Blue Collar Workers
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Introduction: According to an article by Lawrence Peikes writing in HR Magazine (2004), both employees and employers must understand their respective responsibilities and rights in the workplace. An area in which the law is evolving involves an employer's right to fire an employee at-will. Many companies follow the employment-at-will doctrine, which means an employer, at least in theory, has the right to fire an employee at any time and for any reason, with or without advanced notification and with or without any form of severance pay. Both State and federal laws define instances in which an employee's firing is wrongful and actionable. For example, an employer cannot terminate or otherwise discriminate against an employee on the basis of the employee's race, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, or for engaging in union related activities. The law considers such actions as discriminatory and firing would be considered actionable under the legal doctrine of wrongful termination. Using the employment-at-will doctrine as the basis for terminating any employee, including a blue collar worker, carries with it specific legal risks. The terminated employee may sue, and if there is merit to their claim that they were the victim of some form of discrimination or retaliation in the workplace, the terminated worker may have a strong case against his or her former employer. In this situation, it might be safer and less expensive for a company to make a cash
. . .
oyers guidance about what is and what is not considered reasonable and appropriate grounds for termination of an employee. Shilling suggests that modifications to the doctrine of employment-at-will also protect employees from discrimination in the workplace. Shilling writes that to overcome the presumption that their employment was at will, a terminated employee must prove that there was an employment contract or that an exception to the at-will doctrine was created by statute, or by decisions made by State or federal courts. One common way that the doctrine of employment-at-will can be altered involves statements made in writing or verbally by an employer. An example of this would be a statement to employees not subject to any written employment contract or collective bargaining agreement that for as long as the current management owns or controls the company that no employee will ever be laid off because there is not enough work for him or her to perform.
An example of the way exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine improve employment laws relates to anti-retaliation statutes. Generally, an employer cannot terminate an employee because he or she exercised a right granted by federal or state law. For example, a
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Minnesota Cities, Resources Law, HR Magazine, According Shilling, Supreme Court, public sector, employment-at-will doctrine, Magazine Mar, collective bargaining agreement, terminate employee, blue collar, collective bargaining, bargaining agreement, Dana Shilling, league minnesota, doctrine employment-at-will, league minnesota cities, League Minnesota, fire employee, Publishing Co, Lawrence Peikes, minnesota cities, personnel policies discipline, exceptions employment-at-will doctrine, decision terminate employee,
Approximate Word count = 1456
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Blue Collar Workers
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
