Chief Operating Officer: Employment-At-Will Contract Law
Chief Operating Officer: Employment-At-Will
LAW, ETHICS, & CORP. GOVERANCE
11/4/2013
First and foremost I would just like to say thank you for the promotion to Chief Operating Officer; I have really been looking forward to this day, and I will continue to do my best to successfully build this prestigious corporation! Subsequent to me celebrating my promotion, quite a few things have been brought to my attention. We have several issues that need to be handled, immediately. In regards to the developing issues, I have taken the liberty of researching resolutions to these problems, which brought me to the employment-at-will doctrine.
Traditionally, United States employers have obtained the right to let go, fire, get …show more content…
rid of their employees at will for any reason, whether the reason or reasons are good and/or bad. The at-will “category” includes all employees who are not protected by verbal or implied employment contracts that state that they may be fired only for good cause. “Good cause requirements are generally a part of collective bargaining agreements negotiated by employee unions; nonunion workers rarely have this form of protection.” The employment-at-will doctrine also does not apply to contracts for a specified term, such as an employment contract that considers the employee providing service for a specific number of years or an allotted amount of time in general.
The United States is the only major industrial power that maintains a general employment-at-will rule. Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Sweden all have statutory provisions that require employers to show good cause before discharging employees. A “perk” to the employment-at-will doctrine, for the employee in the U.S., can be the fact that the employee can discharge him or herself for any reason she or he sees fit as well. If an employee feels that this company is not right for their personal “career move” he or she can choose to leave; an employee may also choose to leave simply because he or she may not like the individuals they will soon be working amongst.
America’s employment-at-will approach (as stated previously) means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason that is not deemed illegal, and employees have the freedom to leave a job for any reason at any time without a legal consequence. With Europe’s view of employment as property right, both employer and employee are required to provide documentation for the terms and conditions of the position at hand. In comparison to America’s labor laws, employees have a choice whether or not they want to leave their place of employment. They also have the free will to work without suffering a legal consequence.
In contrast to their American counter-parts, European law requires employers to inform employees the details of their position in a written document. Any changes being made to wages, locations, etc. must also be specified in a written documentation. Employees are protected from unlawful actions of their employer and employers are protected from lawsuit. We, as in the United States should really consider implementing some of these practices in our employment-at-will doctrine. I would build lasting relationships with employees and make them happy to show up at work for us daily; if they are healthy and happy so is our organization.
However, the U. S. is not subject to adopt new laws reflecting the right to work; because they have yet to fully protect employees already in position (SOX Act). They are comfortable with staying as far away from the legal system as much as possible to avoid the hassles of legal dispositions. “Higher powers” are content with having the control to maneuver around the legal system if necessary to protect themselves and the name of their companies as well.
After researching, let’s take a look at my first issue. John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer. I could not legally fire John, and I really would not want to take it to that level just yet. I would sit down with John and have a conversation as to why he should not jeopardize our business in that way; our customers, especially our important ones are what keep our company in business. Another problem, Jim sent an email to other salespeople protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting everyone boycott the next sales meeting. With lack of information as to when Jim sent theses emails, during work hours and/or via the company’s equipment it is hard to say if I should let Jim go just yet. I can sit him down also and have a very serious talk to see about resolving the issues at hand. Also Jim could be protected under one of the exceptions to the at-will doctrine. If he is a part of a union, it would be more difficult to fire him (if that what I wanted to do to begin with), after all, he did specifically mention “boycott” in the emails. I would apply Utilitarianism theory.
Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus, noting that no one below director has gotten a raise in two years and portraying her bosses “know-nothings” and “out-of-touch”. Ellen will definitely be fired; she is entitled to her opinion, but the things she is implying about not only her bosses but my bosses and co-workers as well can be considered defamation of character and she has violated her freedom of speech rights. Another employee, Bill, has been using his company-issued Blackberry to run his own business on the side. Bill strictly signed a contract agreeing to only conduct our company’s business with his COMPANY issued equipment. He is in violation of that contract and not to mention running up his BlackBerry bill on our tab; Bill will be terminated as well. I would incorporate the Casuist theory.
The secretaries in the accounting department decided to dress in black-and-white stripes to protest a memo announcing that the company has installed keylogger software on all company computers. I would not want to initially just fire the secretaries, although I could give them a warning if they are in violation of dress code for this “protest”. I would discuss the issues with them and see what we can do to make the work environment a better place. After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email (sent from his personal email account on a company computer), Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy. Joe would be let go. Not only did he write a personal email to a customer to criticize him or her; he did it from the company’s computers at work. Of course we would find out about it, once he logged on to the company’s equipment nothing he accessed was considered “private”. We are able to access any site, document, application, etc. that any of our employees access via our computers, tablets, cell phones, and anything else. Joe was well aware of this, and we have his signature to prove that he agreed to the terms. Casuist theory would be applied.
