Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics in the workplace
ethical dilemma in the workplace abstract'
Ethics in the workplace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics in the workplace
In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts, however, it is becoming ever more apparent that employment at will contracts reflect the old corporate maxim where the single bottom line, profit, is accented and the well being of other stakeholders, in this case the employee, are of little or no influence. Due process should be accepted as the prevalent employment system as it shelters employees from the hostile actions of the more powerful employer, provides a stable, bilateral contract between both parties and portrays the growing ethical concerns of society.
The process of carefully looking at every decision and the repercussions of that decision is simply good business practice. Every company audits its decisions to make sure its what is right for the company. Firing practices should be no different. To draw some arbitrary line at this point to allow for firing an employee without cause is unethical and egregious business conduct. Due process is simply a sound way of carrying out the practice of removing an employee from the services of a c...
... middle of paper ...
... for unproductive works to remain in their positions is inaccurate and the same rules of work apply to individuals in both at will and due process contracts.
The two other main reason given by Epstein in his paper supporting employment at will contracts is morally impermissible. He argues that the administrative costs of employment at will are cheap. In other words, being able to fire anyone at anytime without the political process behind it is simply cheaper than treating employees with respect and dignity. In saying that administration costs for due process are too big of a burden shows simply that employment at will contracts treat employees as property to add and remove as the employer pleases. This idea can be dismissed based on ethical grounds alone and in todays business environment is not conducive to the cohesive units that many employers hope to become.
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement. The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises.
In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of ambiguous language that could allow them to get sued or sue. Consequently, a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits followed this one, which is why it is now important for employers to draft their manuals with experienced legal staff. Even with the best legal team and the perfect wording there is still no definite assurance that an employer will be completely protected from such lawsuits, but taking these preventive measures helps in the long run.
There was evidence shown that the unfair dismissal requirements were the furthermost conflicting and inconsistent from the manager’s perspective. The Fair Work Act applied unfair dismissal requirements for entirely workers, regardless of the population of workers in the business (Chapman, 2015). The Fair Work Act presents two cases that dismissal could be reasonable, including other dismissal and summary dismissal. In the first case, the law offers a sequence of stages such as concluded checklist, copies of notice, declaration of dismissal and a witness announcement with signature that managers must follow with the intention to reduce the problem (Chapman, 2015). In the second case, managers may dismiss a worker without notice due to theft or fraud. As the consequence, the amount of cases in relation to unfair dismissal has risen significantly since the Fair Work Act implemented as law. In addition to the growing records of cases in relation to unfair dismissal, the judgements from Fair Work Australia showed some contradicting clarifications of the Fair Work Act (Chapman, 2015). According to an example, a business in Albury- Wodonga had dismissed an employee due to the breach of occupational and safety laws after an employee continually denied to wear safety glasses at work (Sloan, 2011). However, after checking the worker’s reinstatement, the Fair Work Australia stated that the worker had a family and he has found it challenging to
Management is on the side of the employers, since many of those positions are unable to in the union
...gree and believe that they could get real results if everyone would consistently apply the company’s principles. I have learned personally in the business world consistency means a lot, all employees should have the same consequences. By letting go employees, managers and executives shows that the rules apply to all levels. It will cause everyone involved to have more respect for the company even if they don’t agree with the decision.
There is a low commitment from top management regarding employment equity, which results sometimes only in lip service from said management about the need thereof but in reality nothing happens.
Mortimer, M., 2006. Employment Law and Labor Law. Employlaw.com retrieved December 11, 2008 from: http://www.employlaw.com/hoffa.htm
Employment at will is a law that is present in all fifty states in the US; although, in Montana there requires a stated cause for termination. Employment at will creates dissent among employees when they have been terminated for a cause that is thought to be unsubstantial or when no cause is given. There are pros and cons to the presumption, and employees and employers have different views. Employment at will means that the employer can terminate an employee at any time, for any cause without warning. However, even an at-will employee cannot be terminated because of discriminatory reasons. Employment at will also means that an employee can leave a job at any time without the fear of facing any legal consequences. An employer can also change the terms of employment without notice and no penalties. Throughout this paper, the two sides to employment at will will be discussed, and different examples of employment at will cases will be given. At its most basic, employment at will is not the best path because it can create feelings of violation and betrayal in the employee and can create a negative public opinion or loss of profit for the business.
... it is rare for the EAT to order re-employment despite the dismissal was unfair, including, that an employer may be deterred from being flexible through the cost of such payments, especially in regard to multiple employees, outlines that the balance between both the needs and desires respectively are not as fair as they seem. Furthermore, the employers need to follow strict practices and statutory provisions can make it costly for employers to dismiss employees and, as such, improve employees’ job security, yet, this can be argued to reduce an employers need for flexibility as it becomes difficult to make an employee redundancy and respond to change, yet, it can be argued, in situations where 20 or more employees are at risk, the consultation procedure is aimed at mitigating job cuts as thus helps narrow the gap for the statutory provisions to provide a fair balance.
Traditional literature in the field of labor relations has focused immensely on its benefit towards the employer and in the process equating it to working rules. This has been so despite the field being expected to cover the process of, labor management, union formation, and collective bargain; all which are anticipated to create a positive employer-employee relationship. This relationship is said to be positive if there exist a balance between employment functions and the rights of the laborer. Also important to note, is that this relation is equally important to the public sector as it is to the private one. Therefore, to ensure a mutually conducive labor environment exists, effective labor management process and inclusive negotiation program should be adopted (Mulve 2006; Walton, 2008).
The theory holds work to be governed by a wide range of formal and informal rules and regulations, which cover everything from recruitment, holidays, performance, wages, hours, and a myriad of other details of employment. It asserts that these rules are what industrial actors try to determine, that their establishment is influenced by the wider environmental context in which the actors operate, and that the actors themselves share an interest in maintaining the processes of negotiation and conflict resolution. On the back of these assertions four elements are held to make up the system of industrial relations rule-making. The first is industrial actors, which consists of employers and their representatives (i.e., employer associations), employees and their representatives (i.e., trade unions), and external agencies with an interest in industrial relations (i.e., government departments and labour courts). The second is the environmental context, which
Part 2 of Employer Duties and Rights- management rights, subcontracting, just-cause discipline and discharge, and safety standards.
The doctrine of employment at-will provides that employers may hire, transfer, promote, or terminate employees at any time for any cause, and employees have the right to resign at any time with or without notice (Reed & Bogardus, 2012)....
How difficult (or easy) is it for an employer to prevent an employee working for others (or themselves), both during the employment and after it has ended? Refer to relevant cases and legislation.