The Woman Ruler in Queen Elizabeth Essay Example for Free

The Woman Ruler in Queen Elizabeth EssayElizabeth I is considered as one of successful monarchs in the history of England. The period where she ruled is deemed as Englands Golden Age where extravagance and luxury flourished as expressed in literature through writers like William Shakespeare, and territorial expeditions through explorers like Francis Drake. In other words, there was a breathtaking cultural and political action that the England people experience after a century of chaos from a former ruler.This age is always attri provideded to the reign of Elizabeth I because prior to this, in the one-sixteenth century, people moved through the ruthlessness of Mary I, Elizabeths sister where she prosecuted all Protestants in the country. Elizabeth I became a queen when she inherited her sisters ordure after she died. At the onset, she was confronted by the challenge and oppo amazeion of those who thinks that a adult female cannot qualify as a monarch. She has proved Englan d and the world that she can and a woman can become a ruler, and successful at that. She is known to be a different kind of queen.She is quick-witted, clever and able to use feminine wiles to undertake her own way. Elizabeth could be as ruthless and calculating as any king before her but at the same time she was vain, sentimental and slow swayed by flattery (Briscoe). Her brilliance and ability as woman ruler are specifically suggested by her writings and her speeches for the whole of England. As mentioned earlier, there was a contemporary assumption in England that women are naturally unable(predicate) of a monarchical rule Queen Elizabeth established her magisterial authority.She constructed a positive delegacy of feminine actor from a melange of popular beliefs about exceptional women, such as her identification with the Virgin Mary (Levin , et al 192). Elizabeth I as A Powerful Monarch As a queen she had to fulfil responsibilities that were most difficult to fulfil as a w oman. But the whole England proverb her as having all the dignity and ability as a ruler that resulted a very prosperous and successful reign.When England was being confronted by the forces of King Phillip II of Spain when he decided to attack England and suppressed their engagement in the trade between the New World. He set off the Spanish Armada to meet the British march. Before the war, Queen Elizabeth I meet the British troops and addressed them a speech that displays optimism and trust of a ruler upon her citizenry. My loving people, we have been persuaded by some, that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery but I assure you, I do not intrust to distrust my faithful and loving people.Let tyrants fear I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and vindication in the loyal hearts and beloved will of my subjects (Speech to the Troops at Tilbury). Moreover, as a ruler she also displayed her concurrence and selflessness among the British troops when she said And therefore I am amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of battle, to live or die amongst you to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor, my blood, even the dust (Speech to the Troops at Tilbury). Despite being a woman, she always asserted her capability to rule as that of equal to men when she said that I know I have but a body of a weak and feeble woman but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too (Speech to the Troops at Tilbury). This reiterated the fact that even though she is regarded as weak and incapable of ruling the kingdom, that doesnt decreased her confidence in her ability to successfully rule England.She has proven that beyond motions in her capability, she remains unafraid in facing everything from great responsibilities as a monarch to battles against the invaders . As a queen, she has nothing in principal but service that would bring England into a status that unimaginable before her reign. Her dedication to her people and her responsible leadership is expressed in her farewell speech to the parliament There will never Queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects and that will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety than myself.For it is my desire to live nor reign no longer than my life and reign shall be good for you. And though you have had, and whitethorn have, many princes more mighty and wise sitting in this seat, and you never had nor shall have, any that will be more careful than loving (The Farewell Speech). Queen Elizabeth as a Religious Leader While there were many chaos regarding the two opposing forces of Catholicism and Protestantism, Queen Elizabeth made little modification than what she was expected.What she did was just to imposed that prayers and services be rendered in slope rather than in Latin. Moreover, she wanted that the Church be under the English Monarch, therefore establishing herself as a religious reader. While she acknowledges the Almighty Gods power as always reiterated in her farewell speech Neither do I desire to live longer days than I may see your prosperity and that is what my only desire.And as I am that person still yet, under God, hath delivered you and so I trust by the almighty power of God that I shall be his instrument to preserve you from every peril, dishounour, shame, tyranny, and oppression, partly by means of your intended helps which we take very acceptably because it manisfesteth the largeness of your good loves and loyalties unto your sovereign (Farewell Speech), she nevertheless want that the government will prevail over religion.Queen Elizabeth as Chaste and Virgin While most of her people and members of the courtroom persuaded her to marry and begot a child to become the heir of the throne when she dies, she re mained unmarried throughout her lifetime. Moreover, she also had several suitors from different parts of England and the world such as France, Spain, Scotland, Sweden, and the Roman Empire. She has remained unmarried because she believes that marriage is not the best for her and for England.In her response to the proposal of Erik of Sweden she said that And while we perceive there from that the zeal and love of your mind towards us is not diminished, yet in part we are grieved that we cannot gratify your Serene Highness with the same kind of affection. And that indeed does not happen because we doubt in any way of your love and honour, but, as often we have testified both in words and writing, that we have never yet conceived a stamp of that kind of affection towards anyone ( result to Erik of Swedens Proposal). One by one, she rejected all her potential husbands not on the mans weaknesses but based on her adverse thoughts and principles on the consept of marriage. In her refusal t o marry and secure the line of the Tudor, she was regarded as a capricious woman insensitive of Englands welfare and future. When she was being pressured by the Parliament to marry before her reign ends, she replied now that the Publick Care of governing the Kingdom is laid upon me, to draw upon me also the Cares of marriage may seem a point of inconsiderate Folly.Yea, to satisfie you, I have already joyned myself in marriage to an Husband, namely, the Kingdom of England And to me it shall be a Full satisfaction, both for the memorial of my Name, and for my Glory also, if when I shall let my last breath, it be ingraven upon my Marble Tomb, Here lieth Elizabeth, which Reigned a Virgin, and died a Virgin (Response to Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage, 1559). Throughout her lifetime, she has proven to be a Queen that receives full credit for such a successful and prosperous reign that made England in the pinnacle of greatness in the world.Works CitedBriscoe, Alexandre. Elizabet h I An Overview. BBC History. 01 October 2008. http//www. bbc. co. uk/history/british/tudors/elizabeth_i_01. shtml The Farewell Speech. Modern History SourcebookQueen Elizabeth I of England (b. 1533, r. 1558-1603) Selected Writing and Speeches. 01 October 2008. http//www. fordham.edu/halsall/mod/elizabeth1. htmlResponse%20to%20Erik%20of%20Sweden%27s%20Proposal Levin, Carole, Carney, Jo Eldridge, et al. Elizabeth I Always Her feature Free Woman London Ashgate Publishing, 2003. Response to Erik of Swedens Proposal. Modern History SourcebookQueen Elizabeth I of England (b. 1533, r. 1558-1603) Selected Writing and Speeches. 01 October 2008. http//www. fordham. edu/halsall/mod/elizabeth1. htmlResponse%20to%20Erik%20of%20Sweden%27s%20Proposal Response to a Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage, 1559.Modern History SourcebookQueen Elizabeth I of England (b. 1533, r. 1558-1603) Selected Writing and Speeches. 01 October 2008. http//www. fordham. edu/halsall/mod/elizabeth1. htmlRespon se%20to%20Erik%20of%20Sweden%27s%20Proposal Speech to the Troops at Tilbury. Modern History Sourcebook Queen Elizabeth I of England (b. 1533, r. 1558-1603) Selected Writing and Speeches. 01 October 2008. http//www. fordham. edu/halsall/mod/elizabeth1. htmlResponse%20to%20Erik%20of%20Sweden%27s%20Proposal

Dubliners & country Essay Example for Free

