Civil liberties are freedoms that protect the public from subjective government interferences. They usually set limits for the government not to abuse its power and interfere with the lives of the public. They are public right or power. Civil liberties are not different from rights per se, as the terms are often used interchangeably. Smith, Jean Edward & Levine, Herbert M. 1988.
There are several civil rights that needs to be protected in workplaces. They include, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and to some extent, workers who live within work premises are denied the liberty to own properties, privacy and right to due process and fair trial. These are the civil liberties workers need to be protected against. Smith, Jean Edward, and Herbert M. Levine 1988.
In work places where these civil liberties are not protected, workers live in fear of insubordination and they are highly de-motivated. De-motivated workers cannot perform to their maximum and hence low productivity. Denial of these civil liberties may lead to strikes and unrest by the workforce. Reginald Wilson, 1988.
Hiring practices should be clear and fair to give an equal chance and a fair competition to all the potential job seekers. Both the interviewers and the interviewees should Cleary understand the requirements of the job and what it entails. It’s only through clean and fair hiring practices, that a company is able to get the best out of the good. The interview should be limited to job-related information. There should be no discriminations against race, colour sex, nationality, age and disabilities except where disability may hinder job performance.
For a company to succeed and compete successfully with its competitors, it must have the best workforce in terms of performance and experience. Companies without fair and clean hiring practices ends up with workforce consisting of low performers and incompetent workers with no desire to achieve. This lowers the quality and quantity of a company’s output. The company starts operating at a loss and eventually closes down. Highstone v. Westin.
A good company develops a strong workforce by motivating its employees. A company that motivates its employees by rewarding hardworking and best performing employees through promotions increases their morale to work harder. Promotion should be fair, clear and on merit. Workers need to be clear of the process through which the management uses in promoting its employees to reduce biasness. Unclear promotions results to divisions among the employees and subsequent loss of morale.
Employment at will is a principle that defines an employment relationship between the employer and the employee in which either the employee or the employer can terminate the relationship with no legal responsibility if there wasn’t any contract bonding the employment relationship. In this doctrine, the employer is free to discharge employees for good or bad cause. The employee is also at liberty to quit, refuse to work or even strike. Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman 1987.
Employment at will in some cases is advantageous to an employee who holds special skills or talents required for a particular job. The employee is able to bargain higher pay or even quit for greener pastures without fear of prosecution.
Employment at will is also sometimes disadvantageous to the employee especially where unlawful discrimination regarding the termination of the employee is involved. This reduces job security, creates an atmosphere of fear that may contribute to workplace bullying. Petermann v. Int’l Bhd 1959.
References
Smith, Jean Edward & Levine, Herbert M., Civil Liberties & Civil Rights Debated, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1988.
Reginald Wilson, Think about Our Rights: Civil Liberties and the United States. 1988. ISBN: 0-8027-6751-6. Page 1.
Smith, Jean Edward, and Herbert M. Levine. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Debated. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988.
Highstone v. Westin, At-Will Relationship Must Be Clear to Your Employees (Engineering, Inc., No. 98-1548 (8/9/99)).
Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, Cases and Materials on Employment Law (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.
Petermann v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers of Am., Local 396, 174 Cal. App. 2d 184, 344 P.2d 25 (1959).
Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman “The First Decade of Judicial Interpretation of the Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA)”, 57 Mont. L. Rev. 375, 376 (1996).