One of the department supervisors requests your approval to fire his secretary for insubordination.
Since the secretary has always received glowing reviews. In actuality, she refused to prepare false expense reports for her boss. No my issue is no longer with the secretary but with the department supervisor. I can think the secretary for bringing this to my attention, and figure out a way she can be compensated for saving our company in the long run and not threatening to sue us for the department supervisor’s ridiculous actions. If these accusations are true the department supervisor will be terminated no if ands or buts. Deontology and Care ethics theory would be used in this scenario.
Anna’s boss refused to sign her leave request for jury duty and now wants to fire her for being absent without permission. The boss’s request will definitely be denied, and he or she will be penalized. We are required to attend jury duty by law, and Anna’s boss is not above the government. Anna’s boss wanting to fire her for that is very unethical and penalization will definitely me a firm one; because that is completely unacceptable. Deontology theory and consequentialism would be …show more content…
applied.
As I was researching out employment-at-will doctrine, I noticed we do not have a whistleblower policy. I think it would be in the best interest of the company to implement that policy. Not only will it help us to eliminate “bad apples” in our corporation, but the policy will also give employees who do decide to come forth peace of mind and comfort. If there is no policy there to protect them, how do we expected them to want to protect us?
Our whistleblower policy should not be limited to but must contain these three components.
Number one, we must acknowledge the Whistleblower Policy responsibility. Let it be known what the policy was established for and how it works. Secondly, we must make clear that there will be no retaliation whatsoever. If someone chooses to retaliate they will be punished from termination of employment to perhaps taken to the courts (legal system). Thirdly, we must outline the procedures and step one must take in the reporting process. Also inform the employees that names will be kept anonymous. We must make it our duty to see that employees who make reports on illegal activity in good faith are protected and
rewarded. References
Sadler, G. Five Ethical Theories: Bare Bones for Business Educators.(2013). Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1702607/Five_Ethical_Theories_Bare_ Bones_for_Business_Educatos
Brown C. Ethical Theories Compared. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/ethical_theories.html Rainbow, C. Ethical Theoris and Principles. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/theories.htm National Council of Nonprofits. Whistleblower Protection Policies. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/resources/resources-topic/boards-governance/whistleblower-protection-policies Muhl, C. Employment at Will. (2001). Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
LAW, ETHICS, & CORP. GOVERANCE
11/4/2013
First and foremost I would just like to say thank you for the promotion to Chief Operating Officer; I have really been looking forward to this day, and I will continue to do my best to successfully build this prestigious corporation! Subsequent to me celebrating my promotion, quite a few things have been brought to my attention. We have several issues that need to be handled, immediately. In regards to the developing issues, I have taken the liberty of researching resolutions to these problems, which brought me to the employment-at-will doctrine.
Traditionally, United States employers have obtained the right to let go, fire, get …show more content…
rid of their employees at will for any reason, whether the reason or reasons are good and/or bad. The at-will “category” includes all employees who are not protected by verbal or implied employment contracts that state that they may be fired only for good cause. “Good cause requirements are generally a part of collective bargaining agreements negotiated by employee unions; nonunion workers rarely have this form of protection.” The employment-at-will doctrine also does not apply to contracts for a specified term, such as an employment contract that considers the employee providing service for a specific number of years or an allotted amount of time in general.
The United States is the only major industrial power that maintains a general employment-at-will rule. Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Sweden all have statutory provisions that require employers to show good cause before discharging employees. A “perk” to the employment-at-will doctrine, for the employee in the U.S., can be the fact that the employee can discharge him or herself for any reason she or he sees fit as well. If an employee feels that this company is not right for their personal “career move” he or she can choose to leave; an employee may also choose to leave simply because he or she may not like the individuals they will soon be working amongst.
America’s employment-at-will approach (as stated previously) means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason that is not deemed illegal, and employees have the freedom to leave a job for any reason at any time without a legal consequence. With Europe’s view of employment as property right, both employer and employee are required to provide documentation for the terms and conditions of the position at hand. In comparison to America’s labor laws, employees have a choice whether or not they want to leave their place of employment. They also have the free will to work without suffering a legal consequence.
In contrast to their American counter-parts, European law requires employers to inform employees the details of their position in a written document. Any changes being made to wages, locations, etc. must also be specified in a written documentation. Employees are protected from unlawful actions of their employer and employers are protected from lawsuit. We, as in the United States should really consider implementing some of these practices in our employment-at-will doctrine. I would build lasting relationships with employees and make them happy to show up at work for us daily; if they are healthy and happy so is our organization.