Dubliners country EssayDubliners is a set aside written by James Joyce and published by Penguin Classics. It has a collection of 15 short stories with wonderful plot, characters, and themes. It talks about interesting tales set in Dublin and various characters which show great do it for their country in general. Readers will find themselves more than interested and glued to the leaves of the book. They will opinion like they are in a roller coaster ride as the stories unfold before them, shifting from success to failure then back to success again. In her stories, the author shows a hint of his disappointments in any(prenominal) of the sight of Dublin and the way they chose to live. The book, as a whole, presents the way of living in Dublin. Reading the stories in this book can make the reader feel that he or she is authenticly in the setting of the story while personally interacting with the characters and sharing their lifes ups and downs with them. The author utilise words that catch images and achieve a clearer picture through the marvelously written words on the books pages. In addition, the use of the color gold reveals that the author associated this color to his country.It is a country bountiful of dreams and dreamers. In the book, Joyce presented contrasting themes because in that respect are stories about the country that will attract readers to visit the place while there are parts of the book that make readers feel to never step on that place. However, later on readers will find themselves having a deep respect for the country and all the people who live there. The story The Dead is one of the stories of Dubliners that is not completely interesting but also gives out ideas about love, sum and relationship.It is about a failed marriage caused by relationship full of dishonesty and deception. Keeping secrets will really ruin a relationship. However, the author still showed love in the characters even though the relationship was alread y failing. Joyce wanted to imply that loving someone is possible despite all the problems. Loving means accepting the imperfections and giving unconditional love. inebriation also plays a great role in the Dubliners. The short stories entitled Little Cloud, Counterparts, and The Dead show that alcohol is a huge part of the lives of the characters.It is used by the characters to escape from reality and the problems that they have. At the same time, it is also used to enjoy and have merrymaking. The author also used alcohol to reveal the real situation during the time that he was writing the book. In fact, at that time, alcohol and alcohol abuse was really rampant. Alcohol can make or catch fire ones personality which appears obviously on the life of the characters in the Dubliners. The book will let readers feel mixed emotions. thither are happy moments but there are also moments of distress and depression.For instance, there were citizens of Dublin who escaped from the country, o nly to be imprisoned later on. It gives out a hopeless scenario of life during that time and shows a stagnant impression of Dublin. The short story entitled Mother is depressing and less entertaining. Nevertheless, the author wanted to show that the book was not only created for entertainment. It is a book that shows moving story for all ages. Words are really powerful in the book Dubliners. The author uses words that are make up which later turns out to be full of angst.The emotion of good and bad is also shown. First you will feel the love and later on hate. There are stories which are depressing at first but end with full of hope. Upon reading Dubliners, I find myself fastened on my seat without pickings any of my attention away from the stories. I was never disappointed with the way the author narrates the lives of the Dubliners. It is worthy of the time being spent on reading. It is a extremely recommendable book to be read by everyone to achieve a sense of patriotism.Works C itedJoyce, James. Dubliners. London Penguin Classics, 1956.

Statutory Protection of Employment Law

Statutory Protection of Employment LawThe Failed Promise of Statutory ProtectionThe subject of the legal regulation of hollow is one of great complexity. Up to the present time a priori objections to such regulations have delayed their introduction, and only tardyly, as experience has demonstrated their usefulness, have they been across-the-board to situations which seem to require them. In the United States the nonion that the legislative power should not be used to regulate conditions of employment has been abandoned by nigh thoughtful persons, but the prejudice against deputisence is as strong as ever.Henry R. Seager, Economics, 1904, p. 431Following a period of legislative in exertion, selective statutory restrictions on the in effect(p) to dismiss came into existence largely as a byproduct of labor regulation of the late 1920s and early 1930s. The introduction of limitations to the at-will rule inside the NLRA frame influence, in grammatical constituenticular, marked the yearn everywheredue recognition that, as long as employers had the right to dismiss employees, at-will public policy goals, such as industrial peace and the extension of bafflely collective tradeing, were unattainable.Following a roughly historical chronology, this chapter explores how, from the 1920s onwards, restrictions on dismissals were constructed around notions of orderly collective negotiate. Thematically, the focus of the chapter is on the creation of new institutional structures and their impact on the status of workers in legal distress of art bail. Underlying this analysis is the tentative hypothesis that the NLRA, and the practices which evolved from it, provided amalgamations and their members with a genius of control over dismissal rights which was largely illusionary. This mistaken sense of control, in turn, encouraged joints to put efforts into dividing boundary security enhancing measures at the plant and beau monde level which ultimately did no t constrain managerial prerogatives in effect. This want of real control became apparent in the mid 1960s, when the Supreme Court handed down several(prenominal) decisions which reaffirmed the right of management to close branches and forgive employees without union interference. Apart from excluding non-unionized workers, the NLRA system, possibly against the intentions of its original sponsors, ultimately came to severely circumscribe the right of unions to bargain over job security at the real time when such protection was needed.The Promised Lands of Protected BargainingAt the turn of the century, many US industrial dealing scholars questioned the premiss that injustices in the labor market could be remedied through legislative acts and/or, more in general, via a strengthening of individual employment rights. Opposition to legislative approaches was grounded primarily in the belief that solutions to the labor problems of industrial societies could be created more easily by strengthening the standing of addressd labor as collective bargaining agentive role rather than by creating a host of limited employment regulations.1 Accordingly, in 1911, the Harvard economist Taussig suggested that the most urgent task in reforming US employment relations was not detailed new legislation per se, but rather the protection of bargaining representatives2The workmen clearly gain by having their case in charge of elect representatives, whether or not these be fellow employees and collective bargaining and unionization up to this point surely bring no offsetting disadvantages to society. As to the immediate employees, in that evaluate is often a real danger that he who presents a demand, or a grievance, will be victimized. He will be depleted and perhaps blacklisted very likely on some pretext, but in fact because he has made trouble.In the 1930s, Taylors influential labour Problems and press Law argued, very much along the lines of earlier reform advocates, t hat individual workers had been deprived of their ability to bargain primarily because of the expansion and centralization of management.3 To remedy this situation, Taylor argued, the state had to enable workers to bargain collectively, both for wages and for the protection of their jobs. Said Taylor4Legally free to dispose of his services at any price he deems just, immediate necessity in the face of an oversupply of labor abridges that independence to empty words. His meaning the workers inferior bargaining position is not wholly due to sparing inequality, but in part to a lack of knowledge of labor conditions, and a bargaining skill less effective than that of his employer. The injustices growing out of the individual bargaining burden run not only the individual worker but the entire group to which he belongs. Unregulated competition resulting from individual bargaining tends to pull down the circumstances of employment to the level of the weakest employerTaylors notion tha t inequalities of labor were due to the exposure of workers to individual rather than collective bargaining echoed the opinions of some of the nations leading judges of the time. Judges Holmes and battlefield had earlier opposed bans on union activity on account of the fact that union activity merely counterbalanced the combination of capitalists.5 Despite the gradual acknowledgement of the legitimacy of strike action by some chat ups, up until the 1920s, few judges had been willing to offer protection to those workers who were run offd for union membership or strike activity. In theory, collective bargaining could serve to limit the power disequilibrium between the employer, who, as Holmes says is free to discharge the worker, and the worker who depends on his job for his livelihood.6 In practice, however, the relationship between job security and collective action had remained largely antonymous. Post World War I, workers who participated in collective action, be it as organiz ers or as strike participants, were likely to face retaliatory discharges or even blacklisting.7 Industrial actions in which in excess of 1,000 workers were permanently dismissed include the Homestead strike of 1892, the Pullman strike of 1894, and the steel strike of 1919-20, which involved approximately 365,000 workers and resulted in over 10,000 permanent discharges. In the Boston police strike of 1919, in which the policemen struck for the right to organize with an AFL affiliate, meanwhile, more than one third