Treating employees with respect and fairness is essential for two reasons. First, it establishes a company's reputation for fairness and impartiality which is carefully scrutinized by individuals both within and outside the organization, and is a vital factor in keeping and attracting desirable employees. The second, but equally important reason is that identifying and safeguarding employee rights reduces the possibility that the company becomes entangled in charges of discrimination, lengthy litigation, and costly settlements. Employee rights fall into categories, one of which is the right to fair treatment by the employer. In this paper, I will defend Werhane and Radin’s argument advocating the removal of EAW.
In the article “Employment at Will, Employee Rights, and Future Directions for Employment” by Tara J. Radin & Patricia H. Werhane, they address the “employment at will” (EAW). This provides for minimal regulation of employment practices. It allows either the employer or the employee to terminate their employment relationship at any time for virtually any reason or for no reason at all (Werhane, Radin 343). They start off by laying out the arguments and critiques against EAW and why it is a downfall in the w
A second set of arguments against EAW stems from fairness concerns, regarding the fairness of employment at will agreements and practices. While this concept appears to be an opportunity for the employer to discharge an employee at any time without any recourse, this is actually one of the greatest myths in the human resource arena. In some states, it can be considered a breach of contract to fire a long-term employee without sufficient cause, under normal economic conditions, even when the implied contract is only a verbal one. ork environment for both the employer and employee. First, he defines the aspect of monitoring behavior. Through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, there are limits to EAW, and the default rule cannot be used as an entitlement to disregard fundamental rights (Werhane, Rabin 345). Because the criticism of the practice is still high, legislatures and courts have created ways to reduce the impact of it by controlling the extent of EAW through limited legislation (Werhane, Radin 344-345). They claim this argument claims three points. Every time we avoid confronting poor performance or behavior, we are diluting the rights and responsibilities we have to build strong employment environments. Matters are different where the employer makes increased demands under a contract at will. Look beyond the bottom line and think about how you are investing in people"tms desire to create worth for themselves and your company. Employees deserve to be treated better than chattel subject to the caprice of management. The employer is free to demand whatever he wants of the employee, who in turn is free to withdraw for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all (Epstein 357).