Human resource MGMT

True -It can be reliable if it is consistent every time it is given like it should be. It could not be valid because it doesn't test for the right thing (in this case, honesty) or it doesn't predict honest behavior well. a cheater will get a good score on an honesty test, because they're a consistent/reliable cheater can't be vice versa, must be valid in order to be reliable

Personality can be a valid predictor of job performance since the personality of a worker can affect the way he or she works

Extroversion: the degree to which someone is talkative, sociable, active, aggressive, and excitable o Agreeableness: the degree to which someone is trusting, amiable, generous, tolerant, honest, cooperative and flexible o Conscientiousness: the degree to which someone is dependable, and organized and conform and perseveres on tasks (People with low levels tend to ignore safety rules and regulations and, thus, tend to have more accidents and injuries then people with higher levels) (MOST RELATED TO JOB PERFORMANCE) o Emotional stability: the degree to which someone is secure, calm, independent and autonomous o Openness to experience: the degree to which someone is intellectual, philosophical, insightful, creative, artistic and curious - it depends. depends on the personality test (myers briggs (not valid predictor) or Big 5 (can be predictive) or another one)? also depends on the job (ex: Big 5 measuring extraversion is good for sales job)

an assessment center is a set of simulated tasks or exercises that candidates are asked to perform, how they do on these tasks can predict how well they'll do as a manager It's not surprising that these tasks are a valid predictor because they're tasks that directly relate to what they'll be doing in the job everything that happens with the assessment center can be traced to what happens in the job (so it relies heavily on job analysis) so if the person does well in a fake situation, you can predict he'll do well in the real job, or vice versa

Application forms with basic questions about work experience, make sure they meet basic requirements Structured Interview to ask about their experience, what makes them right for the job Drug test for obvious reasons, just want to make sure the airport security officers won't be abusing any drugs while he's supposed to be alert and keeping the airport safe Background check to make sure the person isn't undesirable, also to avoid any negligent hiring lawsuits if God forbid something were to happen Assessment center - real life tasks commonly found in the job (requires job analysis) application → narrowed down pool answers written situational questions → narrowed down pool does situational interviews or physical ability tests *need to think about utility (for example, a personality test is a cheaper way to narrow the pool that a situational assessment center) \"multiple hurdle strategy\": only progress if you got over the last hurdle as opposed to: \"clinical strategy\": where every applicant takes every part of selection process and judge them after everyone has completed everything \"statistical strategy\": people take all the elements of the selection system but weigh them differently (assign each part a # of points) maybe do initial multiple hurdles, then whoever makes it goes through 3 statistical elements (blend these strategies) how would the airport validate the structured interview? *EXAM* make sure the judgement of the interview actually relates to how the person does in the job?

An applicants reaction to the selection process can influence their attraction to and opinions of an organization and their decision to accept or reject an offer of employment · Applicants believe that personality traits are not job relevant · If an applicant thinks that the selection process is unfair, they might file a discrimination charge interview for Zappos vs Goldman Sachs companies need to do a good job if they want good applicants, because good applicants have options, so orgs should make sure they're not running late, the applicant is meeting with who you said they would, no typos in letters, they get back to you in a timely manner, etc.

big data\" is digital measurements and monitoring to asses an applicants future productivity · I.e. Google is not using as much test scores but rather found that the most innovative workers are those that are happy, and have a strong sense of mission about their work and personal autonomy two articles agree: good leaders are CONSISTENT! behavioral structured interviews are best according to Google exec the crazy \"how many marbles fit in a Volkswagen?\" q's aren't important he says they ask \"can you do this?\" if person says \"yes\" say \"do it\" instead of honesty test stuff

· To validate the test would indicate that the test actually determines player performance in the future and would actually be useful for the employer in knowing its players · It is also giving the results before the draft as to not affect the players interview, individual workout and film study · Receiving the results may negatively affect the draft · It hasn't been proven that it would work · Also they aren't testing for math or any of those types of questions, but rather personality and how each player learns predictive validation design for player assessment tool don't want to give results to teams before draft because then they're only going to pick players who did well, you're not getting a good range of results to compare to actual performance

-Identification means determining what areas of work the manager should be examining when measuring performance. Rational and legally defensible identification requires a measurement system based on job analysis. -Measurement, the centerpiece of the appraisal system, entails making managerial judgments of how \"good\" or \"bad\" employee performance was. Performance measurement must be consistent throughout the organization. -Management, is the overriding goal of any appraisal system. Appraisal should be more than a past-oriented activity that criticizes or praises workers for their performance in the preceding year. Used for decisions about employee's work conditions, including promotions, termination, and rewards Performance appraisals can be used for administrative or developmental reasons

