English-Only Rules in the Workplace - Essay Example

?MEMORANDUM September 27, RE: Should Corporations Be Allowed to Implement English-Only Rules in the Workplace? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that there has to be English-only work rule in the corporations. 2. ‘Yes side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come from my own inner being that English should be the only language to be allowed in work places. PART B 4. There has been a good deal of debate in the US regarding the use of language at working places. Krahnke et al. (2003) suggest that the US workforce is quite complex not only linguistically but also culturally. Authors further state that in 2002, the California legislature enacted a bill that forbids the regulation of language in the workplaces unless business or safety requirements dictate it. Park (1994) argues quoting Barnaby Zall, a law expert that the Supreme Court has never called a language-related rule as national origin discrimination. Gibson K. (2006) emphasizes that there is no need to restrict the language use. As businesses accept the people in workplace with different ethnicity, race and religion; similarly, they should embrace other languages as well. 5. Though there have been diverse views on the subject but I still stick to the only-English rule at work places. The main reason is that it is necessary for cohesive and smooth functioning of the job at work places. In the US, most of the people have working knowledge of English while it cannot be said for any other language including Spanish. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. What to do if non-English speaking people feel like discriminated if they are not allowed to speak in their language? b. What to do if English-speaking people feel they are being made mockery of as they cannot understand other language? References Krahnke, K., Hoffman, L., Krahnke, K. (2003). Managing Language Use in the Workplace. The Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 2003 – Vol. 4(1) Page 148. Retrieved September 26, 2011 from http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol4/article4_9.htm Park, R. (1994). Language in the Workplace. The Social Contract Press. Retrieved September 26, 2011 from http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0404/article_368.shtml Gibson K. (2006). English Only Court Cases Involving the U.S. Workplace: The Myths of Language Use and the Homogenization of Bilingual Workers’ Identities. Retrieved September 26, 2011 from http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/sls/wp content/uploads/2011/06/Gibson.pdf MEMORANDUM TO: Professor FROM: DATE: September 27, 2012 RE: Is Downsizing a Sound Strategic Initiative? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that downsizing is a sound strategic initiative. 2. ‘Yes side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come to me after experiencing economic sluggishness post 2008 that has spread not only in the US but also Europe and other parts of the world. PART B 4. Cameron (1994) argues that downsizing is done for survival of the organization before it is too late to rectify the situation. The author also argues that objectives towards downsizing should be in line with the long term objectives of the organization. Hornstein (2009) argues that the results of downsizing are not in line with the expectations. Downsizing brings a negative effect on employee morale, leads to knowledge loss and disrupts skills gathered in past years. Author cites growing body of research to indicate that downsizing does not even help to reduce costs. Margolis and Molinsky (2009) argue that downsizing is a necessary evil and must be exercised with caution. They give stress on being compassionate and direct; however, it should be performed with respect and dignity. 5. Economic conditions in general and in a specific situation may force organization to resort to downsizing tactics for the survival. I still feel that it is an important strategic initiative that can be adopted by the organization for survival. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. Downsizing sends negative information in the marketplace about the organization. How to cope up with the negative sentiments that it generates with respect to creditors and other employees? b. If downsizing is not performed then what is to be done on the nagging issue of burgeoning losses that organization suffers due to overstaffing and idle manpower? References Cameron, K.S. (1994). Strategies for Successful Organizational Downsizing. Michigan University. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/cameronk/PDFs/Downsizing/Strat%20Successful%20Org%20Downsizing.pdf Hornstein, H. (2009). Downsizing Isn’t What It’s Cracked up To Be. Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/strategy/downsizing-isn%E2%80%99t-what-it%E2%80%99s-cracked-up-to-be Margolis, J.D., Molinsky, A. L. (2009). Conducting Layoffs: 'Necessary Evils' at Work. Harvard Business School. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6084.html MEMORANDUM TO: Professor FROM: DATE: September 27, 2012 RE: Is Outsourcing a Wise Corporate Strategy? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that outsourcing is not a wise corporate strategy? 2. ‘No side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come from my general understanding about commerce and joblessness in the US. PART B 4. Hira and Hira (2005) argue that many people have lost their jobs due to outsourcing hence it is not a wise strategy for the US. According to them outsourcing is not inevitable and the potential impacts of outsourcing are far-reaching. On the other hand, Howard (2011) cites the study done at CAPS Research and A.T. Kearney Inc that covered 14 functional areas. The study showed that outsourcing is being used as a competitive weapon by industries? Large organizations do not see outsourcing as its strategic play but only as a cost-savings device. Brower (2012) brings forth the argument that outsourcing is helping even terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. Author cites the Bureau of Economic Analysis confirming that the US has already lost 10 million jobs since 2001 due to outsourcing practices. This has caused huge economic damage to the nation. 5. Looking at the dismal job situation in the US and constant unemployment rate hovering around 9 percent, I still feel that outsourcing is not a wise corporate strategy. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. Due to outsourcing issue, the US has been facing negative trade balance since last several years. Will this not make dollar a weaker currency against the Yuan and Yen in the years to come? b. If outsourcing is stopped then the cost of production will increase. How corporates will react to it? Will that affect their overall business in the long run? References Hira, R.; Hira, A. (2005). Outsourcing America. AMACOM. New York Howard, B. (2011). The Wise Approach to Outsourcing. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://www.salesoverdrive.com/the-wise-approach-to-outsourcing/ Brower, M. (2012). The Day After The Next 9/11: How Outsourcing Is Helping Al Qaeda. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://www.ilw.com/articles/2004,0714-Brower.shtm MEMORANDUM TO: Professor FROM: DATE: September 27, 2012 RE: Does Expanding via Mergers and Acquisitions Make for Sound Corporate Strategy? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that expanding via mergers and acquisitions do make a sound strategy. 2. ‘Yes side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come to me from the general news reporting on the subject of merger and acquisitions. PART B 4. Siegenthaler (2010) specifies 10 reasons for mergers and acquisitions to fail. Some of the prominent reasons are absence of common vision, poor communication and governance, weak leadership, difference in culture, ignorance of crucial information. Investopedia (2010) argues that synergy between two merged organization enhances cost efficiency or savings in cost. Companies can reduce their operational cost as scale of economies goes in their favor. Ernst and Halevy (2004) argue that alliances sometimes can give better results than mergers or acquisitions so mergers and acquisitions are not always a sound strategy. 5. After having gone through varied arguments, it appears to me that mergers and acquisitions make a sound strategy because most mergers in the past have been more or less successful. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. Acquisition and mergers require huge financial resources on hand. In a difficult market situation, can’t that be too risky a proposition? b. What about the cost reduction strategies that any organization would always have in their mind? Will it not be appropriate for organizations to exercise the route of merger or acquisition when working synergies clearly indicate about that? References Ernest, D.; Halevy, T. (2004). Mckinsey.com. Sometimes alliances make more sense than mergers or acquisitions. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Corporate_Finance/M_A/Not_by_M_A_alone_1399 Investopedia (2010). Investopedia.com. The Basics of Mergers and Acquisitions. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://i.investopedia.com/inv/pdf/tutorials/ma.pdf Siegenthaler, P.J. (2010). Ten reasons mergers and acquisitions fail. The Telegraph. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/7924100/Ten-reasons-mergers-and-acquisitions-fail.html MEMORANDUM TO: Professor FROM: DATE: September 27, 2012 RE: Is First-to-Market a Successful Strategy? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that first-to-market is a successful strategy. 2. ‘Yes side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come to me after seeing the successful marketing strategies of the big corporate companies in the marketplace. PART B 4. BusinessNewsDaily (2011) reports on the research carried out by two professors that reveals that first-mover advantage is a myth. They propose rather waiting and learning from the someone else’s mistakes could be more beneficial. Katz (2002) argues that the companies such as E-tailing, eToys and many dot-com companies were first-to-market companies yet they failed miserably in marketplace. Kalle (2010) argue that first-mover advantage could be a good way of grabbing a big market, if the product can fulfill the needs of the market. Proctor & Gamble brought disposable diapers in 1961 and still holds over 50% market share. 5. After having gone through varied arguments, it appears to me that first-to-market is not a successful strategy because failures are much more than successes. The review makes me to change my stand on this issue. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. First-to-market brings too much risk to the firm and what can be done to reduce the risk of the company when the company is bound to make some beginner’s mistakes. b. If one is not first-to-market, the nagging question is what strategies can be adopted in marketing the product or services to grab the market from the first mover? References BusinessNewsDaily (2011). Being First to Market Rarely Pays, Researchers Find. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/608-small-business-first-to-market-rarely-pays.htm Kalle (2010). Flydogdesign. Is first to market a winning strategy? Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://www.flydogdesign.com/2010/07/is-first-to-market-a-winning-strategy/ Katz, D. (2002). First-Mover Advantage: Rarely has a business strategy gotten such a bad name so fast. CFO. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3007674l MEMORANDUM TO: Professor FROM: DATE: September 27, 2012 RE: Is Growth Always an Inherent Corporate Value? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that growth is always an inherent corporate value. 2. ‘Yes side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come to me after seeing so many organizations that speak about growth in their annual general meetings. PART B 4. Ledbetter (2011) argues that between 1940s and 1950s growth was not a priority for many industrial corporations and that was agreed upon by the Eisenhower administration too. He further argues that trade unions and the political outfits along with many liberal economists insisted for permanent economic growth. Heinberg (2012) argues that a great contraction is now imminent. He is of the view that the global economy is at the end of growth and the people including organizations will be forced to change their views on the current style of growth as a value indicator. Wheelen and Hunger (2010) argue that growth and survival of the organization are two facets of the same coin. Corporations focus on the rate of growth as a main business activity. 5. After having gone through varied arguments, it appears to me that growth is always an inherent corporate value because it is a very basis of economics and survival. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. The troubling point for those who consider the growth as an inherent corporate value is, “If the corporations continue to grow like this what would happen to the natural resources, which are always finite on this planet”? b. Those who do not consider the growth as an inherent corporate value they need to think about how corporations would survive without growth as an inherent value. References Ledbetter J. (2011). Reuters. Must we always try to grow the economy? Retrieved September 28, 2012 from http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2011/06/07/must-we-always-try-to-grow-the-economy/ Heinberg R. (2011).The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality. Clairview Books. Wheelen, T. L., Hunger, J. (2010). Concepts in Strategic Management and Business Policy, 12th ed., Pearson Education. MEMORANDUM TO: Professor FROM: DATE: September 27, 2012 RE: Should Corporations Adopt Environmentally Friendly Policies of CSR and Sustainable Development? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that corporations should adopt environmentally friendly policies of CSR and sustainable development. 2. ‘Yes side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come to me after observing the host of environmental issues that are troubling this world. PART B 4. Karnani (2010) argues that CSR is not only an illusion but also a danger too. The argument proposed by the writer is that the companies that do all necessary activities to increase their profits will also support social welfare. Further, when profit motive and social welfare objectives are at logger heads, any act toward corporate social responsibility will be not effective because management cannot act against their shareholders and in the public interests. This is dangerous in the sense that a focus on CSR will take away the focus on impending real solutions. Gregory and Pollack (2002) argue that Corporate Social Responsibility among corporations is on rise and that should be given increasing importance. Shah (2012) argues that sustainable development can solve the issues such as hunger, poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. 5. Having gone through various arguments by the experts, I still feel that CSR and sustainability issue is a need of time and must be given due importance. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. Medium scale businesses are short of resources to fulfill social responsibilities and sustainable development. If they are forced to do these, perhaps they would be out of business. The nagging question is what remedies are available for such businesses? b. If corporate are not compelled to do CSR and sustainable development then environmental issues will become more grave and that will pose even larger threat to the generations that will follow. What remedies are then available to the environmental issues? References Gregory, H.J., Pollack, J, G. (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility. Weil.Com. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from http://www.weil.com/news/pubdetail.aspx?pub=3967 Karnani A. (2010). The Case against Corporate Social Responsibility. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703338004575230112664504890.html Shah, A. (2012). Sustainable Development. Global Issues. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from http://www.globalissues.org/issue/367/sustainable-development TO: Professor FROM: DATE: September 27, 2012 RE: Do Unskilled Immigrants Hurt the American Economy? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that unskilled immigrants do not hurt the American economy. 2. ‘No side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come to me after observing the shortage of workers in unskilled jobs in the US. PART B 4. Furchtgott-Roth (2006) argues that unskilled immigrants are complementary to the skilled-workers and quite helpful to boost in American economy. They do not compete with Americans for jobs as those jobs are not preferred by Americans. Holzer (2011) argues that unskilled workers accrue huge benefits to the high-income and low-income consumers and clearly of the view that unskilled workers do not hurt American economy. Malanga (2012) argues that unskilled immigrants take away jobs of American workers and hurt American economy by occupying hospital beds and schools. 