The concept of the employee-at-will doctrine is rather basic. According to the traditional definition, the phenomenon in question means that “the employer to terminate the employment or the employee may leave the employment at any time for no reason” (South Carolina employment at will law, n. d., p. 2). There is no need to stress the fact that the very concept of employment at will has raised quite a few eyebrows once introduced into the system of employer–staff relationships. By definition, the person employed at will can be dismissed from their job at any moment with no legal repercussions for the employer whatsoever (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012).
The second scenario describing the inconsistencies in the company’s financial policy shows rather clearly that Ellen may be fired because of the unethical actions that she took after learning about the incentives injustice. On the one hand, the employee’s claims concerning the lack of regard for the employees’ performance and the emphasis on the accomplishments of the directors are rather justifiable. On the other hand, the fact that she responded with the actions that may jeopardize the company leader’s reputation, not to mention her post portraying herself in an unfavorable light, shows clearly that she may be fired. Whistleblowing, which Ellen’s actions can be defined as, are what modern companies believe to “bring havoc” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p. 47) into organizations and, thus, destroy them from within. Utilitarianism postulates dictate that, for the sake of the company, the employee will have to be fired.
The South Carolina laws will obviously consider the reasoning behind firing Bill from the second scenario not quite legitimate, though. Even though he had clearly violated the code of conduct prescribed by the company’s ethics, has actions are still far from bringing the destructions of the scale that the first scenario presupposed. Despite the fact that the chances that Bill has are rather slim in the specified scenario, the use of the Whistleblower Protection Act can be considered a possibility, as Bill has neither harmed the company’s reputation nor caused any major damage. Naturally, it could be argued that Bill’s refusal to comply with the policy suggested by the organization could not be justified in any other way except his abuse of the resources provided by the organization (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). From a legal standpoint, Bill’s actions did not trigger anything that could be viewed as redeemable, nor were his initial intentions worthy of reconsidering the company’s decision to dismiss him. The basic tenets of Kantian ethics dictate that Bill should not be dismissed.
Eventually, the six scenario needs to be reviewed. In contrast to the cases discussed previously, this one seems evidently in favor of the employee, as Anna had a legitimate reason for being late. More to the point, she did warn the company manager about the consequences and asked them to allow her arriving later than usual. In case the woman decides to point at the fact that her manager forced her to disrupt the working schedule and arriving several hours late, she will be protected by the whistleblowing related legislation of the United States. Moreover, the company leader will have to consider the fact that a manager unable to evaluate an emergency situation properly and taking wrong decisions is much more of a threat to a company than an employee understanding the implications of her actions. Therefore, Anna will presumably retain her position and will not be fired as long as she uses the whistleblowing strategy and reports on the manager. From the Utilitarianism perspective, both sides win in this case.
The South Carolina laws consider the idea of employment at will as bearable (South Carolina employment at will law, n. d.); in other words, the phenomenon in question is acknowledged as a valid method of employment, the rights of the employees being protected in a proper manner. The climate in the South Californian employment sector has been rather satisfactory so far; more to the point, recent statistical data display a major improvement of both employment rates and the overall performance of the organizations after the adoption of the employment-at-will principle.
A recent case study has revealed that the unemployment rates dropped in South California after the law declaring the legitimacy of employment at will had been accepted as legitimate (The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2011, p. 83). The case study has also shown the factors enhancing the proper climate for entrepreneurship development in the state in question; according to the results of the analysis, the galvanizing effect that the specified policy has had on the creation of new jobs serves as a major booster for the state economy in general and the encouragement of private entrepreneurship in particular (The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2011, p. 83).
According to the case study, the key problem that the South Carolina private entrepreneurships have been facing for years concerns the prohibition on setting higher prevailing wages (The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2011, p. 83). The specified characteristic of the South California business sphere, in its turn, shows in a very graphic way that the introduction of the employment-at-will principles is imperative for reducing the restrictions, which the South Californian private business is currently being strangled with. Seeing that “there are no separate minimum wage or overtime requirements beyond the federal standards” (The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2011, p. 83) in South California, it is crucial that the employers should be capable of protecting the rights of all stakeholders involved, and the employment-at-will strategy is a viable approach for securing the success of entrepreneurships.
Therefore, the key issue in the aforementioned scenario concerns the protection of the people that decide to become employees at will. Because of the lack of formal procedures and, therefore, the subsequent lack of evidence required in case of an unfair resolution of a conflict, the necessity for the state to provide employees-at-will with sufficient support emerges. Apart from the South Carolina employment at will law mentioned previously, the existing terms of employment legally accepted in the state must be mentioned, as they promote the security of the employee’s rights and prevent company managers from abusing their power and firing the staff members at will for no discernable reason. According to the current law, “Employers in South Carolina (excepting domestic employees in private homes and employers with fewer than five employees), must notify each employee in writing at the time of hire” (The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2011, p. 83), which seems a very reasonable step in preventing possible power abuse. However, a more rigid policy on securing the rights of at-will staff is still desirable. For instance, an opportunity for the at-will staff members to argue their case and provide the evidence that proves their point should be provided in the South Californian public and private organizations.
Reference List
Halbert , T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law and ethics in the business environment (7th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
South Carolina employment at will law. (n. d). Web.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2011). The impact of state employment policies on job growth: A 50-state review. Web.