability of the company. The bonus plan was established in a way that not all people could benefit from it. Not all people were given the benefits, mostly those in the lower ranks, yet they were the ones who worked hardest for the success of the company.
Anna’s Case
After Anna’s boss declined to give her leave, she decided to leave; the boss then decided to fire her since she was absent without permission. The employer, in this case, cannot fire Anna legally. According to the employment-at-will doctrine, the firm is supposed to give the workers their leave as it is a requirement from the guideline document and if they do not sign the leave, they should be responsible for their acts. Anna took the leave document to the boss to sign them, but he refused to sign them. It means the issue was with him and not with Anna. He could not fire her since it was her right to have a leave and permission was only confirmed from the top management.
The primary action I would take to limit this case is to explain to the workers the importance of having their leave documents signed before consent. It is necessary to have the documents stating that the particular person was not in work on that specific date according to the rules and regulations of the company. As the employer, apologizing would be necessary since the mistake is not only with Anna but the business as well as and not signing was done. The theory that would apply in this case would be care ethics. The approach focuses on the ethical attention on relationships being formed. Acting right results in a strong relationship as it shows that one cares for the welfare of the others and not his own only. In the corporation, the employer and the employees need to have a solid relationship based on care, respect and trust so that there can be the satisfaction of personal and business goals. By signing the leave papers, the employer shows that he cared for the welfare of Anna and after she was back, she would dedicate her time to the success of the company (Ford, Notestine, Hill and American Bar Association, 2000).
In my state, there exists the policy of mandatory leave days. A real-world example at Lowe’s Cos. Inc. in North Carolina is a man who had his pregnancy wife who had an emergent case. He had to take care of her, and she asked for leave, and his boss gave him a paid leave for two weeks. He was happy since he would take care of his family and when he was back to the company, he was dedicated and worked even harder.
Conclusion
The employer and the employees are usually guided by different interests. There was a need for a unification of the interests of both, to make sure that all were met with the success of the company. In the beginning, the workers were over the employees most of the time, and they even exploited them by not giving them their benefits and over working them without compensation. The result was falling off most businesses since the employees did not have the motivation to work. After the formation of the employment-at-will guideline, the employers and the employees were given the will to work; they can either decide to stop working or continue. When the employees feel that they are being exploited, they can talk openly about the situation and seek their rights (Cihon, Patrick and Castagnera, James Ottavio, 2008). The employers can also talk to the workers and come to an agreement on operation terms. It is necessary since an understanding relationship is created which ensures achieving the requirements of both the employer and the employees which lead to achieving business goals.
References
Cihon, Patrick J., & Castagnera, James Ottavio. (2008). Employment and Labor Law. South-Western Pub.
Ford, K. E., Notestine, K. E., Hill, R. N., & American Bar Association. (2000). Fundamentals of employment law. Chicago, Ill: Tort and Insurance Practice, American Bar Association.
Twomey, D. P. (2013). Labor & employment law: Text & cases. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
