American Jobs 2012 - 2022: At Will Employment and Its Effects Among the Workforce of America

Up until the time that the IT Industry and Temporary Employment Companies exhibited or enabled hiring practices that sent workers switching jobs more frequently than once every two years in the 1990s, the definition of job-hopping changed. In fact, before that time, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association listed failure to hold a job for 2 years, or changing jobs more frequently than once every two years, as a behavior within certain personality disorders. Society, customs, and definitions change.

Up until the 1990s, someone walking down the street talking to himself and switching jobs every few months exhibited at least one Severe Mental Disorder. In the 2010s, He simply is using Bluetooth Technology to talk on a cell phone and is working as a contractor on short-term gigs, all average behavior for the current American workforce.

It is difficult to give a work reference on a contractor as well. This person was not an employee. When speaking with new companies interested in hiring former contract workers of mine, I found them insisting that I answer questions relevant only to salaried or hourly employment. What I did was to provide dates of contracts and data as to to what extent the contract requirements were fulfilled, which was legal in my state. Thankfully, all of these contractors had surpassed their goals and I was glad to say so.

In At-Will Employment States in the US (all except Montana in 2011), employees without signed employment contracts (Employee Agreements are not contracts) and without union representation can be fired without notice and without reason. Ohio is one of these states since 1984 and the passing of the At Will Employment Law.

One of the results of this law is that most employers give very little background information about former employees when called for employment references. Many provide only dates of employment and last pay rate; some give only the dates. If there is a particular problem with a former worker, an employer may tell the caller that they would like to speak off the record. If that becomes an agreement, the former employer may provide negative information he or she feels is necessary to pass on to the new company. The caller will not pass this information on to the job candidate, because it may be grounds for an employment related lawsuit.

This entire process has given rise to our current dilemma of irrelevant Pre-Employment Credit Checks and relevant though more frequntly done Background Checks -- That is, if the negative information cannot be extracted from an employment reference, then some companies are of an attitude that it will show up as "bad credit" (it usually does not) and crime (it may indeed manifest as crime). So, we have the same type of problem with a different name. The result really is unfairness in Pre-Employment Credit Checks in industries other than, say, Banking and Finance where large sums are handled.

The method of answering a reference call with only dates of employment prevents many discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuits from occurring. It is also frustrating to the new employer, because it removes access to any track record of behaviors related to employment. About the only thing possible to determine these days in an At-Will State is whether the job candidate is a job-hopper, someone that changes jobs several times a year or at least more than once per year. This is a change since the 1990s.

In At Will States, employers need to have published Employee Handbooks that states requirements and rights of both the company and the employee. A Sexual Harassment Policy (in the 2010s, this can really extend to any harassment) and Grievance Procedures must be put in writing and enforced. Workforce experts suggest that companies also put into place written Anti-Bully Policies.

Companies need to provide a clearly conducted and explained Employee Orientation and set, regular, and fair Employment Work Reviews with Merit-Based Raises. A Disciplinary Procedure Policy must also be written for fairness and good operations. Employers must keep good records of employees' work habits, achievements and challenges (and manner of handling challenges) - documentation is vital to fairness. Employees must also document their work lives from the day of their initial interview and keep a Work Portfolio to carry to their reviews.

If the Employer and the Employee both follow guidelines and regulations, maintain documentation consistently, and maintain open communications, then the At Will employment system can be fair. However, even all this cannot guarantee fairness in all cases and documentation is vital in EEO and legal actions.

Examples:

A fast food unit in a chain in Central Ohio persuaded single parents, who were the most highly paid crew at the time, to quit by suddenly requiring all employees to be available during all hours of store operations, 6:30am - 9:00pm seven days a week. Health and medical insurances were also cancelled without notice. Neither of these actions was illegal.

In a large church ministry of 600 staff persons, the head pastor routinely walked through offices every 2-3 months and fired a single person at random to keep the rest alert and productive. Interestingly, because of legal actions taken by a few congregants over other matters, this facility laid off over half of its staff in order to stay operational. This was also sudden and unannounced, but legal in Ohio.

Another Part of the At Will Employment Act may be unfair as well --

An employer may also change the terms of the employment with no notice and no consequences -- alter wages unannounced, terminate benefits unannounced, reduce paid time off, change work hours, etc. This can leave workers highly vulnerable to sudden termination, limited work hours (cuts), on-call work hours only, and other circumstances that benefit the employer.

See the link at the end of this Hub for additional instances that can be unfair to workers and for more information.

Should the At Will Employment Act be repealed, then consumer prices will likely increase with increasing wages resulting from contracts. Fewer workers will likely be hired to cover larger assignments of work because of the salary increases as well, as happens when Minimum Wages increase at State and Federal levels. Increased stress from decreased number of workers will lead to additional sick time taken and productivity lost, perhaps decreasing company revenues further because of lost business and poorer service. It is a dilemma.

What system would be fair to both employee and employer, without increasing costs and worker health risks to such an extent - and without constant employer vs. union employees sorts of strife? That is what we need.