Business Ethics   -- Discussion Project -- Debating "Employment at Will"

            On page 257 of our textbook Patricia Werhane and Tara Radin list five reasons that are typically given in defense of the traditional principle of Employment at Will (EAW).   Then, in the rest of their article, they provide various counter-arguments intended to show that EAW cannot be adequately defended.
Each group will be assigned one of the five reasons. Discuss and try to agree on answers to each of the following questions.

1.  How might you explain (in plain English) what the reason is?  That is, what is the defender of EAW saying when he or she gives this reason?

2.  Why (i.e., for what reasons) do Werhane and Radin think that this reason does not constitute an adequate defense of the principle of EAW?  Again, try to explain their ideas in plain English. Give examples, if you can, to make the points clear.  [Note: sometimes what they say is quite vague or sketchy.  You may need to "read between the lines" and supplement what they say to construct a plausible reason.]

3.  Do you think that they have succeeded in showing that this particular defense of EAW is no good?  In answering this question, consider whether the article by Richard Epstein, "In Defense of the Contract at Will", contains any arguments which are similar to the defense of EAW that you are examining and, if so, whether his version of the argument provides good reasons for rejecting Werhane and Radin's reasoning on this particular point.

Broader questions:

4.  Do you agree with Werhane and Radin that the principle of EAW is not morally acceptable and that employees ought to be protected by some sort of "due process" against arbitrary or unjust decisions by employers?  Or are you more inclined to agree with Epstein that EAW works to the mutual benefit of both employers and employees?

5.  Do employees deserve any kind of job security or loyalty from their employers?  Or is it ethically permissible to dismiss employees whenever there is any benefit to managers or to shareholders in doing so?