employment at will

2. Utilitarian arugument We can identify 4 basic features 1. -employee obeservation 2. Reputational lost- 3.Risk diversification- 4. Low admin cost-

2. Utilitarian arugument - employment at will is the most efficient contracting process The basic idea is that, There are checks and balances built into business practices and they are internal to contracting at will that safeguard both employers and employees. Moreover these internal checks and balances maximizes utility. Abstain argues these are all very good reasons for accepting employment at will because it generates the best outcomes with the minimum amount of hardship and suffering. (what we already have in place is already sufficent) Abstain states that we already have in place certain kinds of fundamental laws and legislations about discriminatory behavior in the workplace. Those are sufficient, we don't need to iintroduce new administration at the business level our government level protect us. because we already have them there. More than that is just going to involve more overwhelming cost.? Furthermore we have employee observation • When an employee sees a discriminatory act • When they see other employees are slacking off, who are increasing the workload for others, they can tell their bosses and have the slacker be removed or fired. And they can have someone more capable come in. • (ex you observe a business that do not treat their works probably so you boycott that company and you don't eat there for example a piece of shop that do not treat their workers properly) (so in terms of the very process of the workforce there are already fundamental checks about the way that we treat one another and how we are treated by them that is enough.) 54 these things abstains say will provide us with the kind of checks against illegal and preadatory forms of employment and will help us resist some conventional servitude. Reputational lost- • if I tell you about the pizza place that treats their workers badly you tell everyone you know and the word spreads and no one eats at that piece of place due to their bad reputation. (apple enslave their works you should boycote their product) nestle and their baby formula) • When a company treats their employees badly and act in a way that is disgraceful, we should boycott them because that is the complete obvious way to deal with inequalities there is no need for government to legislate because ultimately profit is what is most important and if you don't have a good reputation, you lose profit and that is all the motivation that you need to treat your employees well. Basically we don't need more legislation we just need more activists. If we find any unfair hiring process we should say something about it. • This also works both ways as well if you suck as a worker and you don't work efficiently and the word spread then you will not be hired. It's similar to when a employer ask you about your last three employment history and employers they do this because they want to check up on you to see your work ethics. So overall if you are a employee and have a bad reputation no one will hire you and if you are a employer with a bad reputation no one will work for you. So you say that all of this is internal and you don't need any more further checks and balances and legislations in place because what we have is already sufficient enough. Risk diversification • You start a new job you're not sure it's going to work out you don't know if you are going to like it there so you take the job and keep looking for another. You Don't just take the job and say you're done looking so similarly if you are an employer you're not committed to a person for a long period of time ( for instance you are an employer and you hire an employee and you tell them that it is temporary you want to see how they work>) • So you are not committed to your boss if you do not like the job or if you do not believe that you found the optimal salary that is sufficient for you so you go elsewhere you never locked in that way we protect ourselves from bad employees and bad employers • But if you have a contract you can't just leave you either have to pay some kind of fine for breaking that contract or you have to follow that contract until the day that it ends (abstains say that is the way you have to gamble on your employee, if you get an employee any signs a contract for a year what happens when he slacks off for a year than your screed). • What happens when you sign a contract and you are an employee and you hate your boss and the conditions that you work in is very toxic, its racist and sexist ) ba bc ma mb • (the idea here is that if the employee don't like the work conditions or don't like the job they can go elsewhere and similarly if the employer believes that the employee does not live up to expectations than that employee can be fired).this shows that the employee who did not live up to expectations had the opportunity for the position and the employer took a chance or had the opportunity to take a chance on the employee. Low admin cost • The moment that you introduce new legislation you introduce a oversight procedure if you have a oversight procedure than you have to pay people to do it. Since employment of will does not have no oversight of that sort it does not require administration cost so employment of will is the most efficient cost effective way of contracting labor because it does not introduce extra hurdles of administration duties. its just efficient

As an employer I can hire who ever I want for how long I want they can

As an employer I can hire who ever I want for how long I want they can • Hire • Fire • Demoted • Or transfer employees whenever i please Similarly Employees can • Can accept work • And quit whenever they please The idea is their ability to accept work or quit whenever they want than balances the employers abilities to higher fire and demote them whenever they want. If you are a good employee your boss would not fire or transfer or demote the employee because the employer recognizes that the employee is good and is beneficial to the company. Similarly because the company can fire you at any time you won't slack off. You don't get lazy and you do your job at the best of your ability. Because you know you can get fired without any due process at any moment of time.