· Relative judgment: an appraisal format that asks supervisors to compare an employee's performance to the performance of other employees doing the same job · Absolute judgment: an appraisal format that asks supervisors to make judgments about an employee's performance based solely on performance standards *most HR specialists think the disadvantages of relative judgement outweigh the advantages (ranking is vague, doesn't give any absolute information, force managers to identify differences between people where they may be none)

Management-by-objectives: a goal-directed approach to performance appraisal in which workers and their supervisors set goals together for the upcoming evaluation period This relates to goal-setting-theory which suggests that employees' goals help to explain motivation and performance

- halo error: (or horn) rater rates the employee well on all dimensions because they made a good overall impression or just did really well on a dimension important to that rater - restriction of range error: rater only rates on a small portion of the scale, like all ratings are on the high portion (leniency error), middle portion (central tendency error), or lower portion of the scale (severity error) -personal bias can also cause error, difficult to eliminate -liking error: do you like someone because they're a good performer? or do I rate them as a good performer because I like them personally? -comparability bias: do the supervisors all have the same standard? standardized ranking?

Rate error: an error in performance appraisals that reflects consistent biases on the part of the rater

change the appraisal tool to get rid of restriction of range, comparability issues frame of reference training: making a common metric, make people think about their own biases, make them aware of halo/horns, like showing a video to everyone and coming to a conclusion to show people how it's done

- Political perspectives: assumes that the value of a worker's performance depends on the agenda, or goals of the supervisor - The goal of appraisal from a rational perspective is accuracy, while the political perspective is utility In the rational approach supervisors simply notice and evaluate a workers performance, thus the accuracy is critical. In the political approach both supervisors and workers are motivated participants in the measurement process, hence workers actively try to influence their evaluations either directly, or indirectly The validity of political appraisal is more blurred since a lot of times the assessment criteria is unclear so that it can be bent towards whatever the agenda is at the moment not as accuracy-driven utility reduces validity if it happens throughout the org on a large scale so what if performance appraisal isn't valid? low moral, employees might leave org because they're fed up

Performance appraisal can be problematic since it is a manager tool, and depending on what his or her agenda is, then they would grade the worker differently However a person may be motivated and working hard however because of the system factors may be graded harshly we thought: performance = ability x motivation now we have to factor in the system, how?

- because personal factors can come into play. Personal life trouble = affects performance This relates to validity because the As have been able to validate their player performance analysis with the wins that they have had need valid selection tools and performance appraisals to minimize the risk the better the validity, the lower the likelihood of error

A narrowly define goal: priority is given, almost exclusively, to one course of action Idealized future: a romanticized picture is created of what the world will look like after the goal is achieved Goal-driven justification: current actions are justified in terms of the future achievement of goals Public expectation: failure to accomplish the goal would be met by public perception of failure Association of the goal with destiny: achieving the goal is conceived in terms of \"rightfulness\" and \"destiny\" Face-saving behavior: if initial steps to achieve the goal are met with resistance or failure, the pursuit is again justified in terms of its future achievement idealized goal: you think everything will be better/solved if you attain this goal, you think anything you do to attain it is justified, think it's your destiny to obtain it

Learning from experience: develop multiple strategies for achieving goals, assess impact, and update with new strategies, especially under novel situations Recovering: develop mechanisms to adjust to setbacks, mistakes and errors Recognize the unintended consequences of achieving a goal Provide a strategy and justification for retreat from the goal Identify multiple goals with multiple benefits Project costs of continuing the pursuit after setbacks Fostering trust: develop a culture safe for surfacing problems Minding the gap: attend to discrepancies between present reality and ideal expectations Cultivating dual loyalties: balance multiple roles and loyalties to different cultures learn from experience be able to admit to your boss that you need to readjust the goals/expectations not all orgs have that culture where you can say that to your boss

