Communicating Effectively - Employment at Will - Essay Example

Effective communication Introduction Just as the suggests, the employment-at-will doctrine is a rule of common law in the United States that gives employers the right to terminate a contract with their employees at will. The rule explains that either the employer or the employee can terminate the contract especially on employments with indefinite durations. The doctrine provides effective mechanisms for either the employee or the employer to terminate their relationship as a way of resolving disputes. The doctrine provides both parties with a degree of freedom, one that either party is always likely to misuse. The prevalence of the doctrine in the country led to an increase in employment feuds owing to the shortfalls it presented. On the contrary, the doctrine also expedited the process of terminating contracts between employers and employees thus minimizing the duration both spend together especially in relationships that strain either party. This implies that the doctrine has a number of advantages and disadvantages to either party depending on the prevailing circumstances as the discussion below portrays. Key among the advantages of the employment and will doctrine is the fact that it enhances the process of resolving contract breaches. Contracts are legal agreements that bind both parties to specific terms and responsibilities. A breach refers to the inability of one party to remain faithful to the terms of the contract thereby causing either financial loses or inconveniences to the other party. Resolving contract breaches is always a detailed process characterized by hectic court cases. The employment at will doctrine, on the other hand, provides an aggrieved party the freedom to evaluate the nature of the breach and to terminate the agreement. Such terminations of agreement are easy and timely thus preventing any further inconveniences. Additionally, the employment at will doctrine provides the employers with the freedom to hire and fire employees at their peril. Such is a vital provision that employers use to enhance the profitability in their companies. The freedom to fire employees at will is among the most prudent ways of dealing with difficult employees. As such, the employer can fire an employee owing to his attitude and productivity. As such, the rest of the employees strive to enhance their productivity in order to earn the favor of the employer. This way, employers enhance the profitability of their ventures. The doctrine provides employees with a degree of flexibility in their places of work (Ford, Kerry and Richard 102). An employee can easily terminate his employment with a company in order to seek employment in another firm provided it offers them better remuneration and working conditions. Flexibility is among the most effective tools that employers use to curb cases of mistreatment and poor working conditions. The employment at will doctrine is, therefore, advantageous to employees who can readily terminate an employment and seek reemployment in better companies. Besides the above advantages, employment at will has a number of disadvantages to both the employers and the employees as well. Key among the disadvantages of the doctrine to employers is the fact that they operate in uncertainty of losing some of their best employees at any time. As explained earlier, a disgruntled employee can leave a company by terminating his employment at will in order to seek better working conditions elsewhere. The uncertainty makes planning future operations of a company difficult thereby limiting the company’s efficiency and profitability (Pollin 72). Additionally, the employment at will doctrine can always cause financial loses to an employer. The process of laying off an employee and recruiting a replacement is always expensive. An employer can, therefore, lose substantial profit should several employees quit their jobs owing to the flexibility they enjoy. Most of the disadvantages of the doctrine are on the employees. Employers can easily use the doctrine to exploit their employees. An employer can threaten and blackmail his employees to either work hard or face the termination of their employments. Such possibilities are forms of exploitation that make the employees vulnerable to the interests of the employer. According to the doctrine, employees operate in uncertain environments where their job security relies on the feelings of the employer. This makes it impossible for the employees to plan for their futures and save accordingly, a feature that lowers the quality of life for the employees. Job security remains a fundamental factor that every employee considers. With job security, employees can plan their lives and advance their careers appropriately. A job should always offer the employees effective social security. This requires the formation of effective employment contracts that stipulate the duration of the employment and its inherent benefits, which should always include a form of social security. Employment at will discourages the creation of such contracts since both the employer and employee are free to terminate the contract at their own peril (Cihon and Castagnera, 67). As such, the employer fails to make any long-term legal commitments to safeguard the future of the employees. Most employers, who employ the employment at, will doctrine limit the employment to the casual basis thereby permitting the employer to leave the job at any time that conveniences them. The above discussion proves that the employment-at-will doctrine is a retrogressive rule of the common law that gives rise to myriad of risks to both the employers and the employees. The government should, therefore, discourage the doctrine and encourage the formation of formidable employment contracts that secures the interests of both the employers and the employees. Employment is always the core of any economy. Social security of the old in a country relies on the employment laws in the country. Employment at will is one law that discourages the creation of strong economies with socially secure societies especially for the old. The doctrine creates an uncertain environment especially for the employees. The employment law discourages the creation of reliable employment contracts that encourage the growth and development of an employee in a particular profession. Competitive remuneration, competitive work environment, and social security are among the basic factors that enhance the productivity of an employee (Bruce and James, 44). Employees create unions to help present their interests. They create unions and take loans from various financial institutions in their attempt to safeguard their social security. The unions help the employees demand better pay and better working conditions thereby boosting the quality of their lifestyles. Employment laws in every country protect the freedom of the employees to join unions and to take industrial actions against their employers in case they feel the terms are undesirable. In such cases, the employers engage their employees in debates for better pay and better working conditions. This provides a better way of resolving conflicts between employers and employees thus improving the productivity of employees and profitability of companies. The employment at will doctrine, on the other hand, discourages the creation of unions owing to the uncertainty that surrounds the employment. Furthermore, the job insecurity makes it impossible for an employee to seek financial services from any financial institution in a country. In retrospect, employment at will is a retrogressive rule of the common law that discourages the development of both economies and personal skills. The uncertainty, it provides to both the employers and the employees, is key among its disadvantages. While the doctrine provides effective ways of resolving contract breaches, it discourages the development of careers and secure futures to the employees. The employees have the freedom to quit their jobs at any time. The employer also can terminate the employment at any time. This creates an aura of mistrust between the two thereby discouraging productivity of the employee. It discourages the attempts of the employees to secure their futures since they cannot demand better pay. Additionally, the lack of job security implies that the employees cannot use their employment as securities for loans and mortgages among other financial services from banks. Works cited Bruce, Anne, and James S. Pepitone. Motivating Employees. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999. Internet resource. Cihon, Patrick J. and Castagnera, James Ottavio. Employment and Labor Law. South-Western Pub, 2008. Print. Ford, Karen E, Kerry E. Notestine, and Richard N. Hill. Fundamentals of Employment Law. Chicago, Ill: Tort and Insurance Practice, American Bar Association, 2000. Print. Pollin, Robert. Back to Full Employment. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2012. Print. Read More