The employment contract is defined by several factors. For instance, an employee has the freedom to quit employment. Besides, an employer can dismiss an employee from work. The wishes of an employer are also fulfilled by an employee according to the directions stipulated at the workplace. Common law is the basis for employment-at-will (EAW). If there is no controlling contract or specific law in place, the working relationship can be brought to an end at will. In other words, demotion, promotion, and hiring of workers remain the full discretion of an employer. There may be no apparent reason to dismiss an employee from work under the confines of EAW. However, a due process policy must be adhered to within a public system. This implies that an employee can appeal against his/her dismissal and obtain the reason behind being discharged from work.

According to Epstein, the employment-at-will has a mutual gain to both the employer and employee and that is why it is embraced across the board. In other words, EAW is not meant to exploit workers because even the employer can run at a huge loss when an employer opts to quit work at will. Epstein holds the opinion that the projected benefits of EAW should be weighed keenly at the time when both parties enter into a working agreement and not when workplace differences arise.

The denoted fairness of simplicity is the focus of Epstein. Hence, an employer or worker may end the working agreement whenever deemed fit to do so. Epstein also asserts that the voluntary nature of employment-at-will elevates the degree of liberty which is enjoyed by both parties. He equates EAW to religion or marriage. Since both parties clearly understand the tenets of EAW at the time of the agreement, this form of workplace arrangement is entirely fair. Moreover, each of the parties has the liberty to disengage from the agreement at any time. Epstein also claims that whenever a dispute arises between an employee and employer, it is the latter who suffers the most in terms of reputation.

From an objective point of view, Epstein’s argument is quite convincing. To begin with, the terms of EAW are uniform to both an employer and employee. Even though the due process is not followed in the private sector, it is crucial to understand that each one of them has its own merits and demerits. A right fit for one another is attained by both the employer and employee who relate within the private sector domain. Needless to say, there are reputational concerns when an employer fully exercises the power to hire and fire at will. Business or organizational growth can hardly be realized in the case of a high rate of employee turnout. In any case, an organization cannot attract new hires when its reputation goes on the drain because of the random dismissal of workers.

Second, Epstein’s argument is convincing because an employment-at-will contract compels an employer to be shrewder regarding attracting and retaining the most able workers. On the other hand, an employee gains the chance of boosting personal capabilities and commitment to the workplace. Therefore, employment-at-will is a fair workplace contract for both employers and employees.