BIMS Data Solution - Assignment Example

Employment Law Short Answers and explain at least three myths related to age discrimination. a. Myth: Older workers are always discriminated. Reality: to many organizations, age is still a valuable asset. Most companies value older workers being included in groups. For example, companies such as Home Depot and Boeing have initiatives whose aim is to hire and retain older workers. b. Myth: The skills of older workers are outdated. Reality: even though older workers may lack new skills that are used in the present’s technologically advanced settings, and they may not be as fast in learning new skills as their younger counterparts, their willingness and attitude to learn makes them to be depended upon by many employers. c. Myth: older workers are more inflexible, hence hard to train. Reality: flexibility depends on an individual not age. It is even not hard to find some young workers having problems when undergoing training. Actually, most older workers endure very difficult working conditions since they have amassed a lot of experience and tolerance in their many years of working, hence they are likely to successfully withstand many work place difficulties. d. Myth: Younger people are the only ones who can bring positive changes in an organization. Reality: Bringing of changes in an organization depends on individual performance rather than age. In fact, many older people have a lot of valuable experience, which they use to bring many changes in organizations. What’s more, there are many young people who cannot be relied upon to bring any changes to an organization because they cannot perform. 2. What is the justification for monitoring employee internet use?  Employers find it important to monitor their employees’ internet activity because they do not want them to surf inappropriate sites, play poker or make stock trades during working hours. Yet still, many employers would want to ensure that their employees do not take part in spying, use workplace computers to become a nuisance to other workers, or sell trade secrets. Employers are generally allowed by law to monitor their employees’ communication while on the job, but with justification. Sometimes, such monitoring are not allowed if an employer runs afoul of employees’ right to privacy, therefore the employers should ensure that what they are censoring is not covered under this exception. In most cases, monitoring the general internet use is potentially the least limited. There are virtually no exceptions on monitoring of internet sites that the employees surf. Overall, employees are not allowed to enjoy rights to privacy when it comes to their watching of history. Indeed, many companies install software that totally blocks the websites that the employer does not wish their employees to access, or the amount of time the employees should spend on certain sites, which are not approved. Other times, employers are allowed to monitor employees’ emails, unless the employers themselves have a policy indicating that emails are strictly private or confidential. When such a policy is available, the employer is supposed to communicate it to the employees directly or indirectly and possibly give them unique passwords to help them keep their emails confidential. 3. List and briefly describe the purpose of the Wagner Act Wager Act has several sections that stipulate the rights of employees. Section 7 stipulates that employees shall have the prerogative of self-organization, to join, to form, or help labor establishments, to have a collective negotiation through ambassadors of their own discretion, and to participate in intensive tasks, for the aim of collective negotiation or other protection of mutual aid. Section 8, stipulates that it shall be unjust labor practice for an employer to interfere or dominate with the administration of formation of any labor organization or offer it any support, including financial support. It is provided that the employer shall not be prevented from allowing employees to discuss with them during working hours without loss of pay or time. The Act separately provides that discrimination in regards to tenure of employment or hire or any condition or term of employment to foster or put off membership in labor establishment. It is provided that nothing in any statute of the U.S., including this Act, shall prevent the employer from making a contract with a labor establishment, to oblige as a condition of employment membership in that, in such establishment if the ambassador of the workers in the suitable collective negotiation unit represented by such contract when made. The Act also protects the employee from being discharged or discriminated against by the employer, because they have given testimony or filed charges under this Act. Finally, the Act prevents the employers from declining to negotiate collectively with the envoys of their employees. 4. Calvin was working as a mechanic to repair some processing equipment at the United Megaworks Company. He fell off a ladder, broke his arm, and was knocked unconscious. Following medical treatment, he returned to the company which transferred him to an inspector position due to his broken arm. Does United need to make a report to OSHA? Explain.  Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) requires employers to orally report in person or by phone, within 8 hours following the death of any employee from a work-related event or in-patient hospitalization of at least three workers due to work-related events. This report can be made to the U.S. Department of Labor or Area Office that is nearest to the location of the accident, or by using the Occupational Safety and Health Association toll-free telephone number. Therefore, the questions of whether United Megaworks Company is needed to make a report to OSHA will mostly depend on whether there were at least another two employees that were injured alongside Calvin, during the time of the accident. This obligation affects each such hospitalization or fatality of at least three workers, which takes place within 30 days of an event. However, United may be exempted from this requirement, if it does not discover the reportable incident when it occurred. If such was the case, United ought to have reported the incident to any of its other employees or any agent, within 8 hours since the incident was reported to them. 5. Discuss the potential liability for defamation that can result from the use of performance appraisals. Defamation is an untrue statement regarding somebody, which results into harming that person or another person. The potential liability for defamation resulting from performance appraisal originates from different incidences. This especially happens to the person that is responsible for making public, such untrue allegations. Such liability results to damages including mental anguish, and tarnished reputation, among others. In the case of performance appraisals, legal responsibility may also take account of demotion, job loss, or a stalled promotion. Also, defamation may be as a result of discrimination, wrongful discharge, and negligent evaluation. Cases of performance appraisal defamation also involve untrue statement about the worker, the loss or harmful effect caused to the worker as a direct consequence of untrue statements, and the propagation of untrue statements to third parties without the permission of the worker. In most cases, defamation as a result of performance appraisal may be unintentional and may result from inappropriate evaluation methods. Poor performance appraisal may be deemed untrue if they fail to factor in information that describes the motives of the pitiable appraisal. In addition, untrue appraisal statements may take place when managers try to make changes on an already published performance appraisal. Other potential liabilities for performance appraisal may result when disparate treatment and disparate impact occur if performance appraisals are used to discriminate against workers who belong to minority or other unprivileged category that require protection. In such a situation, the employer would be liable for paying discrimination and defamation damages. If an offending performance appraisal results to demotion or firing of the worker, the employer may be held accountable for the loss of salaries or wages. The employer can also be held accountable if a defaming performance appraisal affects a potential employer of the fired employee, causing them to refuse to employ the employee because they rely on the information in the false appraisal (Ulrich et al., 2012). Reference Ulrich, D. et al. (2012). Praise for HR from inside in. New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More