1
Employment -At–Will Doctrine
Name of Student
Institution affiliation
In each and every organization, there exists the employment at willdoctrine where the behavior of both the employer and the employeegets governed by certain legal rules and regulations. According tothe text, the theory fails to cover a broad perspective of laws thatare usually vital to any organization, for example, it does notinclude the whistleblowers, and this leaves a leeway for employees toengage in activities of whistle blowing and grapevines.
The doctrine does not give clear directives as to how employeesshould use the work equipment, this predisposes them to temptationsof applying gadgets provided by the organization in doing theiractivities that are usually not a part of the job descriptions asprovided by the team. Also, on issues of employees misusing thecompany’s equipment, they abuse their powers and even go ahead andcriticize customers using the business’s computers not knowing thatsurveillance department monitors all machines and equipment that getused within the company ( Riedy & Kim, 2014).
The employment at will doctrine fails to stipulate the variousboundaries that exist within the enterprise where, managers feel thatthey can do whatever they want and make decisions of firing employeeswithout concrete evidence and on mere allegations. The bosses fail toobserve all the stipulations of the doctrine which stresses on therights of employees within any given working setup that is, they failto put into consideration some of the employees demand. It leads tothe violation of the company’s rules by employees and in theprocess, bosses become infuriated to the point of violating thestipulations of this doctrine ( Pozgar & Pozgar, 2013). Theemployees misuse the company’s equipment for personal use, and whenthey get caught, they threaten the company by saying that they mightsue it for penetrating into their privacy whereas the evidence pointsback to them making them guilty.
According to scenario five, it is not legal to fire that employeeinstead the boss is the one on the wrong and should get fired. It isbecause he indulges in corrupt dealings within the organization anddoes not want to get viewed as the culprit, hence involving thesecretary to perform all his dirty works.
The doctrine does not have a provision for firing an employee who istruthful and determined within the organization. The primary actionsthat might get taken in this scenario with an aim of limiting theliability and impact on operations include, the employment of theemployee disciplinary process on the boss so as to try and dojustice.
The ethical theory that suitably supports this decision is that ofStacy Adams, the equity method since it works to prevent incidenceswhere employees might indulge in uncouth activities within theorganization through the provision of equality.
Scenario six is about an employee who asked permission to get sometime off duty but the manager refused to issue her with one, so theemployee decided to skip from going to work, the boss did not giveher any reason for not signing her leave request form. Anna’sactions bring about a dilemma on the employee doctrine as, on onehand, the theory provides for a provision that employees should getleaves but also it stresses the importance of requests by employeesin case they want to go on leaves. The boss refuses to sign her leaveapplication form for no apparent reason, and this makes her abscondfrom coming to work, firing her might be an extreme measure, and I donot think that the doctrine provides a stipulation where an employeemisses coming to work without permission, and she gets fired.
The primary actions that might get employed in this case are theindulgence in a dialogue with both the boss and Anna so as to try anddetermine the cause of the problem that exists between the two ofthem. In this scenario both the employee and the boss are in thewrong, the ethical theory that might best support my decision forindulging in dialogue and resolving the issue at hand is theexpectancy theory by Victor Vroom. It is because, the two culpritsexpected some rewards and they failed to achieve their desiredoutcomes this led to both of them indulging into actions that theythought was best for their course.
In case scenario four, Joe tries to get back to the company bysaying that he might sue it for invading his privacy. He fails toknow that the corporation properties gets governed by the company’slaws and that it has a supreme authority to look into all theactivities that go through within its systems, it does this throughscrutinizing each and every detail. Joe cannot get fired since,legally every employee has a right to withstand trial in a court oflaw provided Joe presents some valid arguments.
Also, he is in the wrong, as an employee of this company, he shouldnot have taken actions into his hands and threatened the customerinstead, he could have reported the matter to the seniors of theorganization for further help. Through this action, detrimentalpenalties might get imposed on him by the company, and if he takesthe matter to court, the might end up being found guilty and chargedaccording to the federal laws. The ethical theory that might getemployed in this case scenario is that of Herzberg’s two factorssince Joe needs to get motivated at his job so as to avoid anyincidences of him getting angry at the customers.
In my state, an example of the employee at wills doctrine gets basedon the forfeiture of a quitting employee`s right to judicial reviewof a restrictive covenant. If that employee agreed voluntarily toreceive post-employment benefits as consideration for the contract,then he or she should comply with the stated rules and regulationsand the employer will go ahead and compensate them as agreed( Schorr,2012). Just in case the employee engages in the withdrawal from oneorganization to another, especially if it is a competitive group tohis previous company, then the employer has no choice but toterminate the compensation process.
The employee might opt to go and report the matter in court so as tofight for his rights, but the restrictive covenant might hinder himor her from obtaining any legal favors since, the employee wronged byindulging in activities that cancel the deal between him or her andhis or her former employer. Post-employment benefits only get grantedto employees upon compliance with the restrictive covenant where heor she gets the rights to preserve their rights if only they shunaway from joining competitors.
Reference
Pozgar, G. D., Pozgar, G. D., & Pozgar, G. D.(2013). Legal and ethical essentials of health administration.Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Riedy, Marian K, Sperduto, & Kim Hoyt. (2014). At-WillFiduciaries? The Anomalies of a “Duty of Loyalty” in theTwenty-First Century. DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -Lincoln.
Schorr, D. (2012). The Colorado Doctrine.doi:10.12987/yale/9780300134476.001.0001
1