This paper will focus on the article “Terminating the Employee-Employer Relationship: Ethical and Legal Challenges” by D. Van Bogaert and A. Gross-Schaefer. Before going into what the article is explaining, we must understand what the employee-employer relationship is. This is the link between employers and their employees (International Labour Organization, 2017). The International Labour Organization (2017) also explains that with this employment relationship, that special rights and obligations are created between the employee and the employer. The reality of this employment relationship is the condition that decides how labor law requirements will be addressed to employees (International Labour Organization, 2017). Now, knowing this, we
…show more content…
Main Points First we will start with what the author’s main points were in the article. Van Bogaert and Gross-Schaefer (2005) explain that there is a new idea of termination management that has surfaced from ethical and legal challenges related with the process of terminating the employer-employee relationship (p. 50). Van Bogaert and Gross-Schaefer (2005) go on to explain the alternatives to involuntary termination, the implementations of alternatives strengthen an organization’s ability to avoid, or minimize legal liability (p. 50). But the main points that the authors are trying to observe are the best ways of termination management, and alternative solutions to avoid termination lawsuits (Van Bogaert & Gross-Schaefer, 2005, p. 50). There are numerous alternative solutions that a company may take to avoid lawsuits; it starts with having positive alternatives …show more content…
First, we must understand what the at-will doctrine is. Van Bogaert and Gross-Schaefer (2005) explain that the at-will doctrine offers that either the employee or employer for any reason, or for no reason, may terminate the employee-employer relationship (p. 51). An example of this in use would be the Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield case, which states that a fired employee can sue their employer for emotional distress that is caused by termination (Van Bogaert & Gross-Schaefer, 2005, p. 51). But there are legal expectations that are related to the at-will doctrine, defined by Van Bogaert and Gross-Schaefer (2005) is: constructive discharge, which is the actions and conditions that are so intolerable at the time of resignation that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have resigned (p. 51). Statutory restrictions, where the federal or state anti-discrimination statutes forbid terminations of employees who belong to any protected class (p. 52). Public Policy, this is where an at-will employee cannot be terminated for an unlawful reason that violates public policy (p. 52). Employment contracts, where employment at-will doctrine does not apply to jobs that are cover by contracts, employment contracts can override the doctrine (p. 52). Collective bargaining agreements, this normally prevents at-will terminations, and allows for-cause terminations only,
Main Points First we will start with what the author’s main points were in the article. Van Bogaert and Gross-Schaefer (2005) explain that there is a new idea of termination management that has surfaced from ethical and legal challenges related with the process of terminating the employer-employee relationship (p. 50). Van Bogaert and Gross-Schaefer (2005) go on to explain the alternatives to involuntary termination, the implementations of alternatives strengthen an organization’s ability to avoid, or minimize legal liability (p. 50). But the main points that the authors are trying to observe are the best ways of termination management, and alternative solutions to avoid termination lawsuits (Van Bogaert & Gross-Schaefer, 2005, p. 50). There are numerous alternative solutions that a company may take to avoid lawsuits; it starts with having positive alternatives …show more content…
First, we must understand what the at-will doctrine is. Van Bogaert and Gross-Schaefer (2005) explain that the at-will doctrine offers that either the employee or employer for any reason, or for no reason, may terminate the employee-employer relationship (p. 51). An example of this in use would be the Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield case, which states that a fired employee can sue their employer for emotional distress that is caused by termination (Van Bogaert & Gross-Schaefer, 2005, p. 51). But there are legal expectations that are related to the at-will doctrine, defined by Van Bogaert and Gross-Schaefer (2005) is: constructive discharge, which is the actions and conditions that are so intolerable at the time of resignation that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have resigned (p. 51). Statutory restrictions, where the federal or state anti-discrimination statutes forbid terminations of employees who belong to any protected class (p. 52). Public Policy, this is where an at-will employee cannot be terminated for an unlawful reason that violates public policy (p. 52). Employment contracts, where employment at-will doctrine does not apply to jobs that are cover by contracts, employment contracts can override the doctrine (p. 52). Collective bargaining agreements, this normally prevents at-will terminations, and allows for-cause terminations only,