Hence employer’s prerogative ensures the basic right of an employer to apply his/her creative concepts in the business. However, it does not entitle the employer to harass employees but only gives the right to satisfy his/her business interests. The following part will critically analyze the factors which normally influence the exercise of management prerogative in employment relations in the US, UK, and China.
The US’s ‘right to manage’ is very different from that of the other developed countries. “Joint determination of relationship between employers and organized employees through collective bargaining is now a protected right in the United States” (James 1992). Obviously United States has adopted a more liberal policy towards employees’ rights. The US law insists that the managerial objectives should be achieved through good employer-employee relations in order to reduce the work difficulties and employees’ physical and mental stress. In the opinion of Summers (1976), the US considers employees’ termination as economical capital punishment (ibid). During the last decade, many states have limited employers’ traditional rights to terminate the workers any time as they liked. The adverse impacts of this law is that sometimes even the most unproductive workers get the opportunity to continue the job and thus the long term objectives of the enterprise get impeded. This law enforcement is against the employer’s right of ‘hire and fire the employees’. Numerous US regulations including EEO legislations and other non-discrimination acts tend to favor employees rather than employers rights. For instance, a company is liable to prove that the termination of any employee is not due to discrimination of any sort. As a positive outcome of such restrictions on employer’s prerogative employee-employer relationship has been enhanced in the US business environment. In contrast, the restrictions would pull back innovative