message

Employment of will may be an issue because they are ways of abusing the status of employment of will that they need to be certain kinds of further constraints placed on the idea. In terms of being fired for a cause the way thing currently stand you don't need to be fired because of a cause. If your boss is tired of you he can fire you. (interesting fact roughly 60% of people that are employed are cover by employee of will so more than half of the current labor force have no right and can be fired arbitrarily)

horhay and raven view on exploitation

What is in your rational best interests does not mean that you are not subjected to exploitation for example if you're given a choice between working for 6 dollars and not working that does not mean you're not being exploited even though it is in your best interest to work for 6 dollars. So the justification of employment at will is a formal contracting that respects my freedom of rationality only holds in the abstract because what's in my rational best interests does not necessarily mean I'm not being exploited. Abstain is a stockholder theories because he believes that we don't have to worry about the aggregated affects of business actions towards employee relations outside the sphere of business because that is up to the individual who is contracting for that job because it is their rational self interest that will dictate what is good for them he believed the business itself does not have to worry. If you're not a stockholder then the argument is that The businesses have to worry about the way their business practices affect the stakeholders which are the families of that are employed , the communities to which those people live. Then you might think simply trying to derive much rational advantage from employee at will is insufficient. Because it might be that is in someone's best interest to take a low-paying job but that still means that they are being exploited and the consequences of being exploited at work is poor home life, poor community,,poor opportunities for children so forth and so on and these are direct consequences of the way that these things work. So few dollars in my pocket, is a few dollars less I'll give to my community the fewer dollars I'll get to my community will make my community poor. The fewer dollars I get paid, the more I have to work the more i have to work the less time I have for my children. Hora believes freedom and rationality freedom and rationality go hand-in-hand with exploitation. For instance at the Great Depression people who work for pennies a day due to lack of work and the other option would be to be homeless. So it was in their rational best interest to work for pennies a day because it is better than starving .however they were still being exploited. Hora hay and raven believs what abstain argument hinges on • is a separation of private and public responsibility and on the idea that legislation that are already in place is sufficient to ensure moral rights. 149 • their major complaint is that this defense of employment of will hinges on the sufficiency of the stockholder theory.

1. Kantaian arugument eaw respect our freedom and rationality

a. Absten say that this contract at will involves this symmetric relationship between the employer and the employee (if someone is offering you a job you are not compelled in any way to accept it unless you see and believe that there is some kind of advantage for you to take it) b. Similarly that person does not have to give you a job unless there is some kind of advantage to employe you c. So because of the fact you are both working to maximize the advantage for one another you will hit upon or striving to hit upon the perfect advantage situation for both parties d. (absten points out that it will be incoherent for someone to take a job when the next best thing is more productive for them) e. Ex it makes no sense to take a job if you have money coming in so if it is not in your best interests or advantageous to take this job than you don't have to take it the fact is having a job is more advantageous than not having a job. It is always in your best interest to have a paycheck than not have one f. That alone shows that there is always some advantage for being employed and taken a job. it is incoherent otherwise (based on the kant grounds when we enter into a employment of will negotiations for a contract you have to treat me in the same way that you treat yourself. It is a kind of universzation of that symmetrical relationship gives us. Because I am not compelled to take the job, because you are not compelled to offer me the job, we are going to hit upon a mutual and beneficial and agreed upon certainty. The fact that we can hit upon a mutual and beneficial contract means therefore we are respecting one another's freedom and rationality we both agree to it and it is fair.) (because it is perfect and rational negotiation involving both parties with the negotiation of their rational self-interest we will hit upon the thee best solution for both parties absteen points out that it is entirely possible for an employee to mistake their self interests and enter into a contract that is sub optimal for them but because there is no actual contract enforcing them to stay therefore they can leave at any time. (so negotiated a contract relationship and allowing the worker to leave at any time involves a certain kind of fairness) 50:09 ( you can get screwed once but you got stuck with it you can always do something else) (the moment and employee realized that he cannot maximize his self interest that he can leave, of course when one ever arrive this the contractor for labor cannot ever involve fraudulent claims you can not ever enter into a business relationship that is illegal) you can never become a slave by will howeve you can't always go somewhere else that is the anti argument The reason why this might not work is that mutual advantage does not exclude the possibility of any exploitation so some job is better than no job but that does not mean that the job that you take is treating you well. Ex in economical downturns there is more people searching for job. That means that you can hire more people and some people exploit workers by paying them less knowing that there's more people searching for that job. Another ex there is a pizza store that treats their workers badly. In abstain account he believes that it is in their rational best interest to take that job because the next option is worse than the present one and if they do not like it then they can go find another job. The reasons why the managers may be doing this may be because the workers are undocumented,(which is they are saving themselves liabilities for hiring undocumented workers)

They are Limitations of employee of will

contract • The moment I sign a explicit contracted all employment of will rights and obligations are superseded (this means whenever you sign a explicit contract that canceled the idea of employment at will) • a whole new sets of ideas and responsibilities come into play • The contract provides us with more guarantee then just picking up a job at Starbucks • If you get a job at Starbucks there is no guarantee that you will keep that job they could hire you and fire you at will. You work at the pleasure of your boss. however if you have a contract you have more guaranteed that the job you have you will keep Legal status The other thing that limits the employee of will is legal status protecting workers from discrimination • You can get fired for no reason or arbitrarily so long that you getting fired does not evolve because of your race, nationality , age, handicap, sexual orientation, marital status, In New York State further protections include political and recreational activities that are conducted outside the workplace (if you are part of the communist society you cannot be fired in New York State because of that, however if you try to recruit people to the Communist Party at work then you can be fired for that) • You can't be fired for any kind of legal consumption (you can be fired for drinking too much at home as long as you don't do it at work if you come to work drunk you could get fired but if you do it at home it's okay) • You can't get fired in New York State for becoming a member of the union (this is huge because one of the ways certain kind of companies don't allow unions to get in is because when there is a drive to unionize the boss just fires everyone this is the general strategy) • You can't get fired for Making complaints of labor violations (unsafe workplace, overworking people, not paying overtime) • ( transgender does not involve sexual orientation) (you can fire someone for being too resistible because it does not cover what is in the legal status of discrimination) so in New York these are all the things that are covered

Hore hay and raven argument • they believed that the stockholder theory argument fails is because effectively it does not recognize when I'm trading money for labor I can't split off the labor of the person from the person itself. Hore hay and raven identifies 2 problems and failurs with the way that absten argues with the employment of will contacting at will is the exchange of labor the very fact of legislation being in place means that you are already given further rights to people the second one is employment at will is supposed to defend employee and employer equally Choosing a job involves a voluntary commitment to take on certain responsibilities such as loyalty hard work and efficiency

