At-Will Employment Discussion Questions

1. The at-will employment laws in the United States should be protected because they allow for the proprietor of a business to have some say as to who can be employed for them while still placing some responsibility upon their employees.  If an employer has to follow strict regulations and laws about who must be employed for their business, there is a chance that a more qualified potential employee would be passed over because the employer must hire an individual that meets the requirements for their legal obligation.  Similarly, it is important that the government continues to protect the whistle blowers with the legislation from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which the SEC is in charge of enforcing.  As noted, the intent of this legislature is “to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosure made pursuant to securities laws, and for other purposes,” (SOX-online, 2003).  With that in mind, it is important for any potential whistle-blower to be fully protected because the potential losses and damage to the public can be so high if corporate misleads are allowed to go unnoticed such as with Enron, which also caused the Tyco stock to crumble.  To improve the law, the act could have harsher punishments for those that willingly submit inaccurate information in terms of even larger fines and longer prison time.

2. When one becomes a public employee, that individual must realize that what they say not only affects how others see that individual, but it is also a reflection on how many individuals view the government and other public servants.  Similar to the Garcetti v. Ceballos case, if an individual employed for a city’s mayor makes public statements about how ineffective the mayor’s leadership and governing is, that individual should not be able to claim that they are protected by the 1st Amendment and cannot have any consequences for their actions.  Similarly, as one cannot claim ignorance for what they say, one cannot claim ignorance for charging more for a service than they actually had intended, especially on a national stage.  Generally, it holds those liable for trying to overcharge for a service, especially when they are knowingly making such a claim (Department of Justice, n.d.).  To help employees in reporting ethically questionable corporate practices, legislation can be put into place that gives the employee no affiliation with the corporation (if they were involved) or an incentive from the government,  the employee can be given complete anonymous status when filing against a corporation, and the government can go to great length to ensure that all employees realize that by reporting the ethically questionable activities of a corporation will lead to a corporate world where no one is scammed out of their hard earned income by a corporation looking to turn a quick profit.      

References

Department of Justice. (n.d.). The false claims act: A primer. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/civil/docs_forms/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Primer.pdf

SOX Online. (2003). Sarbanes-oxley essential information. SOX-online, Retrieved from http://www.sox-online.com/basics.html