They can asses the effectiveness of the training based on either monetary or nonmonetary terms By seeing the outcome after the training of the amount of money won, they can determine if it was effective There is a four level framework to evaluate: Participants reaction to the training at the time of the training Participants learning of the content of the training Participants use of their new skills and knowledge back on the job Company's return on the training investment Evaluate based on customer satisfaction Reaction to training, learning, behavior based on training, results ROI (net benefits/costs) 50x5000= 250,000 (benefits) 500x400= 200,000 (cost) 50,000/200,000= 25% Have to check whether there is a better opportunity cost Question on final $250,000 estimated increase in customer spending $200,000 cost to train the employees and managers estimated net gain of $50,000 25% ROI In monetary terms, it will probably be successful if their estimations of increased spending are correct You're getting a $50,000 return on investment because of the results of the training. It's important to determine if the increased customer spending is in fact due to the training. In nonmonetary terms, you can see if the training resulted in the business meeting a goal, like here it would be better customer service. look at employees' reactions, learning, behaving, *results! (that's in order of what managers are most interested in) Return on Investment is a result we can look at to evaluate ROI = net benefits/cost KNOW how to do this for exam, don't just show benefit versus cost, do ROI opportunity cost, that's why you can't just do benefit vs cost ***before you jump to this program because there's a 25% ROI, think about if there's another use of the $200k that could get me a better ROI than 25% maybe do a pilot period first in just one part of the company

He is referring to the thinking process that goes through a pitchers head. Meaning that a pitcher only thinks of striking the batter out, rather than determining where he can throw to have a lower probability of hitting it · Also how he approaches a strike · This connects to performance appraisal in the sense that employers make work just to fit the outcomes of the performance appraisal · Employers don't actually analyze the situation of different options, but rather just go with the obvious route to be able to get a good appraisal · Enhance performance by understanding the means

modesty: women think that their accomplishments will speak for themselves, they spend less effort in insuring that they get noticed · Not asking: women fail to apply to promotions · Blending in: women prefer not to stand out · Remaining silent: getting your point of view out there is an important part of your career

An organization should first perform a job analysis · From this determine what the job entails, and how a person who works at this does a good job · After determining the parameters and how critical the job is to the company, can the compensation be determined. · Equity (fairness)

False partly true, there are a lot more factors that play into determining the compensation · According to the labor market model of pay equity, the wage rate for any given occupation is set at the point where the supply of labor equals the demand for labor in the marketplace. In general, the less employers are willing to pay (low demand for labor) and the lower the pay workers are willing to accept for a given job (high sup- ply of labor), the lower the wage rate for that job. what is not consistent/captured with the Supply & Demand/market model for compensation: equity, employer choices/strategy (preventative wages), government regulation, unions (only cover less than 10% of the workforce → but Union Threat Effect makes companies want to treat their employees well so they won't want to unionize)

True · Benchmark jobs: those that are similar or comparable in content across firms · They analyze how much of a value does this job add and determine how much the pay will be Companies frequently use previous experience, seniority, and performance appraisal ratings to determine how much an employee is to be paid within the range for their job. The objective of this is to achieve individual equity.

Forever 21- employees weren't allowed to leave the store during lunch breaks and were usually kept after hours for more unpaid work and so managers could search their bags to see if they stole anything. A lot of the employees were just high school kids so they didn't really know their rights as employees. Chargers- high school kids (16+) required to volunteer at Chargers games in order to participate in other extracurriculars. The Chargers would donate a certain amount of money depending on how many hours were worked. When you do the math, the kids were \"earning\" less than minimum wage and working pretty long shifts doing low level jobs.

Society: reinforce the \"have\" and \"have not\" inequality between students because only wealthier kids can afford to take an unpaid internship. It's also a good possibility that unpaid internships end up costing the intern money once you take into account transportation and other costs. Unpaid internships are just a way companies can get free labor just by saying they're giving the kids an \"experience\", which may be true, but that doesn't mean you don't have to pay them if they're actually producing output.

must be given wage unless ALL of these are met: 1. the internships is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment 2. the internship experience is beneficial to the intern 3. the intern does not displace regular employees, works under close supervision of existing staff 4. the employers provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the intern and might actually be impeding the operations by providing the training 5. the intern isn't entitled to a job after completing the internship 6. both the employer and intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent interning

Most members of Congress use unpaid interns, so it would look very contradictory and Congress wouldn't be happy about having to actually pay them. It would also be hard to enforce, maybe it would push more people to work under the table. also: those six rules are very unclear/vague, intern & company might have different definitions of \"benefit\", etc. must file a complaint with DoL, students reluctant to do this because jeopardizes future employment, letter of rec

Corrupt individuals don't see themselves as corrupt. It might be difficult for them to recognize and address corruption or unethical behavior because they use rationalizations to neutralize any bad feelings they get from participating in it. rationalization tactics: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, social waiting (I'm only stealing napkins, not silverware!), higher loyalty (I steal napkins because I'm more loyal to my poor family than this restaurant), the ledger (even things up, I paid $15 for a burger, I deserve a napkin), socializing newcomers into corrupt practices (social cocoon: what's happening at work becomes disassociated with your home life, where you may act with different values) ways to help/prevent this headline test: making people aware of/confront the unethical situation, would you feel good if it was printed in the newspaper? put focus on process, not just the outcome have an ethics code role models/ethical leadersv

