What should be the extent of rights for employees?

 What should be the extent of rights for employees? 

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employees have a right to not be treated less favorably because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or genetic information, receive equal pay for equal work. Although corporations may gain some challenges due to these regulations, this is also an opportunity to increase their efficiency and production. How? Why? Remember that CSR(corporate social responsibility) benefits entrepreneurs in multiple ways. If we consider the extent of rights for employees as a kind of CSR, it may have many advantages that can apply to any business, regardless of its size includes better brand recognition, positive business reputation, increased sales and customer loyalty, better financial performance, and most importantly, greater ability to attract talent and retain staff which connects directly to the extent of rights for employees. Being a responsible, sustainable business may make it easier to recruit new employees or retain existing ones. Employees may be motivated to stay longer, thus reducing the costs and disruption of recruitment and retraining.

Should an employer be able to terminate an employee at will? 

This question is about balance and freedom. Most employers think they should have the freedom to fire anyone for any reason. However, if we put the laws and the regulations aside, business owners are still liable to take good care of their employees. Why? Because good relationships with employees will make an enterprise even stronger. What Google learned from Goodwill, is that be a good boss and you will attract and keep good workers. Therefore, I reckon that an employer should not terminate an employee at will unless it is necessary. An excellent organization is the result of joint efforts and is also responsible for many families since it provides income. If someone tends to hold it back, it affects and harms those families. So, sometimes it is considered a necessary decision rather than at will. Just like many regulations are for the public good, many people still have to switch their jobs to what they can do best. The environment is changing quickly, changing your skills to adopt it is unavoidable.

What are some potential employer abuses the government should protect employees from?

Most of the abuses that employees could suffer caused by their employers include rejection of a job, being fired or getting your shifts reduced, deny promotion, and not being paid equally. Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces federal laws banning discrimination in the hiring, firing, salaries, and benefits of job applicants and employees in several work circumstances, employees are less willing to report those issues since they are on the higher side of the scale. So, if governments truly want to protect employees from abuses, it is not enough to only set up regulations. For example, I am pretty sure hiring and firing are both can be "reasonably managed", right? We have seen many unfortunate cases. Rather than just make statements and laws, governments must build a reward system to trigger businesses to actively provide a good working environment and continually keep CSR in the heart of their corporate culture.

Reference

Employee rights. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved December 18, 2021, from https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/employee-rights 

What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of contract employment versus at-will employment for an employer and employee?

 What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of contract employment versus at-will employment for an employer and employee? 

It is necessary to understand different types of employment while doing business since employment is one of the essential parts of doing business. In today’s changing workforce, the use of contract employment has become more and more common. Many companies may frequently hire part-time or full-time staff for budgetary concerns or the need for specialized skills. Contract employment refers to hiring a person for a specific job under particular terms for a fixed period of time. The employment contract for a contract employee summarizes the services to be provided, any reporting requirements, confidentiality clauses, payment terms, how intellectual property will be treated, employment terms, and termination clauses. It is typically accompanied by a statement of work that clearly describes what is to be done, how, when and to what quality standards. An employment contract is a legal document which means it is legally enforceable if it is valid. Therefore, employers must ensure they use contracts that have been prepared or reviewed by a lawyer. On the other hand, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal. When an employer engages an employee without a contractual commitment, it is considered employment-at-will, which means the employee can quit anytime, for any reason.

At-Will Employment - The Advantages

For Employers, at-will employment gives companies the flexibility to later adjust their terms and policies rather than bound into a contract. It is also a faster, easier termination process. Firing employees who are under contract with your business typically involves multiple discussions, complicated negotiations, and delays. Hiring at-will is especially helpful in quickly getting rid of employees who are causing serious difficulties. 

For Employees, at-will at-will employment also gives workers the flexibility to switch or change their decisions. However, it offers zero protection to the employees as either party can decide to disengage or change the employment routine, terms, or structure. 

At-Will Employment - The Disadvantages

For employers, at-will employment, employees may unexpectedly quit without notice. Employers will then find themselves scrambling to find their replacement. It is also remarkably difficult to attract top talent since they are likely to choose a more stable job.

For employees, at-will employment involves high uncertainty since there is no contract to protect both of the two parties. And, employers can fire employees due to any lawful reasons. Moreover, if there is an employee who is not able to perform up to the mark then he can be terminated instantly without any reason or cause. Oftentimes, employees may get fired because of an unauthentic reason. 

Contract Employment - The Advantages

For Employers, contract employment is much more stable as both parties are bound in the agreed terms of work such as employees can not move to a better job without completing the contract or void or as agreed on the contract project. Moreover, it is an opportunity to hang onto your best employees. Limit the reasons that an employee can use to leave your company. Also, confidentiality clauses in your contract will prevent employees from disclosing your trade secrets or client lists. Noncompete clause in an employment contract that will prevent former employees from competing with your company for a certain amount of time after their employment ends.

For Employees, the future income is more stable as their employers are bound in the agreed terms of work to pay for their work. Many job seekers get excited that they’ve been hired for a full-time position, until they realize that they hate the job, their employer, or the industry they’re in. By accepting contract employment, employees can try out a sample of jobs and companies to find out what they are good at and where they want to be in the future. 

Contract Employment - The Disadvantages

For employers, sometimes contract employment has some inconsistencies because contracted employees have no solid loyalty to the business and motivation for their job. In addition, if an employee does not turn out how you want, or if the needs of your business change, you will have to renegotiate the employment contract.

For employees in contract employment, they can not move to a better job without completing the contract or void or as agreed on the contract project. So, it is an opportunity cost.

Is it appropriate for governments to interfere with private businesses to prevent discrimination? In what situations do you believe the government should intervene to prevent discrimination? 

Fighting discrimination requires setting standards for both individual and collective behavior, ultimately creating some consequence for violating them. Typically, the governments provide critical pathways to participation in setting such standards, as well as to recourses when they are not met. Without these systems, employees would have to rely on the good intentions of employers within the private sector who are largely unaware of their biases. 

I reckon it is appropriate for governments to interfere with private businesses to prevent discrimination. If the purpose is for the public good and fair, then it is necessary. However, the question is, HOW? It is like a chess game. The rules are set to play fairly to produce a winner. The time for the government to interfere is when some parties break the laws or like the game when one party tries to win it unfairly and breaks the rule. The governments' position is like, "we don't want to limit the ideas of how to win the game, we just trying to ensure everyone's victory is legal and fair.

Why do you think many governments guarantee a right to collective bargaining and the right to strike? Are there appropriate limits that should be placed on these rights?

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states in part, “Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section. Section 13 also concerns the right to strike(The right to strike). Collective bargaining refers to the negotiation process between an employer and a union comprised of workers to create an agreement that will govern the terms and conditions of the workers' employment. The result of collective bargaining procedures is a collective agreement, governed by federal and state statutory laws and administrative agency regulations.

I think if the governments do not guarantee a right to collective bargaining and the right to strike, employers, therefore, do not have the liabilities to conduct ethically and eventually harm the country and the society as a whole. In addition, the right to strike is like the right to freedom. If you are unfairly treated or even tortured, absolutely you have the right not to work for such a flaming company. Most of the time, employees are considered to be the frail side of the bargain with their employers. Therefore, they desire the governments to be with them since providing safety is one of the most important functions of governments.

However, the law not only guarantees the right of employees to strike but also places limitations and qualifications on them. For example, the lawfulness of a strike may depend on the object, or purpose, of the strike, on its timing, or on the conduct of the strikers. A strike in support of a union unfair labor practice, or one that would cause an employer to commit an unfair labor practice, might be a strike for an unlawful object. Moreover, a strike that violates a no-strike provision of a contract is not protected by the law, and the striking employees can be terminated or otherwise disciplined unless the strike is called to protest certain kinds of unfair labor practices committed by the employer. 

CASE IN POINT

Finally, I want to mention the case of Amazon's new CEO. After Jeff Bezos quit his job as the CEO of Amazon, the board plans to award the new CEO, Andy Jassy 61,000 Amazon shares in extra stock, which will pay out over 10 years, the company said in a regulatory filing. The award’s exact value will depend on how the shares are trading when they pay out in future years, encouraging Jassy to grow the company even more than it is today. Jassy’s base salary has been $US175,000, according to the filings. As we can see that it was a good example of contract employment. The prize in shares is also a great example of how to provide an incentive to work harder for both the employees and employers.

Reference

Dastin, J. (2021, July 4). Amazon to grant new CEO more than $US200 million in stock. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved December 17, 2021, from https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/amazon-to-grant-new-ceo-jassy-more-than-us200-million-in-stock-20210705-p586st.html 

The Pros and cons of hiring at-will employees. Business News Daily. (n.d.). Retrieved December 17, 2021, from https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15833-hire-at-will-employees.html 

The right to strike. The Right to Strike | National Labor Relations Board. (n.d.). Retrieved December 17, 2021, from https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes