The Application Process for Three Companies

Wal-Mart:

The first company I chose to examine is Wal-Mart. I chose this company because if its status as the largest corporation in the world. Wal-Mart maintains an online hiring center for new applicants. The online hiring center’s website describes the corporation as showing “respect for the individual” due to the benefits the corporation offers to its employees. The website informs potential applicants that the process of completing the application will take between thirty and sixty minutes. The website provides a special mention of military veterans and has a separate website and toll-free number for the purpose of allowing veterans to explore employment options with Wal-Mart on a further basis. Applications that are begun online may be saved and completed within sixty days. The website allows applicants to apply both in English and Spanish.

Applicants must electronically sign a statement acknowledging their awareness of the company’s equal opportunity employment policies as part of the application process. An applicant must also allow the company to conduct a background check concerning the potential employee’s educational, professional, criminal, and credit history. Applicants are informed of Wal-Mart’s policies concerning alcohol and drug use, and that those hired by the corporation are required to undergo a drug screening process. The applicant is able to establish an online account that allows them to revisit their application.

I felt that Wal-Mart’s online application process is user-friendly. Potential employees of Wal-Mart are directly informed of basic company policies and requirements for hiring. Potential applicants are informed of how long it will take for their application to be completed, and are allowed to revisit the website anytime with sixty days to complete the application.

Wal-Mart is a massive corporation and the largest employer in the United States. For this reason, much online information is available about Wal-Mart. While the company is obviously overwhelmingly successful and profitable, the corporation is also widely criticized. The business model of Wal-Mart is to bring a vast array of consumer products to customers at the lowest possible price. This business model has been successful and accounts for the corporation’s massive profitability. However, Wal-Mart exerts considerable pressure on its suppliers in a way that undermines the ability of vendors that supply the company to maintain the profitability of their own. For this reason, many smaller suppliers have either folded or had to lay off employees. Even larger suppliers have seen their own profitability diminished, and have been forced to outsource their production process to other countries in a way that has increased unemployment in the United States. The advent of Wal-Mart has also had the effect of undercutting localized “mom and pop” stores and other smaller retailers.

The business ethics of Wal-Mart have also been called into question. The New York Times has reported on a case involving officials from Wal-Mart issuing numerous bribes to officials in Mexico in exchange for licenses and permits to conduct business in that particular country. The case became the subject of an investigation by the U.S. federal government concerning possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, although no officials representing the company were ever subject to prosecution. The company has also been involved in numerous labor disputes, and its labor practices are widely criticized by labor organizers and union leaders. The labor model of Wal-Mart is to hire many part-time employees and fewer full-time employees. This is criticized as a means of allowing the company to forgo offering benefits to its employees. Also, the schedules employees work are often unpredictable and shift massively from week to week. This is seen as disruptive to the personal and family lives of Wal-Mart employees.

McDonald’s:

I chose McDonald’s because it is also a well-known corporation, and is an innovator in the field of food service. McDonald’s is widely credited with having invented the model of the fast-food restaurant. As a large corporation, McDonald’s also has a sophisticated online website for the purpose of hiring new applicants. The website describes the company’s hiring process in detail. Potential applicants are informed that they are first required to apply online, and they will subsequently be informed if a representative of the company wishes to have them come in for an on-site interview. Before an on-site interview is granted, the potential employee is typically first contacted by telephone for a preliminary interview. This preliminary interview will include a review of the applicant’s qualifications, education, professional history, goals, career ambitions, and other related matters. The company also conducts a screening process that includes a background check for criminal history, references, and the legitimacy of the professional and educational history provided by the applicant.

The online application and interview process are normally utilized for all applicants to McDonald’s, including not only entry-level positions but also management as well. The website informs prospective new hires that the interview process and the procedures for hiring and staffing a McDonald’s store are normally done within the space of thirty days, but can take as long as ninety days. Resumes provided by a third party to the corporation are not accepted. The website includes a full statement of the corporation’s mission and values, its many departments, and the awards it has received over the years. All of this information is provided in some detail. The corporation’s training process is also described in considerable detail as well. Prospective employees are given a comprehensive overview of the company’s compensation plan and opportunities for career advancement. The company also makes a statement about its inclusive nature, and its efforts to hire and conduct business with women and minorities. There is also a comprehensive FAQ offering many details about the company and the benefits of working for McDonald’s. Business as well as employment opportunities offered by McDonald’s, such as franchising, are also discussed on the website.

