A Contingency Approach to the Employment Relationship: Form, Function, and Effectiveness Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United States, the at-will doctrine purports to give employers the right to termi-nate employees with or without notice or “good cause. ” However, numerous exceptions have made protection afforded by the doctrine illusory, and wrongful termination litigation often results. Other countries such as Canada and New Zealand legally prohibit at-will employment, and require reasonable notice or justification when terminating employees. On the basis of comparison of nonunion employment in those countries with that typical in the United States, we examine alternative approaches to employment relationships (in-dependent contractor, employee rights, and at-will), and offer suggestions for choosing among them strategically based on environmental contingencies, work characteristics, and outcomes valued by a given firm. Although the choice may be limited by law in some ju-risdictions, we offer a more systematic approach for U.S. firms wishing to deal with the consequences of terminations proactively as part of their overall strategic planning process. KEY WORDS: at will; wrongful termination; Canada; New Zealand; strategic HR planning. “Laws control the lesser man; right conduct controls the greater one.” —Chinese proverb
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".