But employment contracts are typically “at will”, meaning that either party can change the terms at any time, but the other party can separate rather than be bound by the terms.
The haziness in this situation is that the restaurant didn’t come out and say point-blank: “this is a change, we’re enforcing it, agree or walk”. If they had, they’d be legally in the clear, as far as I can tell, even if they risked some ill will.
But after she complained, they allowed her to wear the old uniform but then proceeded to act in an allegedly retaliatory fashion — that puts the legal situation in a much murkier light.
We disagree completely; either side has the moral right to unilaterally change or terminate an employment contract, at least so far as future employment is concerned, and any day either party can start a brand new negotiation for a meeting of the minds that will either lead to a new agreement or a severed relationship. Based on the results of the 2006 election, I informed everyone working for me that they would be phased out over a two year period - unilaterally. As it worked out, they were almost all all gone in one year. I was not "negotiating in good faith" on that issue. Previously, I had employees from time to time who would leave based on a better offer, and I never felt that I had the right to compel them to negotiate "in good faith" on whether they would stay. If they asked to renegotiate pay or other issues, I would consider that possibility. If they said they were leaving, I politely wished them good luck. We are free Americans, and either side can unilaterally alter or terminate any employment contract. If the law disagrees, then the law is an ass and morally wrong.
Pure nonsense.
THE EMPLOYER sets the rules on his private property, when HE feels like it, the way HE feels like it.
Similarly, the employee is ABSOLUTELY FREE to leave the very second he or she feels like it.
IF there is a contract, then that might change a bit. IF!
Incorrect. Absent a union contract, a written contract between employer and employee, in an at-will state, employers are free to fire employees for any reason. California Labor Code section 2922 states: "An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month."
Sorry, but in a case of "at-will" employment (which this job most certainly was), the employer is free to change the condition of employment, and is under no obligation to negotiate such changes with the employees. Of course, that changes in a union shop, or in the case of an explicit employment contract.
“It would appear that many also don’t have a grasp of the principles of contract law...”
Understatement.
Wrong. I worked for a company that at the time of my hiring didn’t require neckties. They changed that policy two years later.
Under you argument I could sue them. I don’t think so.
I look at an employer/employee relationship as being like any other business relationship or contract. It's not "please sir, may I have a job? I'll do anything!", it's: Let's come to an agreement where I agree to trade some of my time/expertise/energy for compensation. In that scenario, one side does not have the right to unilaterally change the terms of that contract. They can negotiate change, but they cannot dictate. Refusal to negotiate such changes is tantamount to a breach of contract and will be dealt with accordingly.
Your views on the employer/employee relations are pretty far off in an "at will" state. Here's an example... A company decides to change from one IT networking system, email system, or software package to another. They will then dictate to their employees that they WILL work on the new systems. There's no negotiation. The company employees WILL use the new systems. The IT staff will either comply and learn the new system (usually by spending every waking hour of their own time trying to learn the new system) or they'll have to find a new employer.
Given your views, a company's employeesand IT staff could keep the company from switching to new systems.
Mark