the idea that contacting at will is the exchange of labor the idea that contacting at will is the exchange of labor for a salary leaves out a really important fact that my labor can't be divorced from my person the way that a product can be divorced from the process that it creates (the nature of labor is inheritly bound by the persons performance)if I produce a desk the actual process that I produced a desk are independent to one another my labor is not independent of me as a being that labors and because of that you can't divorce the one from another. That requires you to treat the business transaction of employee to employer in a slightly different way than the way you would normally treat the commodity. ( when you contract to buy a certain amount of desk which is a commodity you wouldn't care less on how it is produced as long as it fulfills your need or all its features your not buying or renting the production process your just buying the actual product. The weird thing about human labor there is no such thing as disembodied labor there is a person that laborers and what we are doing is renting the person to perform the action but because you can't separate out the labor or the commodity out of the process which is the person alone shows you have more responsibilities than you do for all other commodities that you purchase. Because you are in fact not getting a product but also getting the person and the process through which the product is created so you have further responsibility. you still have to treat people a certain way. There are things that I can;'t do because you have rights and simmilary there are certain things I can do to you in a labor exchange because what I am exchanging and who you are are bound up together with one another. the very fact of legislation being in place means that you are already given further rights to people • recognizing the need for legislation that is already in place, the very fact of legislation being in place means that you are already given further rights to people then what they seem to be entitled on under the employment at will contract because if they really were an employment of will contract then I can discriminate as much as I want. , the fact that you tell me that I can't discriminate is to say that you have more obligations and individuals have more rights then what this lets on. If it were the case that it is in my rational self intrest then the only reason I would not discriminate would be if it's in my rational self-interest that my company works better but the thing is you can't prove that and in fact the way that negotiations for a position work. and being the best candidate is rarely the thing that gets you the job is a question is wheather u fit with the rest of the colleagues and what's unique to you and sometimes even if you are a great fit you don't get the job so all of these things show us that our rational self-interest isn't the motivation for the people we hire all the time and sometimes we don't hier you purely out of discrimination and to the extent we recognize that and protect ourselves by law means that we need to incorporate further laws, further rights and further responsibilities then what employment of will seems to say. The one is the one that we saw with freeman • the fact that you require a legislation to avoid discrimination is to recognized that it is insufficient to worry about rational self interest alone what hora and raven is arguing about is arbitrarily dismissal you can't fire any one for no reason proprietary rights guarantee employees the right to hire and fire people at will • the reason why this is no good is that employment contracts don't work the same way as regular contracts like how commodities do and the exchange of commodities do so that argument is not applicable there is something more involved in hiring and firing people than exchanging one commodity for another the second one is employment at will is supposed to defend employee and employer equally • the problem is as we have seen it is entirely possible for employers to arbitrarily fired people and in that sense being fired arbitrarily does not seem in any way to protect employess but it does protect employers.so it's not a perfect symmetry they are not equal protections Choosing a job involves a voluntary commitment to take on certain responsibilities such as loyalty hard work and efficiency • the only time you can take on certain kinds of obligations in the company is if the company take on obligation towards you as well and if that is going to be the case they need to be true reciprocity of obligations. • The way they understand the employers obligations is to introduce some form of due process into their hiring and firing decisions • An employer can only expect you to be loyal and hard-working if they also agree in the process to treat you fairly not exploit you and if they want to fire you they have to go through some sort of due process and they need to give you a reason for it. In the absence of one that cancels the other (so if an employee expect things from you, you legitimately have to expect things from them as well)Morley this means having some form of protection and due process in a way that you're hired and fired Last one towards the utilitarian argument • It's ridiculous to think in the absence of any evidence that introducing due process provided the kind of check for the fact that the reasons giving for employments are good ones would introduce any kind of cost to business it just does not seem to be obvious they point out • That having due process for your hiring and firing decisions in business actually introduces any new cost or introduce any form of insufficiency that will be problematic and end up with negative consequences there is no basis for that • Why is there no basis for that? We certainly know companies that have the due process because they have contracts and it does not seem to be overly inefficient, it does not seem to overburden the company and it does not seem to contract from the profitability • Why that could not be generalized and still be alright? Thus knocking off the cost problem we don't know. The kantain argument is the moment you look at employees as simply as labor rather than people your committed to the idea that there means to your end and not means to yourself. The moment you think of your obligations in terms of commodity exchange I give you money you give me labor I'm treating you as a means to some end that I have and not also as an end to yourself. And thereby I failed the formula of humanity. On the kantoina prospective utilitarian argument what seems to be the reason why people don't want to have some sort of internal to process ,some kind of regulation is because they do not want to pay for the regulation regulators they do not want to pay someone to initiate nor receive the due process. And the point here is because we don't do it we don't actually know for a fact that it would be costly. All of this is sufficient reason for introducing some procedure to make sure that our hiring and firing practices are not arbitrarily and the further legislation needs to be in place

Apsteen defends employment at will

• He does this because he believes that ultimately it leads to the most rational organization of labor market it is the most efficient and it respects our autonomy and human dignity Epstein has two arguments for this The first argument of the contract of will or employment at will fundamentally respects our rationality and autonomy it is fair because people enter into contracts at will from their own sense of rational self-interest no one is compelled to enter into them And they can leave the moment they recognize it's not in their own best-interest.so the freedom to choose is always there and the fairness of the choice is always there because it is a negotiated between two people without any kind of courcing and legal structure. The secondary argument is a utilitarian argument • The consequences of employment at will generates the most efficient form of organizing labor and have fewest amounts of harms that can be caused. They have more benefits such as more efficiency Distribution of concerns • Which is that if we were to try to influence proper legislation to introduce the idea that people had to be fired only for cause what we would ultimately do is reap the kinds of protection that we already got in the workforce and generate more harm than good • What he gets out of particular is that if they are laws in place that provide people with fundamental protections, then memberships in unions would dwindle because no one would wants to pay extra money for protection that is only guaranteed by law if we don't 'have unions however certain kind of uses would not be • Similarly if we were employers by introducing these new legislations it is going to create a cost that you don't want and you would be less likely to hire people and take risk or chances on certain kind of employees. (so these distributions of concerned against the strengthening the employment of will by introduced a fundamental legal protections) Effectedly the consequence at will generat the most effecent Apsteen argument involves shows why arbitrarily firing people firing employees because of discriminatory reasons at will is wrong And hora and rave is going to show the reasoning that employment of will need to be strengthened this so that we don't arbitrarily fire people.

Employment at will or a contract of will

• Is the idea that You as a employee are free to enter into whatever business arrangements with an employer you find to be rationally the most advantageous for you similarly as an employer I have the ability to freely higher whom ever I want for however long I want • (and the idea is that this is supposed to be the most fair arrangement between the employee and the employer)