Employment in IT sphere - Essay Example

Final Exam Case Study Final Exam Case Study Given the reality the Eich had been with the Mozilla Corporation for nearly a decade, coupled with the fact that the company had been experience enormous growth during his tenure, it would be fair to say that Mozilla will be impacted by his departure. As the Internet is a constantly evolving entity, consumers will be impacted as well as there would be a perceived drop off in technological innovation for Firefox as they strive to replace a figurehead that had poured so much into the company. Ultimately, if other businesses were to follow suit and force out their CEOs, or other executives, for their public support of campaign initiatives, the fabric of individual expression could be threatened. The issue would become at which point the line is divided between one’s own professional and public life. In the case of Mozilla, they lost a capable and qualified executive the effectively helped transform the company into what it is today. Were this behavior to continue for similar and like minded companies, such professionals would begin to think twice before speaking out on issues of importance to them, which in the end cannot be good for society as a whole. In most localities of the United States, employment is considered to be ‘at-will’, meaning that an employer is free to terminate the services of any employee at any time and for any reason, except for those specifically prohibited by law. Employers are free to terminate employment, as just stated, without the risk of incurring any legal liability for doing so (Roehling, 2014). Similarly, the employment at-will doctrine means that an employee is free to leave their job at any time, for any reason, should they choose to do so. In addition, the at-will doctrine goes a step further and allows an employer to change the terms of an existing employment relationship at any time, without any overt consequences being levied against the employer. Simply put, Mozilla is perfectly justified, given the parameters of the at-will doctrine, to force Eich out of his position, especially given the reality that Eich chose to resign in the end. Mozilla decided that they did not want any of their executives to speak out against controversial issues, such as Proposition 8, most likely due to the bad press that it might create. Whether or not the company had made this desire known to Eich before he made the campaign contribution is irrelevant, because they are free to alter the terms of any implied agreement with employees at any time. To overcome various parameters of the at-will doctrine, various professions have instituted an employment contract that will contain certain provisions regulating the eventual termination of employment. Likewise, such contract can also inhibit employees for leaving under certain conditions without incurring some type of financial or legal consequence. Most commonly, if an employee is found to be in violation of the employment contract, they are entitled to due process. This is similar to a court of law, where the accused is permitted the opportunity to justify his or her actions and prove that the termination should not be valid according to the terms of the contract (Smith 2013). In this particular case, more information is needed before sound determination can be made about the firing, but unless Eich’s contract specifically allows him to be publicly active in political campaigns, then Mozilla can make the claim that his actions have harmed the reputation of the company, thereby leading to his forced resignation. In this case, however, Eich should still have been afforded due process to defend his actions. It appears that he did this, to a small extent, by explaining the basis for this campaign contribution and the fact that his personal convocation against gay marriage in no way hampers his commitment to ensuring that the workplace is free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Even with this statement, however, Mozilla felt that their reputation suffered in the eyes of the public to warrant their asking Eich to leave. In considering the efficacy of the at-will doctrine in this particular case, it is helpful to adopt a utilitarian approach. Developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Mill back in the 19th century as a way to help legislators ascertain the laws that were morally best for society, this approach can enable one to postulate whether the Board of Mozilla made the ethical decision in forcing Eich out based on his own personal political convictions. The utilitarian approach asks us to approach each decision such as this one from the perspective of choosing the action which provided the best balance between good and evil (Levine, 2014). For that to occur, Mozilla must determine if it is better to appease the part of the public who is outraged by the campaign contribution to the Proposition 8 ‘yes’ campaign, or if it would be better to side with the right of the employee to exercise his right to a personal opinion in matters such as this one. The alternative in this case is that Eich could have been forewarned that such political contributions would be grounds for termination. The consequences of terminating him should also be considered, as the controversy surrounding his forced resignation likely generated more negative publicity in the long run than the short term attention that was drawn to the revelation of his campaign contribution in the first place. Considering this fact, the utilitarian theory would have likely led to the conclusion that Eich should have been allowed to remain with the company, particularly as he had already issued a statement supporting the rights of gays and lesbians to work openly. This would have been the lesser of two evils. As opposed to the utilitarian approach, a deontological analysis of this situation, as espoused by Kant, has us focusing on the intent of the action. In this situation, Eich never meant to imply that his support for Proposition 8 in any way implied Mozilla’s support for the same. In fact, he never attached his role as CEO with the campaign contribution, it only came out after the fact one a watchdog group caught wind of it. Because of this, one could easily make the claim that Eich was morally justified in his actions, both personally and professionally, and that the at-will employment doctrine failed in this case. There is simply little justification for the forced resignation in this case, as both a utilitarian and deontological ethical analysis of the situation would lead to the likely conclusion that Mozilla made much more out of this situation than was necessary, and that their actions in the end were egregious. After careful consideration, I would have to say that I agree with the employment at-will doctrine. In the end, companies should be free to move in a different direction than any given employee is headed, as long as that decision is not based on discrimination or prejudice. While we might not always agree with the decisions made by a company, it is, in the end, their decision to make. In the case of Eich, while I do not necessarily agree with the decision that was made, Mozilla felt it was in their best interest to force his resignation based upon the negative backlash they were receiving in the open source community. This even got to the point of a major website barring users from using the Firefox browser until such action was taken against Eich. In the end, I would have like to have seen the company employ a more utilitarian approach to making this decision. Had they done so, I think that they would have seen there would have been more good coming out of allowing Eich to remain with the company than asking him to leave. This would have been the ethically prudent course to take, in my opinion. References Levine, M. (2014). The erosion of the employment at will doctrine: Recent developments. Labor Law Journal, 45(2), 79. Roehling, M. (2014). Organizationally sensible vs. legal-centric responses to the eroding employment at-will doctrine. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 16(2), 89-103. Smith, R. (2013). Exceptions to the employment at will doctrine. Labor Law Journal, 36(12), 875. Read More