of the police force were permanently discharged.The first congressional statute addressing issues of dismissal and organizing activity, the Erdman Act, had tryed to reverse the retaliatory discharge of union members working on the railroads at a time when the railroads were the only area where the Federal Government had the authority to regulate such matters. Passed by Congress in 1898, constituent 10 of the Erdman Act made it an offense to threaten an employee with dis charge or to blacklist the employee after a discharge because of membership in a labor organization. Specifically the Act read 8That any employer subject to the provisions of this act and any officer, agent or murderer of such employer who shall require any employee, or any person seeking employment, as a condition of such employment, to enter into an scorement, either written or verbal, not to become or remain a member of any labor corporation, association, or organization or shall threaten any employee with loss of employment, or shall unjustly single out against any employee because of his membership or who shall, after having discharges an employee, attempt or conspire to prevent such employee from obtaining employment or who shall after the quitting of an employee, attempt or conspire to prevent such employee from obtaining employment, is hereby declared to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished for such offense by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars.In 1908, dent 10 of the Erdman Act was declared in violation of the Fifth Amendment by the Supreme Court in Adair v. United States. This rather predictable decision again rendered members of labor organizations unprotected from retaliatory discharges.9 nonpolar workers were given some certify by the courts in the Brandeis and Holmes Supreme Court decisions of the 1920s.10 Explicit legislative protection of those engaging in organizing activity however commenced as late as 1926 with the passage of the Railroad Labor Act (RLA), which, apart from requiring employers to bargain with unions, prohibited employers from discriminating against union members.11 The RLA applied originally to interstate railroads and cerebrate undertakings, but was later amended to include airlines engaged in interstate commerce. The Norris La Guardia Act (NLGA) of 1932 gave some federal sanction to the right of labor unions to organize and strike.12 Implicitly, it also li mited the ability of federal courts to enforce yellow dog contracts, under which workers promised not to join a union or promised to discontinue union membership.13 The National Industrial Recovery Act (NRA) of 1933, the predecessor of the National Labor Relations Act, introduced the idea of codes of fair competition which fixed wages and hours in plastered industries. Title I of the Act, which was declared unconstitutional in 1935, guarantied the right of employees to collective bargaining without interference or coercion (which include the dismissal of employees). 14The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, or Wagner Act, include some previously invalidated labor sections of the NRA, as well as a number of additions. Primarily interested with restricting employer activities against union organizing and bargaining efforts, the NLRA prohibited employers from, firstly, dominating or new(prenominal)wise interfering with the formation of labor unions turnly, interfering or re straining employees engaged in employment their rights to organize and bargain collectively and, thirdly, from refusing to bargain collectively with unions representing a corporations employees. In doing so, sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA effectively tied the legal protection of employees from retaliatory discharges to the right of employees to organize collectively. The Act stated to this effect that15Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.Sec. 8. It shall be an below the belt practice for an employer(1) To interfere with, restrain, or embrace employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.(2) To dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or break financial or other suppor t to it(3) By discrimination in call for to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization(4) To discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he had filed charges or given testimony under this act.(5) To refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employeesUnder the NLRA regime, employers were required not to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees with look at to rates of pay, wages and hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.16 While the Act had made it clear that retaliatory dismissals of union members were illegal, it gave no guidance on the question of whether bargaining over other conditions of employment, included issues relating to job security.17 Moreover, despite the appearance of sweeping legislation, coverage under the NLRAs protective umbrella was narrow. Public employees at the federal, state, and l ocal level, countrified workers, domestic workers, and supervisory employees all were excluded.18 Nonetheless, for those covered by the Act, statutory dismissal protection was available in connection with established categories of protected activity the courts had created. This included dismissals for strike action, union membership and related activities.Indeed, at its outset, the NLRB rulings allowed significant numbers of dismissed employees to gain reinstatement. From the appointment of the come along in the Fall of 1935 until March 1939, the Board handled a total of 20,192 cases involving over 4.5 million workers. Of these cases 19,018 or four fifths were closed. Of the total cases closed, about 52% were decided by agreements, while the remainder were dismissed, withdrawn or closed in some other way before coming to the Board. About two thousand cases were strike cases, involving 356 thousand workers, of which 75% were settled and in which 227 thousand workers had to be re- b usy. An additional 15 thousand cases were decided in favor of workers alleging non-strike related discriminatory discharges, and resulted in the reinstatement of the respective workers. Between January 1 of 1938 and April 1 of 1939 alone, the Board heard 1,675 cases alleging discriminatory discharges and ordered the reinstatement and/or compensation of 1,022 workers.19In theory, there was a potential for collective bargaining agreements to include job security guarantees of some form. Given existing cultural pre-dispositions, both amongst the judiciary and managers, however, the possibility of partial union control over personnel and investment decisions was remote. Judicial support for the right to manage had a strong pedigree and its influence would not wane quickly. In the 1890s already, some state courts had felt the need to refrain the right to manage. In the view of most courts this right was as much a part of the free labor creed as was the right to work. melt labor requir ed that both employers and individual workers were fully responsible for their decisions. Permitting workers to organize and successively influence managerial decisions was viewed as a danger to free economic competition. In State v. Glidden, an outraged Connecticut judge stated, that once workers could influence managerial decision, no lasting would the heads of industrial and commercial enterprises rise from the ranks of the toilers, no longer could self-reliant ambitious men push to the fore.20 Unable to manage as they saw fit, businessmen would stop risking their capital, time and experience. At best, the nations business would be conducted by paternalistic enterprises, at worst anarchy pure and simple would prevail.At the turn of the century, Taussig had already predicted that union demands for job security would clash with managers insistence on the right to manage. His Principles of Economics stated to this effect that21Private ownership carries with it the seeds of conflic tthe inevitable clash between those who employ and who are employed. Disguise it as we may, smooth over to our utmost, adjust where we can, there the conflict is, ever liable to break out. The private employer regards his business as his own, its methods of management as subject to his own judgment. It is almost ever urged by him and his spokesman that the effective working of the business machine depends above all on unfettered freedom in the selection and tenure of employees. So long as this attitude prevails, the workman will feel in turn that he must retain his weapon of defense, the strike, even though it entail injury to a wide circle of persons. Even if employers were to consent to restrictions on their power of discharge, contests would remain, strikes would brew. And on the other hand discharge is but one of the matters in which employers direct rule is to be questioned. Discharge is conspicuous because it is the outstanding weapon.As long as unions and their members h ad little formal protection through the law, management had been able to bank its dominance with relative ease, if only by dismissing those who questioned it. Once NLRA legislation protected concerted action, this situation had changed radically, and conflicts between unions and management over dismissal rights were pre-destined.When President Truman called the second National Labor focussing Conference in 1945, labor and management representatives found themselves unable to agree on the boundaries of collective bargaining. Disagreement had arisen particularly with regard to managements right to make workers redundant, close and/or relocate branches. The statement of the management representative at the conference expressed the employers dismay over this matter22Labor members of the Committee on Managements Rights to manage have been unwilling to any listing of specific management functions. Management members of the Committee conclude therefore, that the labor members are conve rt that the field of collective bargaining will, in all probability, continue to expand into the field of management.The only possible end of such a philosophy would be the joint management of the enterprise. To this management members naturally cannot agree. Management has functions that must not and cannot be compromised to the public interest. If labor disputes are to be minimized, labor must agree that certain specific functions and responsibilities of management are not subject to collective bargaining.In theory, the evolving conflict about the appropriate limits of collective bargaining, and particularly the rights of labor to interfere with managements redundancy and dismissal decisions, was resolved by reference to new management concepts such as the balance wheel rights doctrine. In practice, a set of employer friendly court decisions and the decline of unions in the US settled the issue, first, in rough terms, during the first decade of NLRA rule, and then, in greater de tail, over the following three decades.The notion of residual rights, which deserves a passing mention in this context, developed from the 1940s onwards to become a prominent feature of the management of industrial relations in the 1960s and 1970s. The residual rights doctrine postulated that management rights were the result of an evolutionary process, whereby initially management possessed total freedom in ordering the affairs of the enterprise. This included freedoms with regard to whom to hire and dismiss and when to do so. Union demands and labor legislation encroached on this freedom. It followed that every time a manager made a contractual concession, and/or every time a labor law restricted management options, the original rights of management were reduced. What remained then were the residual rights, not specifically renounced by management or restricted by law.23 If, for instance, management renounced the right to dismiss according to productivity or any other performance criterion and concord to dismiss according to seniority, seniority replaced managements previous decision criteria. Meanwhile other issues, such as how many workers could be dismissed in a specific time period, remained within the exclusive sphere of managerial decision making.24Adopting this view, many arbitration decisions applied a two-stage approach to questions about the appropriate bargaining dishearten of a union. If union representatives and management disagreed on whether an issue was a legitimate bargaining item, previous contractual agreements as well as legal requirements had to be investigated. If no explicit statement restricting managements rights in the respective matter could be found in these sources, the issue typically had to be considered as falling within managements remit. Since explicit renunciations of the rights to dismiss were typically rare, management usually maintained broad discretion over dismissals, which fell outwith causes covered explicitly by just-cause rules.Because existing practices and informal agreements had little legal bearing on conflicts over the interpretation of the NLRA, the residual rights doctrine offered almost no guidance to the courts in evaluating the legitimacy of union link in termination decisions. Here an alternative, and in many ways even more restrictive approach, evolved over time. While the NLRB of the early years generally looked favorably upon workers whose discharge could in some way be linked to union activity, it also condoned a wide set of permissible grounds for dismissal. In this context, several NLRB decisions early on vindicated traditional assumptions about managerial prerogatives. Discharges were sustained by the NLRB in cases involving gross inefficiency of a worker, incompetence, change in equipment, disturbance and horseplay, absenteeism, brawling, cursing of the boss, and the violation of company rules.25 Most importantly, discharges in the absence of employee misconduct were f requently declared permissible if there was no evidence for anti-union activity. This included discharges for lack of work, which were generally approved by the Board even in absence of union consultation, as long as anti-union bias could not be proven. In its Seagrave decision of 1938, for instance, the Board set a precedent for the preservation of employment-at-will within collective bargaining.26 Seagrave, an automotive equipment plant had discharged an employee three weeks after he got his job. The tribal chief testified to the fact that the employees work was satisfactory. The worker, a CIO member, had previously been arrested for disorderly conduct during a strike and alleged that he was fired because of this previous social function, and, more specifically, because his foreman had have a blacklist showing his name. The spokesman of the company explained that the polisher was hired because of a temporary emergency arising from the receipt of a special order, and that he was dismissed when the work on that order let up. The Board found no evidence for anti-union activity and declared the dismissal legal.In the case of Sheba Ann Frocks (1938), similarly, thirty employees, who had been dropped from the payroll of the Sheba arrange plant, complained to the Board alleging that their discharge was based on their CIO membership.27 Company officials testified that the layoffs took place because of a lack of work at the end of the regular production season. The Board reliable this explanation because the company retained over half of its CIO employees and discharged non-union employees as well, although not proportionally. In its conclusion the Board stated that, in the case of a dismissal for legitimate business reasons, such as slack work, no consultation with union members was required.While NLRB decisions of the late 1930s, such as Seagrave and Sheba, delineated the blank between dismissal protection and managerial prerogatives more or less by default, several court decisions attempted to give guidance which was general seemly to be applied to other contexts. This tendency towards establishing a formula which ringfenced managerial decision making from union intrusion could already be detected in the Supreme Courts ruling on NLRB v. Jones Laughlin Steel, the landmark case better known for its acceptance of the NLRA. In Jones, the Supreme Court stressed that although the Act required bargaining, it did not compel agreement.28 For the Supreme Court, in other words, the NLRA was legal because, and only because, the Act did not interfere with the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select employees or to discharge them.29 That, in defining normal rights, the Supreme Court emphasised the right to discharge workers did not bode well for those who expected the Act to significantly reduce arbitrary dismissals. With Jones, the court had indicated that outwith matters directly related to collective bargaining, employment-at-wil l was still very much in place, with restrictions only affecting those discharges which were explicitly declared illegal in the NLRA. More importantly, it had implied that would be difficult to create an agreement sanctioned and protected by the Act which would eliminate the right of employers to discharge workers for legitimate reasons.In NLRB v. sand Manufacturing (1938), a federal appeals court was even more explicit in affirming managements freedom to dismiss workers.30 In Sands, a collective agreement between the company and MESA, a labor union, was broken by the union. The company apparently bargained collectively with MESA. After two months, the company signed an agreement with another union, some of whose members were employed in order to replace MESA members. The NLRB ordered reinstatement of the MESA employees and requested the circuit court to enforce its order. The 6th circuit set aside the order and dismissed the petition to enforce. With respect to the termination of the employer-employee relationship the court stated that31The statute meaning the NLRA does not interfere with the normal right of the employer to select or discharge his employees If employees violate their contract they may be discharged for that reason and this does not constitute a discrimination in regard to tenure of employment nor an unfair labor practice, nor does it continue a discharge because the employees are members of a union. The statute does not provide that the relationship held in status quo under Title 29, Section 152(3) meaning the prohibition of dismissals during strikes shall continue in absence of wrongful conduct on the part of the employer and of rightful conduct on the part of the employees. If such were its meaning, the right of the employer to select, and discharge his employees would be cut off.The Sands decision was in many regards more radical than previous rulings. In Sands, the court had concluded that, provided the employer had engaged in bargain ing, NLRA legislation had to be interpreted so as not to otherwise constrain the employers rights to select and discharge employees. In other words, the court indicated that any action which would effectively restrict the right of employers to discharge, after basic bargaining engagements were met, could be struck down.While both the Jones Laughlin Steel and the Sands cases redefined space for at-will discharges relatively broadly, the Supreme Courts 1942 capital of Alabama Ward decision attempted to give a comprehensive definition of managements rights which gave managers broad control over discharge decisions.32 In its Montgomery Ward decision, the 9th set excluded from arbitrable grievances33 changes in