However, the U. S. is not subject to adopt new laws reflecting the right to work; because they have yet to fully protect employees already in position (SOX Act). They are comfortable with staying as far away from the legal system as much as possible to avoid the hassles of legal dispositions. “Higher powers” are content with having the control to maneuver around the legal system if necessary to protect themselves and the name of their companies as well.
After researching, let’s take a look at my first issue. John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer. I could not legally fire John, and I really would not want to take it to that level just yet. I would sit down with John and have a conversation as to why he should not jeopardize our business in that way; our customers, especially our important ones are what keep our company in business. Another problem, Jim sent an email to other salespeople protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting everyone boycott the next sales meeting. With lack of information as to when Jim sent theses emails, during work hours and/or via the company’s equipment it is hard to say if I should let Jim go just yet. I can sit him down also and have a very serious talk to see about resolving the issues at hand. Also Jim could be protected under one of the exceptions to the at-will doctrine. If he is a part of a union, it would be more difficult to fire him (if that what I wanted to do to begin with), after all, he did specifically mention “boycott” in the emails. I would apply Utilitarianism theory.
Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus, noting that no one below director has gotten a raise in two years and portraying her bosses “know-nothings” and “out-of-touch”. Ellen will definitely be fired; she is entitled to her opinion, but the things she is implying about not only her bosses but my bosses and co-workers as well can be considered defamation of character and she has violated her freedom of speech rights. Another employee, Bill, has been using his company-issued Blackberry to run his own business on the side. Bill strictly signed a contract agreeing to only conduct our company’s business with his COMPANY issued equipment. He is in violation of that contract and not to mention running up his BlackBerry bill on our tab; Bill will be terminated as well. I would incorporate the Casuist theory.
The secretaries in the accounting department decided to dress in black-and-white stripes to protest a memo announcing that the company has installed keylogger software on all company computers. I would not want to initially just fire the secretaries, although I could give them a warning if they are in violation of dress code for this “protest”. I would discuss the issues with them and see what we can do to make the work environment a better place. After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email (sent from his personal email account on a company computer), Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy. Joe would be let go. Not only did he write a personal email to a customer to criticize him or her; he did it from the company’s computers at work. Of course we would find out about it, once he logged on to the company’s equipment nothing he accessed was considered “private”. We are able to access any site, document, application, etc. that any of our employees access via our computers, tablets, cell phones, and anything else. Joe was well aware of this, and we have his signature to prove that he agreed to the terms. Casuist theory would be applied.
One of the department supervisors requests your approval to fire his secretary for insubordination.
Since the secretary has always received glowing reviews. In actuality, she refused to prepare false expense reports for her boss. No my issue is no longer with the secretary but with the department supervisor. I can think the secretary for bringing this to my attention, and figure out a way she can be compensated for saving our company in the long run and not threatening to sue us for the department supervisor’s ridiculous actions. If these accusations are true the department supervisor will be terminated no if ands or buts. Deontology and Care ethics theory would be used in this scenario.
Anna’s boss refused to sign her leave request for jury duty and now wants to fire her for being absent without permission. The boss’s request will definitely be denied, and he or she will be penalized. We are required to attend jury duty by law, and Anna’s boss is not above the government. Anna’s boss wanting to fire her for that is very unethical and penalization will definitely me a firm one; because that is completely unacceptable. Deontology theory and consequentialism would be …show more content…
applied.
As I was researching out employment-at-will doctrine, I noticed we do not have a whistleblower policy. I think it would be in the best interest of the company to implement that policy. Not only will it help us to eliminate “bad apples” in our corporation, but the policy will also give employees who do decide to come forth peace of mind and comfort. If there is no policy there to protect them, how do we expected them to want to protect us?
Our whistleblower policy should not be limited to but must contain these three components.
Number one, we must acknowledge the Whistleblower Policy responsibility. Let it be known what the policy was established for and how it works. Secondly, we must make clear that there will be no retaliation whatsoever. If someone chooses to retaliate they will be punished from termination of employment to perhaps taken to the courts (legal system). Thirdly, we must outline the procedures and step one must take in the reporting process. Also inform the employees that names will be kept anonymous. We must make it our duty to see that employees who make reports on illegal activity in good faith are protected and
rewarded. References
Sadler, G. Five Ethical Theories: Bare Bones for Business Educators.(2013). Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1702607/Five_Ethical_Theories_Bare_ Bones_for_Business_Educatos
Brown C. Ethical Theories Compared. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/ethical_theories.html Rainbow, C. Ethical Theoris and Principles. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/theories.htm National Council of Nonprofits. Whistleblower Protection Policies. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/resources/resources-topic/boards-governance/whistleblower-protection-policies Muhl, C. Employment at Will. (2001). Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf