If we look at the question through the present legal filter, yes, in most cases the employer should not have to give the employee a (truthful) reason for firing the employee.
But law is often tilted in the direction of the ideology in power at the time of enactment, and once enacted, takes more than just a pendulum-swing in power to reverse. And even if reversal occurs, does either/or simply because of who's in power make any liberty or justice sense as far as doing the right thing in the situation, especially if there might be a more complex right answer than the simple either-or from who's in power?
For those of you who fully support the employer not having to give a truthful reason to the fired employee in most cases, according to law, would you still be citing the law as good if the law said the reverse?
To me, the question isn't asking what the law states at present or even should state at present, from a political persuasion perspective.
To me, the question is what is really the right thing to do in this situation by the parties involved?
That's why I believe that the liberty and justice of neither party, the employer or the employee, should be infringed in the matter.
At first glance, therefore, it appeared to me that the employee's justice was needlessly being infringed by not receiving a truthful reason, and that neither the employer's liberty or justice was being infringed by providing one.
Thus I say the employer should be required to provide the employee a truthful reason for the firing, and that the law should be changed to reflect that.
But maybe if I analyzed this more deeply, using the same liberty and justice for all criteria, my analysis might reveal a different, more complex answer to the question to insure the best possible outcome of maintaining an optimal balance of freedom and security for both parties.
I guess what I'm saying is that the method we employ and the depth we pursue the analysis to decide the matter is really huge.
It's less a question, perhaps, of which of the two poll-answers you would choose.
And more a question of what method would you use to decide.
I think that typically people use their particular political persuasion as an off-the-cuff response, as that's pretty easy to do.
But I don't believe that really arrives at the right-thing-to-do answer as often as people might want to think.