business practice, the opening and closing of new units, the choice of personnel (subject, however to the seniority provision), the choice of merchandise to be sold, and other questions of a like nature not having to do directly and primarily with the day-to-day life of the emp loyees and their relations with supervisors.Although Montgomery Ward supported traditional concepts of management rights with respect to day-to-day arbitration, it left open a number of important questions with regard to dismissals arising as a consequence of longer term strategic decisions. This included questions relating to the dividing line between a rational business decision to relocate a plant, and one involving, for example, the elimination of a unionized plantan illegal antiunion activity. Moreover, the Courts decision to exclude changes in business practice from arbitrable grievances, merely prohibited unions from insisting on arbitration in these matters and hence relieved management from the legal duty to demonstrate these matters in good confidence. This did neither mean that union representatives could not bargain about these issues when contracts were negotiated, nor did it imply that once management conceded to union involvement in these matters, this involvement w as illegal or unenforceable.The latter issue of bargaining about alleged management prerogatives was addressed first in 1952 in NLRB v. American National policy Group.34 In American National, the Supreme Court held that management could enforce limits to bargaining on the basis of a management prerogative clause, under which the union was ousted from involvement in certain matters. American Nationals management prerogative clause included issues of discipline and work schedules that is, statutory rights with respect to mandatory bargaining. The court, nonetheless, rejected the Boards position that employers were compel to establish ongoing bargaining during the terms of the collective agreement on issues subject to defined managerial prerogatives.While in American National the company had attempted to impose broad limitations on bargaining rights, many companies insisted only on the type of management prerogatives listed in the Montgomery case, such as the freedom to decide on the c losure of units. In the mid-1950s, Haber and Levison reported that over 80% of the contracts signed in the building industries contained one or another form of a managerial rights clause. Many of these clauses explicitly prohibited bargaining over issues of job security.35 The management literature, meanwhile, welcomed American National because companies were now less likely to face NLRA legal proceeding if they refused to discuss issues of employment security. This was the case, not only where companies had gained past assurances that union representatives would respect managerial prerogatives, but also where such clauses could be inferred from existing bargaining agreements.36Management rights in matters of dismissals and layoffs were clarified further in the 1958 Supreme Court decision on Borg-Warner. In NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner the Court held that there were three subjects of bargaining mandatory, nonmandatory, and illegal.37 The obligation to bargain, as specifi ed in the NLRA, applied only to mandatory subjects. A nonmandatory subject was permissive, meaning that it could be raised by either party. However, when a party insisted on a position regarding such an area to the point of impasse, it was acting illegally under the provisions of the Act.38 Since the law had defined the mandatory subjects of bargaining, Borg-Warner play an important role in the preservation of managerial prerogatives with regard to redundancies and dismissals. Under Borg-Warner, union demands for job security or employment guarantees could be rejected, as they could not be reasonably classified as mandatory bargaining items.39When determining what were mandatory and nonmandatory bargaining subjects, the NLRB and the courts of the 1950s and 1960s typically referred to the relevant NLRA section 9(a) which mandated bargaining for pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. Given these specifications, any issue involving pay and hours was obviou sly a mandatory bargaining item, requiring both parties to bargain in good faith or face sanctions through NLRB proceedings. More problematic was the clause including, other conditions of employment. When issues like redundancies, mass layoffs and mass discharges were at stake, the courts and the Board usually interpreted other conditions of employment to mean that union involvement in decisions about which workers were to be laid off or made redundant, was mandatory. To this effect union representatives were to be certain about planned manpower reductions. Union representatives were free to address issues related to discharges, make suggestions with regard to manpower relocation, or suggest alternative ways of pillow slip costs. If the company refused, unions, however, could not insist on a settlement of the issue. While strike action relating to these matters was not per se illegal, any protracted industrial action on non-mandatory manpower issues was likely to be declared an un fair labor practice by the NLRB or the courts.40 This approach, needless to say, gave unions with little power to influence a companys manpower decisions even in industries where levels of organization were high. Since it was often difficult to link a redundancy decision to union avoidance or to invoke contractual clauses which

The Intelligence Gathering Debate

The Intelligence Gathering DebateThere has been a lot of act of terrorism attack patterns and behaviors since the 1990s. This prompted change from to the highest degree of the organizations on a global platform in as far as how they handled give-and-take. The September 11 terrorism attack on the USA soils prompted a heavy presence of change in the security measures taken to protect the realm. The events brought to light in the fact that there are galore(postnominal) threats facing the country as technology continues to advance. It also brought to light the impact that the events had on operations and intelligence in USA. Its important to have constant and up to date intelligence in order to counter terrorism. As the USA congress reckoned in its report on national commission on terrorism, good intelligence is eternally the best weapon against terrorism. This means that there needs to be firm policies and dedicated leaders so as to ensure a safer future for orgasm generations ( Karmon, 2009).The intelligence agencies like the NSA, are responsible for providing the most sensitive information that would help enhance security measures for a country. Mostly, there never seen and they have sources everywhere. This ensures success on their missions even though they are never reported. Once they succeed, they ensure vigorous prosecution, proper convictions and safety. Chris Anderson Invited Edward Snowden to a debate on TED talk to talk about the revelations that earned him many titles from traitor, whistleblower and even hero. In the past, there was little knowledge as to how far intelligence agencies would go to protect the country as they say. Snowden brought to light how human privacy had been breached. This information questioned whether the existing government was a government for the people. It also raised questions on how safe personal information from camber accounts to phone calls and also email transactions was (Snowden, 2014).Snowden was working fo r the NSA in Hawaii as the system administrator. He would gain access to sensitive classified files which in time he would share to the media journalists. This was due to disturbance that the revelation had caused him. He believed that the NSA did a lot of good things to assist the community, some of which were necessary but also needed limitations. He believed that for some drastic measures to be taken the public had to be made aware and also asked for approval. Being that he knew things that he shouldnt have, the except way to protect himself was to expose what he knew to the journalists. Similarly, he got the information out to the American people. Section 215 of the patriot act, allows for access to metadata. This means that warrantless wire taping, mass inspection and recording of phone calls can be done. However, that requires court approval. In the years after the September 11 event, a lot of metadata were done secretly. Also a lot of different technology companies were bro ught into the fishy programme, commonly referred to direct access (Snowden, 2014).Most of this programs were operated without warrants and thus most of the American people information was been looked into by many farms. This was a total invasion of privacy and obstruction of law by the same people who claimed to protect it. This was and is a potential threat to most Americans as information and data can be easily manipulated. This moves by the NSA not only managed to cause distrust amongst American people towards the government, but also managed to subvert existing and future working relationship with other countries. So, as much as the government claims to have the best interest for the country, Americans have had to pay a price that they shouldnt have (Snowden, 2014).It also question the congress responsibilities. They acted unconstitutionally. Snowden clearly won the debate because, for one most of the obtained information hasnt helped in protecting the country against terrorism and two, he helped the Americans to be more aware of the current and the future running governments.ReferencesKarmon, E. (2009). The Role of Intelligence in Counter-Terrorism. Taylor Francis Online, 1.Snowden, E. A. (2014). How we take the internet. TED, 1.

Flextime Policies Achieve Better Work Life Balance Management Essay

Flex cartridge holder Policies Achieve Better Work Life Balance Management EssayThe increased attention of issues relating to the murder of waxy clock ar straddlements to harbor march-life ease reflects signifi enkindlet economic and friendly changes at the individual and organizational take. Since 1950s, there has been a signifi cigarett change of the standard functional measure (Bittman and Rice 2001 Blyton, 1994), resulting from the demand to increase flexibility without undermining cost factor.As a result of the extended operating hours, businesses take for experienced a much wider range of go bading hour arrangement, especially in the case of part-time and hourly disciplineers.The changes in the profile of labor mart due to the increase in young-bearing(prenominal) participation in the fieldforce, the rise of single-p atomic number 18nt and dual-income families and the increased number of be giveners in sandwich generation ,the growth on expenditure and debt leve ls, and the prospect of boundary-less work organizations in the prospective pose critical questions about massess current and future ability to satisfactorily integrate their work and home- lies, the support system available to facilitate that integration, and much broadly, the office staff and value of work and consumption in contemporary society (Ransome, 2005 and Schor, 1999).There is no one that fits for all solution to the issue of implementing bendable time insurance policy in the workplace. The case study demonstrates that different policies, practices, and strategies will be needed to spread over the issue of flex-time conflict. Furthermore, we will analyze the role of parley, monitoring, and information sh atomic number 18-out to pass on optimal benefit from flextime. By using flexible work arrangements, employers give employees a sense of control and empowerment.This will lead to reduced cost from absenteeism, put down level of productivity, increased stress lev el, increased turnover and replacement.IntroductionWe have seen the images of working fully growns, trying to balance the burden of having a spouse, children, or elders to support, and work-re after-hoursd issues, usually act with deadlines and increased work pressure, on the other. The balance is brittle, if they spend too much time at work, their family will suffer and vice versa.The role of work has changed, from zero-sum gage to win-win interactions largely because of changing economic and social conditions (Harris Marmer, 1996). Win-win situations can be achieved by arranging work-schedules to meet work-family demands, making priorities, using employment-related resources, and having access to behavioral and emotional support from others especially employers (Friedman Greenhaus, 2000). wiz of the biggest altercates for organizations has been how to respond to the economic and social changes that alter the working environments. In response, many work organizations are intro ducing a variety of innovative approaches to cope with the changes in working roles and structures. Once perceived as a matter of necessity and survival, work is now seen as a source of personal blessedness. One of the vehicles to attain balance and fulfill personal satisfaction is flexible-time arrangements. In the next section we concentrate on how this fashionable condition has evolved and discuss problems related to the implementation of the program. Key ConceptsResearch on work-life balance started in the mid-1960s ( Rapoport Rapoport, 1965 ) and developed from the focus on women and work-family conflict, to a more recent focus on all employees. However, the b state work-life balance is a misnomer. The phrase indicates that work is separate from life, although work is increasingly dominating peoples lives. Furthermore, the word balance seems to imply that there is a trade-off amid work and life, yet they are not necessarily mutually exclusive (Kanter, 1977).Parasuraman an d Greenhaus introduced the term work-life integration to overcome the problem of work-life balance (1997). The idea is to integrate work and personal lives rather than seeing them as two separate domains that rule out one another, thus have to be balanced. However, one misunderstanding of the term integration is that it implies work and personal life must be integrated in the sense of merging each other, eliminating the possibility of integrating the two by deliberately keeping these domains separate (Lewis Cooper, 1999). As a result, the word harmonization has been introduced to relate work and personal life domains in harmonious ways without impression out one another or merging these domains together (Gambles, Lewis, Rapoport, 2003). For simplification purpose, we will not delve into the issue of these terms and use the term work-life balance interchangeably with work-life harmonization orwork-life integration.Ballard and Seibold (2004) stated that flexibility pertains to the degree of rigidity in time structuring and task completion plans. Flexibility is categorized into flex-time, job sacramental manduction/part-time work, and telecommuting(Hall Richter, 1988 Sullivan Lewis, 2001). Flex-time is a simplified term that describes flexibility in work schedules and hours. Employees can manage their work days within core-hours the hours which employees must deliver at work, usually between 1000-1400- and a bandwidth the earliest and latest starting and finishing times built around core-hours to which they can choose to discipline (Christensen Staines, 1990). There is no universal definition of standard work days due to different legislations across countries.however, we assume that it is defined by 40-hour and five-day working week.The up-to-the-minute Flextime Trend in CanadaFlex-time programs are common in Canada and the trend reflects employers belief on that flex-time implementation results in break out business performances. According to Stati stics Canadas 2003 Workplace and Employee bailiwick (WES), which sampled 20,834 employees from 6,565 workplaces, approximately 57% of all working Canadians are already using flex-time programs, including compressed workweek and flexible work schedule. In the study, Flexibility Whose Choice Is It in any case? conducted by Cooke and Mann, they analyzed the WES data and discovered that flex time programs are implemented to improve business performances and minimize cost rather than to assist employees with their work-life balance.The demographic ChangeThe sandwich generation and workaholics are the two main groups of employees that are experiencing low satisfaction due to their poor work-life balance. According to Statistic Canadas General Social appraise (GSS), the sandwich generation population has increased from 670,000 in 2002 to about 2.7 million Canadians in 2007 (General Social discern Cycle 21, 2007). In 2002, it was estimated that approximately 27% of people age 45 and abo ve are struggling to support both their children under 25 years old and their aging parents while working a regular job (Williams, 2005). In fact, the latest GSS published in 2008 indicates a steady increase of sandwiched caregivers due to the late marriage trend, currently baby boomer generation are sandwiched in between family and work.In addition to that, the increasing population of females in the workforce today similarly constitute to the proportion of the sandwich generation. There is an 11.6 % increase of all working women from 1976 to 2006 ( hedge 1). Increased education, desire for personal fulfillment, increased consumption, the high cost of living, and the high rate of divorce has contributed the growth in women participation in the workforce. In fact, according to the Statistics Canadas data collected in 2006, 73% of all women with children are part of the workforce (Almey, 2006). This indicates that families with children are more potential to have dual income from both the wife and the husband, leaving lesser time for individuals to take care of the family. 