bus 311

Should the law allow an employer to fire an employee without a good reason? Conduct research to provide examples to support your position and use your own personal employment experiences when possible. Have you observed situations where an employee was fired? Did the employer give a reason? Do you believe the employer’s actions were legal?

Should the law allow an employer to fire an employee without a good reason?
In my opinion, I think the law should allow employers to fire employees without a good reason.

According to the text, employment at-will means that employers are able to terminate ones employment at any time, for any cause – with or without notice. (Rogers, S. 2012). I think it’s harsh to terminate someone’s employment “just cause” but in actuality, that’s what the law says. On the other hand, if looking at the situation from employers’ point of view, one can clearly see the other side of the story which contradicts itself.

Should the law allow employees from leaving employers without a good reason? I believe most of us in this class would say “yes” especially if the new job offer is better than our current one (i.e., better and more benefits, more money, flexibility and promotion) I think it’s only fair that the law works both ways even though I don’t agree with it.

 
Have you observed situations where an employee was fired? Did the employer give a reason?
Yes, I’ve observed a situation where one of my friends was fired. The company did not offer any explanations about the employment termination. The only thing that was said to him was that company was cutting down and they had to let him go.

Do you believe the employer’s actions were legal?
I would say that the company was in the right track. Companies are here for business, in order words; they’re here to make money. They have objectives, goals and budget. When companies are loosing money, certain steps must be taken in order to regain balance and get back on track. If that means downsize their personnel in order to do. That’s exactly what they would do. A great example of this is my current organization, which is the U.S Marine Corps. Now that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is coming to a close, the military must take steps to fix the personnel problem. Noted, that employees signed a contract with the military which means they cannot be fired unless of misconduct but the military has come up with several systems in downsizing its manpower. Some of the plan includes sixteen year retirement, tighter promotion completion, severe punishment which leads to being denied reenlistment and the standards have gotten stricter than they were.

But the great thing the military does is that they help people get a job on their way out.  The military tries to do their best in helping someone get a job once they get out but a private employer is not responsible for helping its former employee on getting a job.

Reference:

Rogers, S. (2012).

Essentials of Business Law

. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Karen is shopping at Big Mart. She has with her an umbrella which is the same brand Big Mart carries. When a Big Mart employee, Steve, sees her leave with the umbrella without going through the checkout lane, he asks her to come back into the store. Steve says that he thinks Karen is shoplifting the umbrella. Karen tells him that she has had the umbrella for years and shows him marks of wear and tear. Steve apologizes and tells Karen she is free to go. Can Karen successfully sue for false imprisonment or defamation? From what you have learned about the relationship between a principal and an agent, analyze whether Steve or Big Mart could be liable because of Steve’s actions.

Karen is shopping at Big Mart. She has with her an umbrella which is the same brand Big Mart carries. When a Big Mart employee, Steve, sees her leave with the umbrella without going through the checkout lane, he asks her to come back into the store. Steve says that he thinks Karen is shoplifting the umbrella. Karen tells him that she has had the umbrella for years and shows him marks of wear and tear. Steve apologizes and tells Karen she is free to go. Can Karen successfully sue for false imprisonment or defamation?

There was no defamation or false imprisonment that took place here from what we have to go on. She was asked politely to go back with Steve and he had every right as an Agent for Big Mart to ensure that she was not in any way shoplifting. While this may be embarrassing for Karen we all know when we walk into a store that the possibility of them assuming we are taking something that does not belong to us are high when we are walking in with something that store sells.

From what you have learned about the relationship between a principal and an agent, analyze whether Steve or Big Mart could be liable because of Steve’s actions?

If there was the capability for this to become a lawsuit then Big Mart would be the one who could be sued. They were the principal of the situation and Steve merely an agent acting on their behalf to ensure that the store was not being taken from. Even if this is not in the handbook, our book states that there are instances when an agent has to act, within reason, in the principals best interest; it was in their best interest not to have someone shoplifting at their store and so therefore Steve was acting on their behalf (Rogers, 2012).

References

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of Business Law. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.