Former Walmart executive whistleblowing Walmart de Mexico paid bribes to get construction permits in different parts of the company. ~$24 million Walmart de Mexico executives knew about the bribery and actively hid it from headquarters. When HQ found out, they shut down the investigation and no one was disciplined. They kind of swept it under the rug and instead of firing the chief executive who kind of spearheaded all this, they moved him to vice chairman of Walmart (I'm assuming to get him out of a position where he could continue that kind of behavior). relates to Anand reading -- sort of an ends justify the means situation bribery is super common in Mexico and may have seemed necessary if Walmart wanted to expand their business in Mexico maybe it didn't seem too unethical because no one spoke up or it just seemed an acceptable way of doing things in Mexico (socialization) incrementalism: started off with a little bribe, Walmart helped customers avoid sales taxes (so maybe down the road bribery doesn't sound so bad) euphemistic language no leaders as role models in this case Walmart had an internal investigation (difficult for org to see its own corrupt practices because of rationalization and socialization) Walmart does have an ethics code, but this shows that it may not be sufficient

potential problems arising out of incentive programs (\"pay for performance\" programs): the \"do only what you get paid for\" syndrome (ex: teachers and standardized testing), unethical behavior, negative effects on the spirit of cooperation, lack of control, difficulties in measuring performance, psychological contracts (which are very resistant to change), the credibility gap (which is employees thinking the programs aren't fair), job dissatisfaction/stress, and potential reduction of intrinsic drives (overjustification effect from psych) can create a culture where payment is expected when an employee has to do anything, even though some situations in the business need the employees to cooperate and act without extra pay preventing these pitfalls: piece-rate systems, using incentive programs as part of a broader HR system, building employee trust, promoting the belief that performance really makes a difference, using multiple layers of rewards, increasing employee involvement, stressing the importance of acting ethically, and using motivation and nonfinancial incentives

implications of pay gap between higher and lower level employees: increasing the feelings of \"have\" and \"have nots\" at work, makes higher-ups feel less relatable and approachable which could hurt the business if the lower-paid employees don't feel they're valued/respected negative light on \"big business\", more regulation, more negative feelings toward corporations concerns about highly paid executives: more likely to engage in antisocial behavior (cheating, lying, cutting off other drivers) which could mean they're more likely to engage in questionable business activities, like the bribery described in the Walmart de Mexico case lower-income level people realize that pay isn't going to get them through the day, but social bonds will higher-paid people are more socially isolated baseball teams with smaller variance in salary work better, more teamwork/cooperation people who are upset about what's going on may result in them taking extreme actions

other contexts: if people at one company find out that people in their position in a similar company are making much more than them or getting treated better, they'll be more likely to unionize/want more representation

-federal tax policy: many benefits are tax free or tax deferred, tax policies help these group benefits grow, like flexible spending plan (devote pre-tax money out of your paycheck to your health plan, paying less than you would because it's pre-tax) -federal legislation: all employers must provide SS and unemployment insurance benefits -union influence: examples: pensions and health insurance plans even influencing groups in other sectors, like \"hey, if the teachers' union got dental benefits, maybe we at the plumbers union can get them too\" -union threat effect: Walmart will now offer dental and vacation benefits because they don't want their employees unionizing, keep them happy must be a VIABLE threat, how likely is it that they would unionize? if it's not likely, then there is no threat of unionizing so if Walmart doesn't give dental because they don't have to (no union threat), Safeway (who has a union) will say they won't offer dental because Walmart isn't (and Walmart can afford lower prices because of that) cost savings of group plans: employers can provide benefits for much less money than it would take for employees to get them on their own, spread the risk among a bigger pool

Social security: o A government program that provides income for retirees, the disabled, and survivors of deceased workers and health care for the aged through the Medicare program o Provides income for retirees, the disabler and survivors of deceased workers o Health care for the aged through the Medicare program workers' comp: pays for medical care expenses for people with job-related injuries/illness; income for survivors of someone who died of work-related reasons, higher payroll tax (employer tax) for higher-risk jobs, STATE, about 60% ***NO FAULT SYSTEM, even if worker was being idiot GOOD EXAM QUESTION two workers recklessly driving a forklift, one gets injured who was driving, still gets workers comp (but could still be fired) unemployment ins: temporary income for people during periods of involuntary unemployment, funded by a tax paid by employers (orgs that lay off a lot of people frequently pay a little more) combo of federal and state, part of SS?, about 30% of your lost earnings

you can have a lot of statistics and stuff like that, but there's always going to be something you can't control/predict/account for

Statutory rights: protected by specific laws and government, protection from discrimination base on sex, race, age, OSHA, right to unionize. · Contractual rights: based on the law contracts, union contracts, implied contracts, individual employment contracts etc. Based on legal writing

· Majority of people don't have employee hand book, or told if they are employed at will · Verbal agreements · At the discretion of the employer, management rights · Management rights: rights of the management to make tasks, hire, promote, assign people, etc. · There are limits to management rights such as zoning laws, advertising laws, etc. if there are no individual contracts where parties agree in writing, no handbook, no negotiated agreement (collective bargaining agreement), it is pretty much at employer's discretion but with some limits right to run a business: manager has right to decide their return policy, social responsibility, location, strategy, advertising etc. some have limits on them (location- zoning laws, advertising- no cigs for kids)

Yes- within reason If employers can engage in collective action, then employees also Balances the power between employer and employee

(1) dissatisfied with certain aspects of their job (usually fairness and respect), (2) feel they lack the influence with management to make the needed changes, and (3) see unionization as a solution to their problems Physicians feel disrespected by the managers of the hospital, since they sometimes reject the opinion of physicians This is true for some of these since some have an employee contract in which it explicitly spells out the terms of employment, hence they know what is expected before having to unionize They are all hired for a certain period of time hence their contract spells out most of the conditions Employers in the US try to prevent their employees from joining together in a union because: Wages are higher for unionized workers, putting them at a disadvantage with competition Unionized firms are less profitable There is no impact in productivity Lower turnover in unionized firms There might be more training in unionized firms Management discretion decreases Unions constraint what managers can and cannot do with a particular employee Main 2 Reasons: DECREASED profitability and DECREASED management discretion

False · The National Labor Relation Board remedy five illegal practices which are: 1. Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees to keep them from exercising their rights to form unions, bargain collectively, or engage in concerted activities for mutual protection. 2. Dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of a union or providing financial support for it. 3. Discriminating against an employee to discourage union membership. Discrimination can include not hiring a union supporter, or not promoting, firing, or denying a pay raise to an employee who is a union member or who favors union representation. 4. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee who has filed charges or given testimony under the act's provisions. 5. Refusing to bargain collectively with the union that employees chose to represent them. False. The NLRB can help with discrimination based on union membership, however. ***EXAM: must be specific to union-related activity for NLRB to get involved NLRB is only for unions!!

Right-to-work law: a state law that makes it illegal within that state for a union to include a union shop clause in its contract · Union shop clause: a union arrangement that requires new employees to join the union 30 to 60 days after their date of hire · Unions negotiate a union shop clause in their contract to provide greater security to union employees and prevent nonunion employees from receiving union services without paying union dues A union probably wouldn't like it. It's good for the new employee if they don't want to join the union and pay the dues for something they don't want to be a part of. It may also be good for the employer, because some applicants may be turned off once they learn about the union (if they don't want to join one)

The root causes that have occurred since 1999 are: The overemphasis American corporations have been forced to give in recent years to maximizing shareholder value without regard for the effects of their actions on other stakeholders With increasing pressures from Wall Street in the aftermath of the contests for corporate control in the 1980s, executives turned more and more of their attention to meeting the short-term expectations of analysts and to restructuring operations to boost earnings This relates to employee interest since there is a lot of emphasis being put on the top management, which is shown by the ratio in compensation This issue relates to the Landrum-Griffin act since workers had no protection whatsoever in the corporation, and had to trust in them. However there were layoffs since this had proven to increase their stock price. There was a shift in focusing on the core competencies, hence this affected workers. There can be potential corruption of corporation and employers The Landrum-Griffin act: was enacted in 1959 to protect union members and their participation in union affairs, allows the government through the Department of Labor to regulate union activities: 1. Each union must have a bill of rights for union members to ensure minimum standards of internal union democracy. 2. Each union must adopt a constitution and provide copies of it to the Department of Labor. 3. Each union must report its financial activities and the financial interests of its leaders to the Department of Labor. 4. The government regulates union elections, and union members have the right to participate in secret ballot elections. 5. Union leaders have a fiduciary responsibility to use union money and property for the benefit of the membership and not for their own personal gain. Members can sue and recover damages from union leaders who fail to exercise their fiduciary responsibilities. era of the charismatic CEO relates to landrum-griffin act: deals with the relationship between unions and their members, so if union is doing something wrong, maybe the member can't be negatively affected by it? like can't be held responsible?

Labor relations strategy: company's overall plan for dealing with labor unions Union Acceptance Strategy: a labor relations strategy in which management chooses to view the union as it employee's legitimate representative and accepts collective bargaining as an appropriate mechanism for establishing workplace rules o Consistent with a mixed motive view · Union avoidance strategy: a labor relations strategy in which management tries to prevent its employees from joining a union, either by removing the incentive to unionize or by using hardball tactics · Union substitution/proactive human resource management: a union avoidance strategy in which management becomes so responsive to employees needs that it removes the incentives for unionization · Union suppression: a union avoidance strategy in which management uses hardball tactics to prevent a union from organizing its workers or to get rid of a union

Neither party is obligated to bargain on these topics Know what is on and off the table for negiotations o Provisions for union members to serve on the company's board of directors and benefits for retired union members o Allowing management to use the union label to put on its product, settlement of unfair labor practices, and including supervisors in the labor contract negotiating for retired people's benefits, legal for employer to say they don't want to discuss that because law says unions rep current employees and not former (retired) and therefore it is not a permissive topics drug testing employees: mandatory drug testing applicants: permissive unions can ONLY strike over MANDATORY bargaining topics unions and employers can't negotiate ILLEGAL topics

They have the right to strike, however they could be replaced Highly skilled workers still benefit from the right to strike since it is a lot more difficult to be replaced

Lockout: occurs when an employer shuts down its operations before or during a labor dispute employer advantage: to stop everything from economic harm · Economic strike: a strike that takes place when an agreement is not reached during collective bargaining. Initiated by employees. Employee can bring permanent workers Greenhouse article: o Employers are turning to lockouts to press their unionized workers to grant concessions after contract negotiations o Opera locked out its orchestra and singers for more than a week before settling the dispute o 130 day lock-out by the NFL and 161 NBA o American Crystal Sugar locked employers our and hired replacement workers (Federal laws allows for the employers to hire workers, however they cannot replace the others) o Sotheby's locked out 43 art handlers o Armstrong World Industries locked out 260 workers at its ceiling tile plant o West River nursing home in Milford, Conn., where management locked out 100 workers on Dec. 13, companies see lockouts as a way to wrest concessions and set an example for workers at their other facilities. · Puts employers at a distinctive advantage, places pressures on employees

Grievance procedure: a systematic, step-by-step process designed to settle disputes regarding the interpretation of a labor contract · Union contracts have two advantages which are: o Provides employee with an advocate dedicated to representing the employee's case to management, the union steward. Under any other conditions, the employee is represented by either a manager or agent of the manager, such people cannot be entirely dedicated to the employee o Arbitration: the decision of the arbitrator who is a neutral individual selected from outside the firm, is binding on both parties, compensated by both the manager and union (50/50). Unlike grievance panels, composed of people on the company payroll, the arbitrator has no personal stake in the outcome and can make a tough decision without worrying how it will affect his career In non-union setting, a manager/HR person is the advocate of the employees (problem: where do their loyalties lie...?) Final step: arbitration with an arbitrator (neutral person who decides who is right) who decides who the arbitrator is? employer, probably! arbitrators could also have backgrounds of siding with one side over the other, employer and employee can look into that

The model alliance is a not-for-profit labor group for models working in the American fashion industry, in order for models to receive fair treatment in the workplace and to establish ethical standards · The Model Guild failed because the modeling agencies resisted the idea of unionizing and many models worried that agencies would blacklist them for union ties · The employment concerns are the long work hours, the environment in which young models are in, and that they need protection · Transparency in pay, not hiring models that seem to be sick,

Due to the probability of injuries, a health care system that may last beyond college years would be a reason to unionize, and consider them athletes since they are at risk every time they play (workers compensation) . Work 40 hrs a week, create revenue · They are supervised by coaches, not faculty, therefore there compensation would be unrelated to education reasons they aren't: they get free school, housing, etc, being an athlete is enhancing their college education experience, school is the main reason they're at Northwestern, not sports

Pat Fitzgerald doesn't agree with the union and says it would be in the best interests of the players to vote no · It doesn't surprise me that the quarterback agreed with the coach, since he is the runner-up to be the quarterback, hence its in his best interest to be on the coach's good side

I agree with him since college athletes are basically compensated in scholarships · The university is technically paying for them to be athletes and represent their university · Maybe a better health care plan of some sort may be good to have however Frantz makes extremely valid points

