Employers should be given the right to employ, maintain and fire their workers as they please, according to the Ministry of Finance (2013). If the retention or discharge was for a positive or poor purpose did not really matter. It is also possible to ignore the fact that the contract is outdated at will. Sundaran (2013) argues that, considering the fact that it is not acceptable for any work arrangement, if they desire, employers should be able to enact those contracts. This will be relevant because it gives the sides interested in the agreement freedom of contract. However, most importantly, it allows for individual autonomy and thereby promoting very efficient operation of the labor markets.
Secondly, the contract at will should be respected because it seals the perennial gaps in the language used when signing the agreements. For instance, it answers the question on which term to be implied whenever an explicit agreement is not reached. This could be on the length and the termination of contracts. Therefore the concept should not be perceived irrationally but with a view of its benefits, Ministry of finance (2013).
CON: A Business Owner should NOT be Able to Hire Anyone Without Interference from the Government
I would like to focus on two points that have not been addressed by our opponents. Firstly, it is important to note that in any functional government, there has to be an existence of regulations that break the tension between employers and employees. Since there is a likelihood of an imbalance between the employed and the firm, there needs to be a system that brings the two parties together, Fallon (2008).
Standing (2012) adds that, congenial of employment contracts at will by the employer is unwise. This is because it encourages arbitrary power to be exercised by those with better economic positions over their employees. Thus if this is put into practice, there may be an increase in coercion and exploitation of the vulnerable employees. There have been extreme circumstances in which employers or managers fire workers because of their personal animosity, (Standing, 2012). This majorly affects the female workers. In most occasions, it happens because of their refusal to accept their employers’ sexual advances. In other occasions, employers are dismissed simply because of dislike of their personal attributes. Therefore according to Fallon (2008), the government should be entangled in such matters so as to avoid employment contracts being terminated at will by employees. It is important because, employees will be saved from victimization as a result of bad faith and malice which may be on the basis of retaliation.
Fallon, P and R Lucas (2008): ‘The Impact of Changes in Job Security Regulations in India and Zimbabwe’, World Bank Economic Review, Vol 5, No 3.
Ministry of Finance (2013): Economic Survey 2012-13, Government of India, New Delhi.
Standing, Guy (2012): Beyond the New Paternalism: Basic Security as Equality, Verso, and New York.
Sundaram, K and S Tendulkar (2013): The Working Poor in India: Employment Poverty Linkages and Employment Policy Options, Discussion Paper 4, ILO, Geneva