2005 GSS in any case collected data showing that there are 31% working Canadians aging 19 to 64 who think they are workaholics. Comparing to the non-workaholics, the majority of workaholics are un genial with their current work-life balance. The large proportion of working Canadians who are unhappy with their work-life balance indicates the possibility that flextime can be a feasible solution to help with their stress in time management.Society also witnesses the increasing number of boomerang generation. Boomerang generation or boomerang kids are young adults age 20 and above that have returned from independence to live together with their parents. The growth of the boomerang generation is partly due to the economic condition and also to the multicultural family structure of Canada. According to Statistic Canada, 73% of Asian-Canadian families have adult children living with their pare nts whereas only 26% of Canadian born parents are allowing their adult children to live with them (Turcotte, 2006). Nevertheless, the boomerang generation relies partially on their parents in order to retain the cost of owning and renting a house which helps maintain their desired lifestyle. Due to the emergence of the boomerang generation the burden has doubled for the aging baby boomers who have to continue working in order to take care of their adult children and the elders in the family (Canada Year Book Society and community, 2008).The Caregivers Wish ListIn order to assist with the growing number of employees with work-life balance concern, Statistic Canadas 2007 GSS provides further data which include 712,000 caregiver aged between 45 and 64 and explore their major concerns with their work and personal life. According to the statistics, 70% of sandwiched employees believe if the company provides more support and flex time programs, their work performance will improve (Genera l Social Survey Cycle 21, 2007).The following statistic is from Cara Williamss article, The sandwich generation, which shows the significant cost for sandwiched employees when they do not have access to resources that help them balance their work and personal life (2005).15 % reduced their work hours 20 % changed their schedules 10 % lost income 70 % are stressed outTable 2 (refer to the Appendices ), The Caregivers Wish list, is a comparison of the unavoidably from sandwiched employees to employees with elder care needs. The highlighted part of sandwiched employees shows that the top two wishes for both sandwiched employees and employees with elder-care responsibility are some form of workplace support such as flexible schedule and elder care to help accommodate their overwhelming responsibilities (Williams, 2005). Overall, both statistic and employee survey suggest that flexibility is a major attribute that potential employees deem in a company.Flextime PoliciesThe adoption of flexible time policies differ widely by the level of public provision and culture of the organization. Some researchers argue that individualistic market stimulates employees concern of work-life programs, whereas others argue that public provision creates a climate which employers become active in pursuing this entitlement (Lewis, 1997). Den Dulk (2001) further reinstates that active establishment provision does not translate into the disappearance of the motivation for employers to implement work-life programs. Poelmans and Sahibzada (2004) summarize all factors that may influence the adoption decision. They argue that the probability of an organization to address work-life conflict is a function of the macro-level context in which the organization runs the business. The country level context is related to employees sense of entitlement to receive support from their employers, whereas the labor market context affects employees choice and negotiation power over organizations wor k-life policies, thus increasing the pressure on firms to implement them (Poelmans Sahibzada, 2004). The complete factors that influence organizations adoption decision is presented in Table 3 (refer to the Appendices ).Organizations need to decide the flexible work arrangements that suit their business model and the needs of the workforce. Business model that requires employees to meet fluctuating demands from lymph nodes outdoor(a) work hours may implement flexible work arrangements. In fact, flextime is ranked more favorably than reduced-time schedules because many (full-time) employees with family responsibilities cannot afford to work less than standard full-time schedule (Rodgers, 1992).BenefitsEmployees that benefit from flex-time include working parents, especially working mothers, who want to be involved in their childrens lives while having the balance of having a family and a move at the same time. At Bristol Myers Squibb, 72% of those who worked flexible hours in 200 3 were female (Poelmans Beham, 2005). Flextime options are excellent recruiting and retention tools. An article in the Long Island Business news interviewed many executives and found that they agree that investment in such programs shows that the company cares about their employees well-being and increases the companys fascinatingness to highly skilled people who might not be ready to go back into the workplace on a full-time basis or just need flexible schedules (Starzee, 2009). In a survey by Careerbuilding.com in 2008, 54% of 7600 workers felt that companies offer flexible work arrangements to help manage stress levels and work life balance. 90% of American employees also feel that they are more valued by their companies if prone the option of flexible schedules (Sweeney, 2003).Benefits offered depend on the type of job, industry or the employees.. With the proper(ip) employees and good implementation on the part of management, costs of flex-time policies should be much less than replacement costs, which includes recruitment, hiring, training, and orientation. Even for an entry level position, replacement costs can exceed $10,000, not including lost time, energy and effort of management (Bednar, 2010).Using this strategy, companies can keep their top talent happy and reduce turnover. When the same employees layover with the company for a long time, they can provide better service for clients due to increased experience. Absenteeism is also likely to decrease since employees are more actuate to work when they feel they are valued by the company by giving them options to help them juggle their home and work demands. Table 4 in the Appendices lists the possible vantages of flexible work arrangements.CostsThere are also costs to implementing flex-time policies. First of all, it is not one size fits all. Most employers identified by dint of years of experience that many employees might not have the same motivation to work hard and get work done by stayin g late if they were given the option of coming in after the official start time (Bednar, 2010). Therefore, monitoring is essential to ensure that employees are not taking advantage of the policy. In order to properly and effectively implement a flex-time policy, employers need to introduce a series of new rules and procedures to manage the flexible workers and culture change, such as stricter punctuality and related provisions to ensure the equal, or regular(a) higher level of productivity. It is a burden and a risk for management. They are also required to monitor the performance of flexible employees with different measures to reduce scheme risks and achieve work goals.Secondly, starting such programs requires a great amount of communication to the employees about the availability and details (Bitti, 2008). Regardless of the results, management must spend time and effort in the attempt to make flex-time work. Productivity could decrease, service level might be lowered and lead to customer dissatisfaction, and employee dissatisfaction might also arise if they believe the arrangements were unfair.Flex-time is not always supported by all employees, even though it is mostly considered as a benefit for employees. In 2008, a Deloittes survey of more than 1600 workers showed that 39% respondents agreed that taking advantage of formal flexible work policies including flex-time would harm their career. Based on the survey, employees are more comfortable with informal policies, such as taking time off for personal activities, if leaders are more open about their own needs and practices (CFO, 2008).To further complicate the matter, flex-time was seen as both alleviating and generating stress and was generally seen to have a contradict impact on opportunities for learning and advancement (Kelliher Anderson, 2008). Some businesses cannot adjust their employees work schedules, because such a change would not fit their business (Wensley, 2008). A client may call in look ing for something immediately, and the person with the flexible schedule is absent (Starzee, 2009). These potential negative effects may lead managers to be more conservative about implementing flex-time options.Despite all costs associated with the implementation of flex-time policies, employers that provide greater flexibility have been found to be related with higher perceived organizational performance (Perry-Smith Blum, 2000) resulted in increased shareholder return (Arthur, 2003). In addition, flextime policies create a favorable view of the organization, thereby suggesting that the organization is more attractive to job seekers (Casper Buffardi, 2004). In fact, many of the industry leaders listed in the Best 100 Companies to Work For in Fortune Magazine provide excellent flextime policies that better integrate work-family life of their employees.Case Study Kraft Foods, Inc.Kraft began to support work-life balance programs after a national employee survey in 2000 showed that the major challenge for most Kraft employees was finding balance between home and work-life. The survey also indicated that Kraft hourly workers that account for 59% of Kraft employees were the least satisfied with their work-life balance among all the employee groups. To overcome the problem, Kraft introduced the quick Adapts program. Initiated in December 2002, Fast