Pretty vague law, but sure. We're slowly drifting in the direction of an employer only being able to fire employees for cause. Creeping socialism does that.
Of course, you seem to assume that if I was an employer, I would pass rules like this.
Dear Modernman,
"We're slowly drifting in the direction of an employer only being able to fire employees for cause. Creeping socialism does that."
In some places more, in some places, not so much.
I was surprised to learn that my own state, Maryland, often thought of as a liberal holiday wonderland, is pretty tolerant of employment at-will. Although we have a few more statutory exceptions than most (no "affinity discimrination" - can't fire folks for being homosexual), the state courts have otherwise given a relatively free interpretation of employment at-will.
I had a professor in a grad school management course tell me that "at-will" was going the way of the dinosaur, but frankly, it seems that the movement away from "at-will" may have peaked.
However, the problem with at-will employment often doesn't come directly from courts or legislatures, but from employers who don't fully understand the impact of the law. For instance, if a company promulgates a formal disciplinary policy, stating that it will fire an employee after so many offenses of thus-and-such rule or policy, that becomes part of the employment contract, and the company may no longer fire "at-will," at least for the stated offenses.
If a general disciplinary policy is established, it may entirely vitiate at-will employment in that organization.
sitetest