While I found the McDonald’s website to be very interesting and informative, I did not find it to be very user-friendly concerning the actual application process. It is not immediately apparent from the website how a potential applicant should go about applying for a position with McDonald’s. Instead, an applicant is supposed to use search systems incorporated into the website for the purpose of locating job openings in particular stores, or in particular localities. Attempting to navigate the website for the purposes of determining how to go about completing the online application process was tedious and time-consuming. The McDonald’s website proved to be far less user-friendly and comprehensive than the Wal-Mart website, even if it was very informative.

McDonald’s is clearly one of the major employers in the United States. The corporation is also a major source of employment for a variety of demographics involving unskilled or semi-skilled labor. These include young people of all ages, socioeconomic, or cultural backgrounds. They also include a disproportionately high number of minorities and other people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Some elderly or retired persons in need of extra income have also found employment at McDonald’s. However, McDonald’s does not employ only unskilled or semi-skilled hourly workers. Because it is a massive corporation, it also has many opportunities available in management and other facets of the company’s overall organizational structure. The franchising system offered by McDonald’s also provides business opportunities, particularly among demographics that are otherwise disadvantaged and where an opportunity for entry into financial or business markets is restricted by various obstacles. Employment at McDonald’s is not as easy to obtain as many laypeople commonly believe. The information provided below indicates that McDonald’s maintains a more selective hiring process than is commonly recognized, and many people who seek employment with McDonald’s are unsuccessful. For example, an article from the “Zero Hedge” website, which focuses on economic matters, demonstrates that an overwhelming majority of applicants to the company are unsuccessful.

Starbuck’s:

Starbuck’s is the definitive corporation for the model of the designer coffee shop. The company has helped to revolutionize the way Americans consume and even think about coffee. Prior to the advent of Starbucks, coffee was normally consumed in a relatively simplistic, home-brewed manner, and even coffee served in restaurants and cafes lacked the variety and quality that Starbucks now provides. Starbucks has been a genuinely innovative company with regards to its impact on consumer markets, and its impact on the lifestyles of ordinary Americans. Like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, it is now a massive corporation that provides many job opportunities at a wide variety of levels.

Starbucks maintains an elaborate website that provides detailed descriptions of job opportunities offered by the company. The website includes a brief video providing a general introduction to the corporation. The video is helpful as it provides an image of warmth and a friendly working environment. It also conveys a sense of the professionalism of the company. The website provides a detailed description of many of the primary employment positions offered by Starbucks. One immediately gets a sense of the opportunities for advancement that exists within the company. While the most well-known, entry-level position is that of a barista, it is also made clear by the website that there are multiple levels of management towards which an employee may strive.

The hiring process is more decentralized at Starbucks than it is at Wal-Mart and McDonald’s. The website specifically states that each individual store is responsible for its own hiring and staffing procedures. Therefore, it would be appropriate for someone seeking a position with Starbuck’s to consult with the management of whatever local store they wish to be employed by. The website also gives a brief overview of the benefits offered to employees of the company in hopes of employee retention. At least some benefits are available to even part-time employees. The website also includes a statement about the corporation’s commitment to a diverse workforce and its commitment to the values of equal opportunity employment. Like Wal-Mart, Starbucks is also committed to hiring military veterans and members of their families. Individuals who are currently employed by the corporation are profiled on the website, and this offers a sense of encouragement to potential applicants, particularly veterans.

A widely varied description of the company’s products is also provided on the website. This helps the reader to gain an appreciation for the innovative nature of the company and its services. The website makes it clear that there are a great deal more opportunities for employment available at Starbucks than merely staffing their stores, however important these positions may be to the company's overall operations. Many positions are also available in administrative support or customer service.

The Starbuck’s career center website is not user-friendly concerning the actual process of finding out how to go about applying for a position with the company. While the website provides an informative and attractive overview of the positions that are available with the company, the user of the site is left with a sense of confusion as to how to go about actually applying for a job. There is no discernible direct link to an application page that is immediately visible. Because the website states that individual stores are responsible for their own hiring processes, the reader is left wondering whether they need to go to an actual store to apply for a position, or whether they are required to apply online.

Clearly, the success and popularity of Starbucks are unquestionable. This was recently demonstrated in a rather dramatic way when it was revealed that the NBC television network established its own Starbuck’s outlet in Russia for the purpose of serving the network’s employees while they were there for the purpose of covering the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. An article in Business Insider indicated that the employees of NBC were apparently so disheartened by the prospect of having to drink McDonald’s coffee while in Russia that their employer actually provided them with their own Starbuck’s franchise for the duration of their stay.

The company also has an interesting and rather innovative business model on multiple levels, and not merely due to the specific nature of their designer coffee products. Starbuck’s will actually introduce products into consumer markets before these products are actually perfected during the development and test marketing process. This is seen as an unusually risky practice by business analysts. Such an approach more closely resembles that of a start-up venture rather than a well-established massive corporation. The company justifies this practice on the grounds that they prefer to be the first to invest in new markets, and always have a lead on competitors even if it means undertaking extra risks in the short term. The company has also seen controversy as well. For instance, despite its formal commitment to support veterans, a disabled veteran was not allowed to enter a Starbucks because he was accompanied by a service dog. This incident was reported by a variety of news agencies and it became a minor scandal.

Employment at Will

American jurisprudence concerning contract law generally recognizes the concept of “employment at will.” This concept recognizes that either party to an employment agreement, whether the employer or the employee, has the right to terminate the arrangement at any given time and for any reason unless there is an explicitly written contract between the two parties binding either side to more stringent terms or additional obligations. Muhl observes that the concept of employment at will has a long-standing precedent in U.S. contract law, but an increasing number of exceptions to the principle of employment at will have emerged in recent decades. The thinking of many jurists and legal scholars has changed from the perception of the employer and employee as having an equitable arrangement to one where the employer is viewed as having significant advantages over the employee on both an economic and a structural level.

Three primary exceptions to employment at will have begun to emerge in American law. The first of these is the “public policy exception” which is recognized in forty-three of the American states. According to this rule, an employee cannot be terminated when there is a clearly stated or well established existing state policy determining otherwise. An example Muhl provides is the filing of a claim for workers' compensation after an on the job injury. According to state law in many states, employers are required to pay into a worker's compensation program for injured workers. Workers who then become injured on the job are legally entitled to file a claim for workers' compensation. An employer may not fire an employee for filing such a claim. Another example of the public policy exception involves scenarios when an employee is ordered by an employer to break the law. For instance, if an employer instructs an employee to fabricate information on official documents, act in a way that abets the employer’s efforts at tax evasion, or engage in an act of violence against a business rival, then the employee is still required to follow the law and refuse the employer’s instructions. Legally, the employee cannot be fired for refusing to participate in illegal activity.

A second exception to the concept of employment at will involves the notion of an “implied contract” even there where is no written contract between employee and employer. Thirty-eight states recognized this exception at the time Muhl’s article was written in 2001. If an employer makes an oral agreement with an employee concerning such matters as job security, procedures to be followed in the event of termination, or promised benefits, an employer may not simply abrogate these claims on the grounds that no written contract exists between these two parties. Also, statements of policy issued in employee handbooks or oral statements made by hiring managers have been interpreted increasingly by courts as imposing contractual obligations on employers. An important aspect of this legal revision of employment at will involves the concept of “just cause” for termination of employment. According to this doctrine, an employee who performs their delegated responsibilities appropriately should have a reasonable expectation of job security. Termination of such an employee must be done only for “just cause,” such as the employer having no other reasonable option but to fire the employee, or actual misconduct or incompetence on the part of the employee.

A less widely recognized exception to employment at will involves the concept of “covenant of good faith exception.” This doctrine is recognized in only eleven states. It is considered by legal scholars to be the most significant and far-reaching exception to the principle of employment at will. This concept offers the employee a considerably greater amount of protection from termination than either the public policy exception or the implied contract exception. Under the concept of “covenant of good faith,” the employee does not have to be in the process of exercising a legal right such as filing for workers' compensation or refusing to engage in an illegal or unethical act by the employer in order to claim wrongful termination. There does not have to be an implicit agreement of an oral nature between the two parties, or some process that is less formal than a written contract, such as an employee handbook. Instead, any employer-employee relationship is subject to the doctrine of “just cause” and any termination of an employee must be shown to have been reasonable, necessary, fair, and ethical. Essentially, the “covenant of good faith” exception writes the “just cause” doctrine into law and universalizes its application to all forms of employment.

The legal concept of employment at will recognizes the right of employers to terminate employees for essentially any reason they see fit. The law does recognize some narrow exceptions. Employees may not be terminated for the purpose of furthering racial discrimination. Employees may not be dismissed on the basis of “bad faith,” such as for the purpose of avoiding paying an employee for work they have performed. An employer may not dismiss a hired subordinate from their position for refusing to break the law on the employer’s behalf, or in a way that violates the legally recognized rights of the employee. For instance, an employer cannot fire an employee specifically for the purpose of retaliation or inflicting physical, monetary, or psychological harm.

The concept of employment at will has been criticized by a variety of thinkers. It has been argued by some specialists in business ethics, and some moral philosophers generally, that employment at will allows an employer to unilaterally abrogate a previously agreed upon arrangement between himself and another person, and to do so in a way that causes the other person harm. It has been argued by these critics that employment at will should not be regarded as a sufficient basis for the evaluation of employer-employee or labor-management relations in a court of law. Instead, it has been suggested that a more appropriate standard would be one of “just cause.” According to this standard, an employer would not be able to legally terminate an employee without a reason for doing so that was of a clearly demonstrable nature. Those who defend the idea of employment at will often appeal to economic efficiency as the basis of their arguments. The notion of freedom of contract between employer and employee will also sometimes be used as a basis for justifying employment at will.

The author of the article points out that employment at will continues to be a prevalent legal doctrine in American jurisprudence, even as it has come to be challenged by some ethicists and others in more recent decades. Core issues of ethical concern regarding the doctrine of employment at will are raised. One issue of this kind involves the potential susceptibility of employees to manipulation and even misrepresentation by employers. For instance, the rank and rile employees of a large corporation will not unsurprisingly lack the legal sophistication to be fully informed of their rights in terms of their relationship with their employers. Meanwhile, the corporation will at bare minimum have its own attorney and, in the case of large corporations, will often have an army of lawyers available to review the intricate details of a business or employment contract. It has been argued that employees should be entitled to a bare minimum right to be informed of the true nature of the contractual arrangements they are consenting to.

It is likewise sometimes argued that employers and employees have fundamentally unequal bargaining power in the negotiation of labor contracts. The employee is dependent on the employer for their basic livelihood, while an employer can normally replace an employee with relatively little or no disruption of their operations consumer markets. When viewed from this perspective, employment at will violates the fundamental rights of the individual. A worker who must depend on bosses for wages is essentially a captive subject to their employer. An employer’s actions against an employee may undermine not only their ability to provide for their own self-care, but also for the care of others in their charge. Those ethicists who advocate abandoning the concept of employment at will and replacing it with the more ostensibly progressive concept of “just cause” believe that such an alteration of American jurisprudence would serve to make the employee-employer relationship more egalitarian in nature.

However one assesses the concept of employment at will, it has yet to be comprehensively abandoned by American law and American courts. The notions of “free enterprise” and “rugged individualism” are deeply ingrained aspects of American political and cultural life. This is unlikely to be altered in the foreseeable future. The idea that termination of an employee by an employer must only be for a narrowly defined conception of “just cause” is still further away from established American legal tradition, which is rooted in classical liberal ideas that place a strong emphasis on the values of commercial society and the self-made entrepreneur.

Works Cited

Muhl, Charles J. “Employment at Will: Three Major Exceptions.” Monthly Labor Review (January, 2001): 3-11. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

Roehling, Mark V. “The Employment at Will Doctrine: Second Level Ethical Issues.” Journal of Business Ethics 47 (2003): 115-124.