Once the USA attained its independence which is now more than two hundred years ago, the initiator invented a new constitution that organized the nation as democratic country. Later, a Bill of human Rights to prevent persons from dictatorship of the rich people was put in place. However, in the eighteenth century the Bill of human Rights and the Constitution were endorsed. The authority was seen as the major intimidation to human rights. The inventors did not have a chance to imagine that, as time moves, attentiveness of the company power would be real on adversary levels, and in some instances exceeding the governmental powers.
Today, most employees in the world are more susceptible to having their human rights infringed by their bosses than the initial employees in the world were to undergo their rights breached by the ruling government. Yet since the charter does not regulate their powers, private bosses are limitless to breach their employees’ universal freedom (Usace, 1970). Internationally, the Workers’ Civil Liberties Union gets more complaints regarding mistreatment by employers than concerning cruelty by the ruling government. In California, an employee seeking job vacant could not secure it because he was not in a position to answer some questions regarding his sex life which was tested on a psychological test. In Pennsylvania, employees were sacked because of headlining a serious wellbeing imperfection in their workers' products. In the USA at least two hundred thousand employees are unjustly and unfairly fired every year. In India, an employee was sacked simply because of smoking a cigarette inside her homestead. In the USA about six thousand companies currently endeavor to control off-duty cigarette smoking and other personal behaviors. At Vat-tech, Susan was fired for adhering to her sick body with all rights and permission from her supervisor.
According to The American Civil Liberty Union, such abuses of human right can only be curtailed by extending into corporate workplace and guaranteed protection in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Precisely, we know that bosses have the right to anticipate good job from their employees (Usace, 1970). However, the workers are as well warranted the identical liberty on the work that they take pleasure in off the company’ job.
Val-Tech Company applies the employment-at-will policy which is explained at Susan’s case. The doctrine is a relic of the nineteenth century anti-labor regulations and offers employers the free for all right to sack employees at any instance, without valid reasons whether frivolous or grave. Actually, as in Susan’s case, one can be sacked for no cause at all. Susan was sacked unjustly and unfairly, since the supervisor was aware of what was going on in her life. Considering the rights of employees, Susan had all rights to be given a sick leave. The company uses the primacy of employment-at-will policy which allows them to mistreat employees.
Employment-at-will principle strengthens employers to impose gratuitous urine examinations and invasive "integrity" and "personality" tests on the employees (Usace, 1970). They, therefore, fires employees at will, as in the case of Susan, which results to suppressing their workers. Val-Tech applies wrongful discharge to Susan, as there is no just cause for firing her. Susan’s offences did not adversely influence her job recital, and the infringement was not sufficient to warrant her termination. Like every worker encountered with job termination, Susan was supposed to be allowed to a trial that comprises the right to challenge bystanders, the right to present verification, the right to have enough representation and the right to a fair decision maker. This was overlooked and she was not given any chance to proof her innocence. Unfair progressive discipline was exerted on her. She had not received any warnings and she was always out with permission. The Val-Tech should change the policies that govern the termination of an employee. There should be an investigation to whether the perceived indiscipline exists. The employees should be given a chance to defend themselves and Human Resource managers should be consulted for the appropriate cause of action to be taken after a fair trial (Usace, 1970).