Is “employment at will” in jeopardy?
May 8, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
It’s gaining momentum: a movement at the state level to do away with “at will.”
Most states have a clearly defined “employment at will” doctrine - that is, unless an employee is under a contract, he or she can be terminated for any (non-discriminatory) reason, or no reason at all.
But in Colorado, a coalition led by labor groups is pushing to change the state’s constitution to require employers to have a justifiable reason before letting anyone go. Practically speaking, companies rarely fire someone for no reason, but a regulation like this would give them a much bigger burden, and employees would have a lot more opportunities to sue.
Does it have a chance? Most experts say no, since the at-will relationship is pretty ingrained at this. Still, it’s the kind of thing that could rally a lot of popular support, and if it happens in one state, people elsewhere will take notice.
Right now, the coalition is trying to get the proposal onto the ballot in November. We’ll keep you posted if anything happens.
Read more from the Rocky Mountain News.
Tags: at-will, colorado, just cause, unions
May 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I’ve noticed that this concept of “at will” has been under attack since at least the 60’s. Employers are constantly being compared with the “ideal” employer who utilizes industry best practices all the time. When an employer doesn’t measure up, then it is assumed that the employer has violated some law. There is an expectancy of fairness in our society that trumps the “at will” doctrine.
Ohio is an “at will” state, however, if an employer terminates an employee without just cause that meets the reasonable person test, then the state will allow that person to collect unemployment. It isn’t the same legal exposure as being sued, but it isn’t purely “at will” either.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Please keep me posted to any updates.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Michigan is the same type of “at will” state as Ohio. Michigan also allows that person to collect unemployment which could raise the company’s unemployment tax rate.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
If you let at “at will” employee go for a reason such as violating company policy, you can contest unemployment. If you let someone go when they have done nothing wrong, they should get unemployment. I am certainly not a big pro-labor person but this does not sound unfair to me.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Another aspect to unemployment law is when a marginal employee chooses to resign. They leave without being terminated. They take another job for a few weeks and get fired while in their probationary period. The new employer is not on the hook for much of the unemployment compensation so they aren’t going to spend a lot of resources fighting the unemployment claim. However the original employer is charged with the bulk of the unemployment with little recourse.
I have seen many employees do this. In 1998 the state of Ohio combined their Bureau of employment (OBES) with the state Department of Human Services (ODHS) to form the new Ohio Job and Family Services (ODJFS). Since then, the state of Ohio seems to be using the unemployment system as a defacto Welfare System. The state keeps the person off the taxpayer welfare rolls and approves unemployment which shifts the cost to the employer (which has far fewer resources than the state).
The government has a responsibility to pool its resources (tax revenues) and to ensure that the citizens have some security.