This is not a question of whether or not it happened. It did. And, it happened here in Salt Lake City. We have irrefutable proof of it.
John Doe works for Company A, who does business with Company B. John Doe is an at-will employee of Company A, meaning he can leave at any time without warning. The company can fire him at any time without warning, for any reason, for no reason, or even for the wrong reason, so long as it does not run foul of very specific and limited restraints on employer and employee contractual interactions. John Doe is a very good employee.
John Doe learns that Company B is interested in hiring him and paying him considerably more than he is making for Company A. John Doe says he will take the new job. Company A finds this out and calls Company B and tells it that if it hires John Doe, it will sever its business relations. Company B tells this to John Doe and indicates it cannot hire him.
John Doe has a right to sue for interference with contractual relations with Company A. However, John Doe realizes that his industry is so insular that if he takes this action, it may prevent him from advancing in his chosen field. Also, almost all litigation remedies cannot completely restore what has been lost, because it is an imperfect solution to remedy wrongful, bad, or negligent behavior. So, because of the realities of politics and those who have the power in our society, he has been stymied for improving his economic position.
Setting aside the question of whether or not John Doe should sue, what does the reality of what happened here tell us about people who are in positions of power as employers? What does it tell us about how they view their work force?
Loren M. Lambert © July 17, 2017
John Doe works for Company A, who does business with Company B. John Doe is an at-will employee of Company A, meaning he can leave at any time without warning. The company can fire him at any time without warning, for any reason, for no reason, or even for the wrong reason, so long as it does not run foul of very specific and limited restraints on employer and employee contractual interactions. John Doe is a very good employee.
John Doe learns that Company B is interested in hiring him and paying him considerably more than he is making for Company A. John Doe says he will take the new job. Company A finds this out and calls Company B and tells it that if it hires John Doe, it will sever its business relations. Company B tells this to John Doe and indicates it cannot hire him.
John Doe has a right to sue for interference with contractual relations with Company A. However, John Doe realizes that his industry is so insular that if he takes this action, it may prevent him from advancing in his chosen field. Also, almost all litigation remedies cannot completely restore what has been lost, because it is an imperfect solution to remedy wrongful, bad, or negligent behavior. So, because of the realities of politics and those who have the power in our society, he has been stymied for improving his economic position.
Setting aside the question of whether or not John Doe should sue, what does the reality of what happened here tell us about people who are in positions of power as employers? What does it tell us about how they view their work force?
Loren M. Lambert © July 17, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment