The Argument Against At-Will Agreements

As a result, such an argument works in favor of the employer and eliminates the issues that organizations face with union employment since workers cannot hold the management hostage. If employees demonstrate they risk being dismissed and others getting hired. Further, through the employment-at-will clause, employers can escape unnecessary lawsuits that lead to loss of income from litigation expenses.
The Arguments against At-Will Agreements
The at-will agreements allow employers ease of hiring as well as firing. For any employee who is underperforming, they are bound to face the sack, which may qualify them for unemployment insurance if there lacks a paper trail of disciplinary action. Conversely, employees can be terminated for no good reason or any virtually any reason. The longevity of one’s contract may depend on the mood of the supervisor. As such, employees can never be 100 percent of their job security. In most cases, workers may devise a plan for side incomes, which robs the organization of productivity. The ruling in Montgomery County Hospital Dist. v. Brown (1998) provided that an employer's general oral assurances that an worker would not be terminated without good cause does not modify the employee's at-will status, absent a definite stated intent to be bound not to terminate the employee except under
Scott (1888) where the employee settled a personal injury claim against the company in return for the employer's promise that he would have a job "for whatever length of time the employee might desire to retain such employment. However, the court transferred the choice of length of time allotted by the agreement to the employer since that the contract provided the employee the right to fix any period, but since he had failed to fix a period prior to being discharged, the contract was indefinite and, therefore, at