5. After going through the arguments by the experts, I still feel that unskilled immigrants do not hurt the American economy because they are certainly complementary to the skilled workers and thus help boost the American businesses. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. If unskilled immigrants really hurt the American economy, how one can explain the shortages of labor in mostly all walks of life such as domestic, farms, restaurants, industries, which are required for recycling the materials and repair works to safeguard our environments and sustainable development. b. When unskilled workers start raising pressures on essential services such as schools and hospitals, how can it be coped with? References Furchtgott-Roth, D. (2006). The Case for Immigration. nysun.com. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from http://www.nysun.com/opinion/case-for-immigration/40166/http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Holzer-January2011.pdf Holzer, H.J. (2011). Immigration policy and less-skilled workers in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Holzer-January2011.pdf Malanga, S. (2012). How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy. City Journal. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from http://www.city journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html MEMORANDUM TO: Professor FROM: DATE: September 27, 2012 RE: Is Economic Globalization Good for Humankind? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that economic globalization is good for humankind. 2. ‘Yes side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come to me after seeing the rise in incomes of the people in most of the countries after globalization. PART B 4. Weber et al. (2007) argue that economic globalization has created more economic issues such as terrorism to global warming. Bhagwati (2004) argues that economic process of globalization is good for free exchange of goods and ideas. It has capacity to improve the lot of humankind in the world. Fisher and Cox (2006) argue that globalization is overall good that lead to higher incomes, lower inflation and greater economic freedom. The countries that have not globalized have reduced competitiveness, stagnation, and inflation. 5. After going through the arguments by the experts, I still feel that economic globalization is good for humankind because consumers are benefitted most by way of lowest possible cost of goods and services. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. It is true that workers in high-cost countries such as the U.S and U. K would have to bear the brunt of unemployment and the troubling question is how to settle them in the job market? b. If economic globalization is not accepted, the efficiency factor and the benefits of comparative advantage to the nations will get defeated and so the consumer benefits at large throughout the world. Will that not be against free market economic philosophy that is necessary to bring prosperity for all? References Bhagwati, J., Myers, J. (2004). In Defense of Globalization. Carnegie Council. Retrieved September 29, 2012 from http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/studio/transcripts/5046.html Fisher, R.W., Cox, W. M. (2006). The good in globalization. The New York Times. Retrieved September 29, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09iht-edcox.html Weber, S., Barma, N., Kroenig, M., Ratner, E. (2007). How Globalization Went Bad. Wright.edu. Retrieved September 29, 2012 from http://www.wright.edu/~tdung/How_globalization_went_bad_FT.pdf MEMORANDUM TO: Professor FROM: DATE: September 27, 2012 RE: Are Protectionist Policies Beneficial to Business? PART A 1. My initial gut reaction that emerges after reading the issue is that protectionist policies are not beneficial to business. 2. ‘No side’ appears more persuasive to me. 3. The reaction to this has come to me after seeing that protected industries pass on their inefficiency to the consumers. PART B 4. Younkins (2000) argues that protectionism is a threat to the consumers that prevents them to choose a right product and services. Amadeo (2012) argues that it is better to protect a new industry until it is passing through a learning phase. This will help them thwart overseas competition and flourish within the country. Rahan (2012) gives an example of Argentina and state protection is a bad way of running economy as it does not help in the long run and derails the process of economic 5. After going through various arguments of the experts, I still feel that protectionist policies are not beneficial to business because that does not elevate the efficiency levels of the producers of goods and services and consumers need to pay unnecessarily much higher price. 6. The questions/troubling points for the Yes/No side are: a. When an industry is protected, the nagging question is how long one can go on protecting it wasting scarce national resources – not putting them into judicious use where comparative advantage can bring more economic benefits to the nation? b. When an industry is not protected, a large workforce is likely to be put into unemployment then how to cope with that situation? References Amadeo, K. (2012). Trade Protectionism. about.com. Retrieved September 29, 2012 from http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Trade-Protectionism.htm Rahan, N. A.(2012). Protectionism a bad idea. nst.com. Retrieved September 29, 2012 from http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/protectionism-a-bad-idea-1.87469 Younkins, E. (2000). Protectionism: A Threat to Individual Rights. Liberty Free Press. Retrieved September 29, 2012 from http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins13.htm Read More