.

Philosophy 162F Lecture 8 Notes Ethical Treatment of Employees Most businesses make use of employees. Employees act on behalf of their employer and thus have specific duties accordingly. These are mostly duties that are outside of ethics directly. However, we usually think that an employee has some ethical duty to honour his or her duties as an employee. Employers have similar responsibilities according to the specific contracts involved in employment. There are many ethical considerations that one could direct at the relationship between employer and employee; we will look at three particular issues: employment at will, privacy and whistleblowing. Employment at will is the doctrine that employers and employees should have the right (unless explicitly contracted away) to end employment at any time, for any cause. Privacy is an issue in employment contracts as the employee acts, at least in some way, on the behalf of the employer. Employees wish to retain privacy in order to retain their autonomy. Employers wish to know as much about their agent as possible in order to retain their autonomy. Whistleblowing occurs when an employee informs the law, a regulatory agency, or the general public of the illegal or immoral actions of his or her employer. This brings into conflict the duties of an employee to his or her employee and his or her other ethical duties. These sorts of issues are important for a Friedmann-type position of the role of the corporation, as Friedmann appeals to honesty and a certain ethical playing field for corporations. Employment at Will In Defense of the Contract at Will, Richard A. Epstein Employment at Will and Due Process, Patricia H. Werhane and Tara J. Radin Arguments in Favour of Employment at Will: (Pg. 268) 1. Proprietary rights of employers 2. Equal defense 3. Voluntary adoption 4. Due rights inefficiency 5. Over regulation Proprietary rights argument: Employers have rights over the money that they spend. In particular, employers have the right not to exchange their money for certain labour. Against the proprietary right argument: Labour, unless it comes from robots, does not come simply as a commodity. Labour comes only through the result of personal interaction. Personal interaction requires a certain degree of respect. Therefore property rights alone cannot generate support for employment at will. Equal defense argument: Employment at will allows employers and employees to terminate the employment contract. According to Epstein, this is a basic freedom that should be preserved as an end in itself. The freedom to end employment grants power to the employee as well as the employer. There is usually a cost to replacing employees. Epstein claims that an employer risks the loss of many employees if the employer is too free in firing employees. Against the equal defense argument: Though the employer risks some losses, there is far more damage likely to attach to an employee who leaves his or her job without cause. The realities of the employment market determine the extent of harm for an employee let go from his or her employment. In an environment of high unemployment, an employee may not be free (or feel free) to make use of employment at will. In some hiring environments, the stigma of being let go from a job will decrease the likelihood of an employee being able to find a new job. The possible effect of the use of employment at will by any party on the reputation of the other party leads to the limitation of the freedom of the other party. Thus the use of employment at will is not justified on the grounds of equal defense for all parties. Voluntary adoption argument: When an employee takes a position, they do so in the full knowledge that they are in the scope of employment at will (unless his or her contract states otherwise). Epstein points out that employees must feel that there is some benefit from the employment contract, thus there seems to be no problem with the idea of employment at will as practiced in general. Against the voluntary adoption argument: Employment agreements generally demand loyalty, trust and respect from the employee. Agreements of this nature are coercive if not reciprocal. Loyalty, respect, and trust require that there be due process in the termination of an employment contract. In a response to the following argument, Werhane and Radin point out that employees do not have the same power as employers when setting the conditions of employment contracts. Thus they do not have the options of determining whether or not to accept contracts with or without a clause on employment at will. Due rights inefficiency argument: Engaging in due process termination opens an employer us to legal and administrative costs. These increased costs reduce the efficiency of the company. This inefficiency will effect all aspects of the corporation, including employee remuneration. Epstein suggests that this reduced efficiency would be taken up as more of a burden on employees rather than on any other aspect of a corporation. Because of this, employment at will is of benefit to employees as well as employers. Against the due rights inefficiency argument: The claim of inefficiency has not been documented by those companies that follow due process. Employees may very well trade higher remuneration for the stability of the protection of due process. This raises the question of what efficiency really is. Epstein claims that employees take their tenuous position into account when planning for the future. He writes, "The at-will contract is an essential part of that planning because it allows both sides to take a wait-and-see attitude to their relationship so their new and more accurate choices can be made on the strength of improved information." (Pg. 280) There is nothing in a demand for due process that prevents employers or employees from terminating their relationship if there is due cause. Indeed, due process requires that employers and employees make decisions about the continuation of employment on the basis of information. Over regulation argument: Individuals and corporations must have their freedom for personal contract respected. Private employers should enjoy freedom from regulation in matters that are not strictly illegal. Enacting due process will open employers up to new regulation by the state. Therefore, enacting due process places an undue burden upon employers. Against the over regulation argument: Due process is a requirement of decision-making where one may have moral impact upon another person. Employment cannot be viewed merely as a private contract, as there is a public need for employment. From the above, we must recognize that there is a role for law to play in ensuring that the public good is protected.   Home.

.