Yes, they are employees because they have contracts and are paid. They have to apply, go through a selection process, have requirements (activities, office hours, etc), etc But they are also students It's important to know this because even if they get fired as RAs they are still students at GW

· They were granted the right to join unions in and to present proposals to public employees in 1958, but there was no obligation to engage in bargaining with the public employee unions · Many employee groups joined unions after 1973 because of the passage of Massachusetts General Law in 1973, which granted full collective bargaining rights to most state and municipal employees · Labor law encourages a lot unionization since it gives them the right to do so, and by having the law on their side workers can almost accomplish anything as longs as its within the law guidelines only allowed CB for private employees, not public employees

They were appointed by other RA workers, and their concerns were voiced to administrators through this committee · The RAC doesn't collectively bargain, as does a union · The composition of the RAC is decided by the Residence life (employer) · The RAC can serve as a union since they are protesting or advocating for rights of employees and improvement of work conditions · If is were a union there had to be an election process, the residence life wouldn't be there · It would be illegal for the RAC to be a union as it is, because it is not permitted for employers to choose the representatives

· Some of the key factors that led to some RAs having an interest in union representation was angst and job dissatisfaction · Compensation issues · Unfair practices when it came to punishment, meaning that if they did the same thing as some of their residents they would get fired, however residents would get just a warning · Their residents had more rights than they did · These are legitimate concerns since it affects the way they perform their jobs · It can also affect their personal lives when residents do things such as leaving threatening notes on their doors · Unionization could change Residence Life since they will try to get more respect and with more joining the union they will be able to get the response they want · Exit, voice, loyalty, neglect

\"the actual work performed by the R As and CDAs is not primarily educational and therefore not tied in with their student status as the university contends. R As and CDAs do not receive academic credit for their work, nor do they ... have any formal academic responsibilities. ... The only discrete academic aspect of the R A position is the minimum GPA requirement. \"

No- Other RAs would be appropriate since the job descriptions are the same · However other workers don't deal with the same things as RAs, also they get paid more · Its not a 24hr job

This would bring problems since clerical workers and RAs would have different goals · They have different working conditions, hence different requests · Also clerical workers would be considered more of a job since it probably doesn't have a GPA requirement, and they don't act as leaders for others in their community · Unions prefer smaller bargaining units

From an ethical perspective I rate it a 3 · The university tried to threaten the RAs with the possibility of eliminating the RA program because of budget cuts, and if the union was successful they wouldn't be able to accommodate · Also threatening with benefits · From a strategic perspectives I would rate it an 8 · Some of the RAs started to become concerned, and doubting their support for the union · Since they were threatened with the university having budget cuts, then there would be no gain with a union, and even the possibility of losing the job strategic perspective: good ethical perspective: bad

I think the RAs will vote to unionize and maybe get some of what they're asking for, not all though RAs voted in favor... now university (employer) must bargain in good faith

No independent union, government controlled employer accepted union In the US there is only independent union Companies in China don't have a well established labor relations strategy Since the government has discouraged strikes. Laws and social norms favor employers

In the uprising workers joined revolutionaries in the square, staging strikes throughout the year · Since Egypt had a strong industrial base, the labor had a large effect · For the Egyptians the mahalla cotton mill set the tone for the rest of the industrial sector since it was the flagship of Egyptian industry · With the first strike came many other in other factories as well as the biggest one that occurred on April 6th, which got worldwide recognition · Labor relations were terrible in Egypt, and they had the control for many years, however with the protests beginning to happen and change, there was a sense of hope within the workers · People started to realize that if they took a stance on something thy believed in , they could inspire and accomplish change · With Mahalla being the first, other followed and realized the power and change they could achieve by standing up for their rights · And this inspired other who weren't in the industrial sector article said the whole revolution may have roots from a pay dispute at a cotton mill that began five years before this article was written this one little old woman organized a strike which grew into this national work stoppage day and the workers eventually won but the labor-relations part of the revolution was kind of forgotten about with all the noise about politics

The main issues that for high failure rates of expatriates are: · Career blockage: people feel that when they work abroad, their counterparts in their home office are climbing the corporate ladder · Culture shock: people cannot adjust to a different cultural environment. The expatriate may try to impose his own values into the company, and these many times do not align. Lack of cultural intelligence, or the inability to relate to people of different cultures · Lack of predeparture cross-cultural training: some companies offer no training to expatriates · Overemphasis on technical qualifications: traits that may make you successful in the home office may not work in abroad · Getting rid of a troublesome employee: sometimes sending a troublesome employee abroad may cause even more troubles · Family problems: many times family issues affect expatriates abroad.

