自由雇佣
自由雇佣（英语：At-will employment）是美国劳动法中的一项规定，即雇主可以以任何理由甚至没有理由解雇员工，且解雇前可以无需给予警告[1]，而雇员也同样可以随意辞职、罢工或不工作[2]。不过雇主不能因员工的性别、性取向、种族、宗教或残障状况而解雇员工，若因为这些原因解雇员工则是违法。若是雇员是被合法解除劳动合同的，法院不允许该雇员就解雇造成的损失提出任何索赔。该规则的支持者认为，雇员可能同样有权在没有理由或事先提醒的情况下离职，因此该规则是合理的。[3]那些认为雇员处于弱势地位的人认为这种做法不公平。[4]
如果雇主命令雇员做违法或不道德的事情而雇员不服从雇主，普通法会保护雇员免遭报复。然而，在大多数情况下，举证责任仍在被解雇的员工身上。除了蒙大拿州之外，美国其他各州均未选择在法律上修改 “自由雇佣”规则。[5]
争议
[编辑]自由雇佣原则因其对员工的严苛程度而备受批评。[6]另一方面，法律与经济学领域的自由主义学者，例如 Richard A. Epstein 教授[7]和 Richard Posner 教授[8] 认为，自由雇佣是美国经济强劲的主要因素。
随意就业也被认为是硅谷作为创业友好型环境取得成功的原因之一。[9]
主流经济学（尤其是新古典经济学）普遍认为提高解雇成本会产生不利影响；例如，Tyler Cowen 和 Alex Tabarrok 教授在他们的经济学教科书中解释，如果雇主无法立即解雇员工，他们就会更不愿意随意雇用员工。[10]
其他研究人员发现，随意解雇对于尚未找到其他工作的被解雇员工的再就业有负面影响。[11]
参阅
[编辑]- 1996年雇佣权利法令, for the UK approach to employment protection. See also, Contracts of Employment Act 1963, for the first modern UK law on the requirement to give reasonable notice before any dismissal.
- Creen v Wright (1875–76) LR 1 CPD 591 and Hill v C Parsons & Co [1972] 1 Ch 305
- 人力中介
- Protected concerted activity
- European Social Charter
- UK agency worker law
- Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act)
- Bammert v. Don's Super Valu, Inc., 646 N.W.2d 365 (Wis. 2002)
注记
[编辑]参考文献
[编辑]- ^ Shepherd, Jay. Firing at Will: A Manager's Guide. New York: Apress. 2012: 4 [27 March 2020]. ISBN 9781430237396.
- ^ Mark A. Rothstein, Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman, Cases and Materials on Employment Law (New York: Foundation Press, 1987), 738.
- ^ See, e.g., Richard Epstein, In Defense of the Contract at Will, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. 947 (1984).
- ^ See Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
- ^ Robinson, Donald C., "The First Decade of Judicial Interpretation of the Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA)," 57 Mont. L. Rev. 375, 376 (1996).
- ^ Clyde Summers, Employment At Will in the United States: The Divine Right of Employers, 3 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 65 (2000). In this article, Professor Summers reviews examples of how courts have upheld the at-will doctrine by making it very difficult for employees to sue employers on theories like intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of Privacy law, thereby giving employers significant leeway to terrorize their employees (the "divine right" referred to in the article title).
- ^ Roger Blanpain, Susan Bison-Rapp, William R. Corbett, Hilary K. Josephs, & Michael J. Zimmer, The Global Workplace: International and Comparative Employment Law – Cases and Materials (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 101–102.
- ^ Richard Posner, Overcoming Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 305–311.
- ^ Hyde, Alan. Working in Silicon Valley: Economic and Legal Analysis of a High-Velocity Labor Market. Milton Park: Routledge. 2003: xvi–xvii, 92–96 [1 August 2020]. ISBN 9781317451709. Hyde's book explores "how high-velocity work practices contribute to economic growth," including and especially the dominant American high-velocity work practice of at-will employment.
- ^ Cowen, Tyler; Tabarrok, Alex. Modern Principles of Economics 9th. New York: Worth Publishers. 2010: 521 [2 January 2023]. ISBN 9781429202275.
- ^ J.H. Verkerke, "Discharge," in Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Seth D. Harris, and Orly Lobel, eds., Labor and Employment Law and Economics, vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 2nd ed. at 447-479 (Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009), 448.
- CW Summers, 'The Contract of Employment and the Rights of Individual Employees: Fair Representation and Employment at Will' (1984) 52(6) Fordham Law Review 1082
外部链接
[编辑]- Highstone v. Westin Engineering, Inc., No. 98-1548 (8/9/99) – at-will relationship must be clear to the employees