Property Rights Argument:
The property rights argument confers a right to owners of business to hire and fire at will. However, all rights are limited and sometimes come in conflict with societal values. In employment both the employee and employer are free to exercise the rights of property ownership. The employers are free to utilize their productive resources and pay wages the workers are willing to accept and the vice versa for workers. Any restrictions to such agreement lead to a violation of property rights of one or both parties. Property rights are fundamental in that they play a role satisfying out basic needs and securing liberty. Based on Locke’s theory, property as a natural right. Property is certainly not just limited to material things.

Property rights and democracy: Locke’s theory of property rights enable individuals to participate in a democratic society. Cohen: also gives them the means to compete with each other. Property rights in a job, including training and education: This would limit the ability of employers to fire.

Objections to Locke’s theory are that it may lead to the impoverishment of large classes of society, therefore undermining property rights. In addition, in modern society, an unequal distribution of property is prevalent. What Locke failed to foresee is that those who have labor only to sell accelerate the process of transferring the wealth of society to those who are in position to employ them.

Freedom of Contract argument: Employment is viewed as a contract between employer and employee (often explicit in the form of a contract). Limiting this contract would violate both employee and employer. It protects both the employee and the employer.

On Philosophical basis as is in American and British, its mostly based on Locke’s notion of property rights to be only part of a more general freedom of action. On the Continent based on Kant’s notion of autonomy; there is freedom to make choices about matters that bear most significantly on our lives. Employment is a choice we make that affects our lives and not others. Autonomy entails freedom of contract and also serves, as the basis against the employment at will. Both these philosophical ideologies require that our consent be voluntarily given.

The restrictions on freedom of contract are that it’s valid only when made with genuine consent of both partners. Therefore, no child labor or employment of mentally ill persons who don’t have the mental capacity to understand the terms of the contract. Children and the mentally incompetent lack the capability for autonomous action to a sufficient degree. And when a person is forced into these contracts then that person cannot be said to be acting autonomously. To some extent the doctrine of employment ‘at will’ cannot be adequately supported by the freedom of contract argument.

Efficiency argument: is a utilitarian one and relies on both property rights and the freedom of contract but puts emphasis efficient operation of business. Employers use this standard to allocate the most efficient resources like labor needed, selecting the best labor available, and disciple or dismiss workers who perform inadequately. It also allows us to consider the consequences of workers and for the whole society. The exploitation of workers under employment at will is detrimental and bears direct burden not only to the worker but also to out community. This argument not only provides grounds for justifying employment at will but also some limitations for reasons of public policy.

Efficiency argument is easily impaired if external factors like moral considerations other than the most efficient intrude into business making decision. This argument has limits but does not allow us to determine what theses limits are.

Reference:

Boatright, John R. (2003). “Ethics and The Conduct of Business.” Upper Saddle River:
                  Prentice Hall