The disadvantages are: · Creates problem of adaptability to foreign environment and culture · Increases the \"foreignness\" of the subsidiary · May involve high transfer, salary, and other costs · May result in personal and family problems · Has disincentive effect on local-management morale and motivation · May be subject to local government restrictions Even if there are disadvantages, there are also advantages of using expatriates: Cultural similarity with parent company ensures transfer of business/management practices Permits closer control and coordination of international subsidiaries Gives employees multinational orientation through experience at parent company Gives employees a multinational orientation through experience at parent company Establishes a pool of internationally experienced executives Local talent may not yet be able to deliver as much value as expatriates can Provides broader global perspective personal/family problems for that person subject to local govt restrictions management problems, motivation probs costly: salary, training, transport **moral of the local employees who were after a promotion but outsider got it instead might not be as friendly/social because they see you as taking an opportunity away from them

Lack of respect for acquired skills: people who go back may be frustrated by the lack of respect and appreciation shown by their peers to their new skills o Loss of status: returning expatriates experience a substantial loss of prestige, power, independence and authority o Poor planning for return position: uncertainties regarding their new career assignment may provoke much anxiety in returning employees o Reverse culture shock: living and working abroad can change a person, especially if they have internalized some of the foreign country's norms and customs culture shock while you're gone, someone kind of took your spot (like as the \"go-to\" person) loss of professional status, loss of personal status

Selection: when choosing an employee to go abroad it is critical to make the correct decision Emphasize cultural sensitivity as a selection criterion Establish a selection board of expatriates Require previous international experience Explore the possibility of hiring foreign-born employees who can serve as \"expatriates\" at a future date Screen candidates spouses and families Develop an effective selection program not only for expatriates, but also for those locals who will help the expatriate manager carry out his or her mission Training: cross-culture training sensitizes candidates for international assignment to the local culture, customs, language, tax laws, and government. Ideally, the training process should begin nine to twelve months before moving Information-giving approach lasts less than a week, and merely provides indispensible briefings and a little language training Affective approach: one to four weeks, focuses on providing the psychological and managerial skills the expatriate will need to perform effectively during a moderate-length assignment. Impression approach (1-2 months): prepares the manger for a longer assignment with greater authority and responsibility by providing field experience, and extended language training Training upon arrival Career development: Position the international assignment as a step toward advancement within the firm Provide support for expatriates Provide career support for spouse Compensation Provide the expatriate with a disposable income that is equivalent to what he or she would receive at home Provide an explicit add-on incentive for accepting an international assignment Avoid having expatriates fill the same jobs held by locals or lower-ranking jobs

I would hire Diaz because in the few months that he was there he was able to immerse himself completely into the culture · He attempted to live the same way the locals did, and completely grasp the colloquial mannerisms · Goldstein had to wait to be without her friends in order to immerse herself into the culture, and not even that much

The debate surrounding \"anonymous resumes\" is that most of the time people are discriminated based on their ethnicity and even where they live when applying for jobs in France This is due to the fact that racism is cultural in France Babear and the Montaigne Institute have persuaded about 300 companies to sign a charter pledging to oppose discrimination and make their companies \" reflect the diversity of France\" France can't rely on something like the 4/5 rule because American-style affirmative action programs are illegal under French law, and are viewed as antithetical to French culture and society \"If I hire someone not because he's competent but because he is black, immediately everyone in the company is going to think that blacks are unqualified\" Bebear said, to him affirmative action should principally mean better education, so that minorities will have :the same level of confidence as the others Illegal to gather data from employees, such as ethnicity, social class, etc. Was due to WWII people are not being hired because of their name/any resume info hinting at race, SES, demograf in France, people with French names are way more likely to be hired companies are taking too long to implement the anon resume rules people are still being kinda ~discrim against no ⅘ rule because affirmative action programs are illegal in France want to hire someone based off merit, not because they're a certain race French not allowed to have databases tied to an employee's race/ethnicity, any demographic data on their workforce because of WW2, Nazis used to use company databases to find out how they needed to indentify

They are protesting a law that will make it easier to hire and fire young people at a time where the youth unemployment rate averages 23%. There will be provision that will allow companies to fire employees under the age of 26 at any time during their first two years of work, without case · This shows that French students are proactively protesting and trying to change laws, even if sometimes it resorts to violent actions · Americans college students may protest against American protest: privacy issues, pay issues employment at will law saying no EAW for people under 26 in first two years of employment young people feel it's targeted at them US: do more for social equality reasons, human rights issues