"Employment at will, then, benefits only one party. Because of this, it is not rational for employees to become employees at will. Because it’s not rational for both parties to make this agreement, employment at will is faulty." (Bramer Lecture Notes)
"Private business is private, and so should not have public (state or government) regulation." (Bramer Lecture Notes)
So… employment at will makes complete sense to me. An employee can quit at any time he/she wishes, and an employer can promote, demote, and fire the employee at any time. This whole idea makes sense to me. Its the opposite that I have troubles with. Contractual employment. One example I want to use is an option I have for getting my CPA. I want to get me CPA and have been told I can go one of two ways: I can get outside experience, or I can go right from college into my CPA. One downfall for the outside experience is contractual obligations. I was told from one of my friends that is a CPA that he went and got outside experience before going to get his CPA. He said the company would pay for his exam and his study materials if he would lock into a 5-year contract with the company if he passed. He went that route and is now suggesting it to me. I don't see how locking someone into a contract is legal. How is this not a form of slavery. The company is forcing someone to work with them for 5 years, sure the person is getting paid but what if they hate working there due to somebody being either annoying or any other reason somebody would want to leave. I also think the second quote is very obscure. I don't think just because a business is private doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated by the government. Did anybody else have these same feeling after reading these two quotes?
Would like a detailed response to this.