[smcphile]

> Ending at-will employment is a legal solution to a cultural problem. Unlikely to work, but more importantly, I’d argue it’s unwise to rely on legal codes to solve non-legal problems.

Let me prefix my remarks by noting that I'm not American and that I live in a country where at-will employment for the most part doesn't exist.

I disagree that getting someone fired from their job is merely a cultural problem. It's also a financial problem and hence a legal problem.

As I see it, if someone burglarizes your home, they're depriving you of the goods they steal. If you're arbitrarily dismissed from a job that you're performing perfectly well (including treating coworkers, clients, etc. correctly), you're deprived of the lost income. In either case, there's a financial loss involved and I fail to see why the law shouldn't try to protect the victim of such a loss.

I do agree that laws will never offer a complete solution to cancel culture, but a solution doesn't have to be complete to be justified, various partial solutions are OK.

[Nasrudith]

That is already covered under libel laws but it calls for it to be untrue and malicious. A negative opinion is protected along with statements of facts.

Otherwise you have such absurdities as being able to sue for a bad review for "loss of profits". That is why the law doesn't try to protect them. Expecting to be able to sue just for damages sounds like the sort of thing which gets your country's judgements libel ruled unenforcible under libel shopping laws after a history of abuse.