The free-market pretense is that the entrepreneur operates in a vacuum using his God-given resources and property to create wealth as part of his holy avocation and that he should have the right, as the priest in communion with higher powers, to act more or less as he wishes. It is only out of benevolence that he employs people at all.
The truth is that he uses his resources to leverage the infrastructure of the society around him to create wealth and that he needs workers to realise that wealth. Because he is in a position of power - especially were unions don't exist - society places an obligation on him not to treat workers - without whom the business wouldn't exist - unfairly. We consider it unfair for him to dismiss an employee on a whim. Need to reduce the work-force? No problem - we call it reduncancy. Incompetent or disruptive staff? No problem either - go through a fair process and you can fire them. We even allow for periods of probation in order to ensure that the employ fits in. Normally three to six months. Because that's what we feel is fair.
If you have a mortgage and a few kids you are not in position to just walk away.
(Apologies for the sarcasm, but I have a bad cold and I'm cranky.)
If you can make people redundant when economically you have to, then I don't have a problem except who defines "economically".
All in all, because of my own experience, I still prefer the "at will" system with a real social net behind it, as opposed to the State telling businesses how to run themselves.
That is not a freedom vs fairness issue IMHO; it's a who's best qualified to make decisions issue.
By all means, let's have the State assist, help, hire, create jobs, but don't direct.
I will however agree that big companies are behaving increasingly like rogue citizens and obviously need some counterweight.