Adapts allows workers to swap shifts, take single day vacations, and request job sharing arrangement from their supervisor. Fast Adapts program was published in the company newsletters and broadcasted on the video monitors. The program was also communicated in the regular plant-wide meetings. The flexible arrangement enables employees who are out on leave because of extended illness, family issues, or taking vacations to switch shifts with other employees. All hourly workers are eligible to use Fast Adapts program, given that the arrangements are aligned with work process, plant policy, or union contract. If not, emp loyees are encouraged to discuss their situation with merciful Resource managers to find alternative work solutions. To evaluate the effectiveness of this program, information about employee satisfaction was collected in the first quarter of 2003. The biannual survey showed improvement in hourly employees satisfaction with work-life balance.ConclusionThe repetitive nature and inflexible schedule of the job in Krafts working site contributed to the decreased level of work-life balance satisfaction among hourly employees. Krafts Fast Adapts program has been successful for some reasons. Employees receive more autonomy over their work schedule, thus they are able to better integrate work-life demands. Plant managers also need to be more accountable, as they have to develop flexible work arrangements that work best for each individual plant. Fast Adapts program also encourages employees to communicate their needs to employers. The other key issue is to understand that flexibility should be an ongoing and mutual commitment between Kraft and its employees, win-win situation can only be achieved if both sides work toward Krafts vision of a supportive culture.AppendicesTable 1 Employed Women by age group in percentage197619861996All women41.950.252.115 to 2451.458.152.025 to 4450.066.470.945 to 5445.655.966.355 to 6430.330.333.5Source Statistics Canada. (2006). Women in Canada Work Chapter Updates. (Catalogue no. 89F0133XWE). Retrieved April 2, 2010 from Statistics Canada http//www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89f0133x/89f0133x2006000-eng.htmTable 2 The Caregivers WishlistEmployed (%)SandwichedRespite Care52Flexible work or study arrangements46 instruction on long-term disabilities43Information on care giving42Financial compensation / tax breaks36Counselling28Other12SourceWilliams, C. (2005). The sandwich generation. Perspectives on Labour and Income.(Catalogue number 75-001-XIE). Retrieved March 27, 2010, from Statistics Canadawww.statcan.ca8096/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=75-001 -X20041097033.Table 3 Macro-context factors that influence adoption decisionCountry LevelExtensive government-supported policies, as in social democratic countriesEgalitarian gender-role ideologyLow in masculinityLow in power distanceCountries high in individualismLabor martScarcity of talent or skillsHigh diffusion of work-family benefitsHigh percentage of women in the active populationHigh reliance on knowledge workHigh reliance on quality of customer serviceSource Poelmans, S. Sahibzada, K. (2004). A multi-level model for studying the context and impact of work-family policies and culture in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 14. 409-431.Table 4 Advantages of flextime policiesBenefits for employersCost savings because of increased retention of valuable employeesImproved morale, employee satisfaction, productivity and employee commitment because of better integration of work and family lives.Better scheduling for the departmentA public relation tool to attract new e mployeesSavings in office space and equipmentLess time lost in traffic jam can be invested at work, also improved parking optionsGovernment incentives to encourage flexible employment fuelled by concerns about traffic, air quality, etcSource Poelmans, S. Sahibzada, K. (2004). A multi-level model for studying the context and impact of work-family policies and culture in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 14. 409-431 various.

The Great Gatsby :: F. Scott Fitzgerald

The bang-up Gatsby and the 1920sAlcohol was banned in every state, the Womans Right Movement make full cities and The Great Gatsby was published. What do all of these things lose in common? All of these events made up one decade, the 1920s. None of these radical events were present during World state of war 1 life was very different and changed in a short amount of time. The 20s were a time of free will and revolution. Great examples of these events are told in The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald which will help to view the differences in the social changes before and after the war.Law enforcement was not stable during the 1920s. In The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby were on the way to meet Jays business partner, Wolfshiem, when they were stopped by a practice of law officer. All right, old sport, called Gatsby. We slowed down. Taking a white card from his wallet, he waved it before the mans eyes.Right you are, agreed the policeman, tipping his cap. Know you nex t time, Mr. Gatsby. Excuse ME (Fitzgerald 46) Before World War 1, Jay would have gotten a ticket. Instead of the policeman giving Jay a ticket, Jay flashed him a white piece of paper and the police officer apologized for interrupting Jay Gatsby and left. This is an example of crooked cops in the 1920s. The police officer did not fulfill his duties, but instead let Jay go because Jay had some sort of business office over the officer. Police officers often abused their authority in the 1920s. People were often beat by cops that had a different opinion than others. Police officers broke the law by going to illegal speakeasies and insobriety because according to the 21st and 18th amendments, alcohol was prohibited during this time. In The Great Gatsby, Jay Gatsby is a main character. Jay is a man with a lot of money and no one knows how he came to be so rich. Jay claims to have gotten a large inheritance, but most people believe he was a bootlegger. Hes a bootlegger, said the young la dies, moving somewhere between his cocktails and flowers (Fitzgerald 41). A bootlegger is a person who smuggled alcohol around the United States during prohibition. This is how galore(postnominal) people made money during this time. Bootlegging and organized crime went hand-in-hand in the 1920s. Finest specimens of human molars, he informed me (Fitzgerald 48).

A Cognitive Model of New Data on Human Problem Solving Essay -- Psycho

A Cognitive Model of New Data on Human caper SolvingI. Project DescriptionCognitive puting is the creation of models which resemble and explain the way in which humans do things. What makes them so interesting to me is the solve though which cognitive scientists go in order to create these models. Cognitive scientists often use a procreative theory in creating such models. A generative theory is a theory that explains a set of empirical observations by actually generating them (as opposed to just summarizing them or characterizing them with equations or logic). Thus, a generative theory has to be executable, like a computer program or a recipe.The system on which Im basing my work is named shower (VenLehn, Jones & Chi, 1991). Cascade was sooner developed to explain the cognitive mechanisms involved in the self-explanation effect (Chi et al., 1989 Fergusson-Hessler & de Jong, 1990 Pirolli & Bielaczyc, 1989). Simplifying a bit, the effect shows that people learn more effectively by studying examples when they atomic number 18 careful to explain to themselves as many steps of the example as they can. Students who do not carefully explain worked out example steps do not perform as well on subsequent problems. Cascade models the potential learning mechanisms that cause this effect.I now wish to apply the Cascade model to a new problem public and a new set of psychological data. Originally, Cascade was written to solve problems in Newtonian physics, the domain used in Chi et al.s study. Since Cascade was first created additional psychological research has been done in other problem domains. Due to the versatility of Cascade, applying the Cascade model to other problem domains would be beneficial. In the fall of 2000 I... ...nnual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. New Jersey Prentice-Hall Inc.Pirolli, P., & Bielaczyc, K. (1989). Empirical analyses of self-explanation and transfer in learning to program. In G. M. Olson & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 450-457). Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum.Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Maier, U. H. (2000). From studying examples to solving problems Fading worked-out termination steps helps learning. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 393-398). Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum.VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1991). A model of the self-explanation effect. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 1-59.