Logistics of International Workers to Mitigate Ebola Epidemics - Case Study Example

Management Decision Case Study Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction Introduction One of the most important functions of human resource management practices is making decisions that enhance the welfare of human resources in organisations. Across various industries, human resources are the most important for the success of any business organisation in any industry (Mathis & Jackson, 2003). An organisation has to make sure that the welfare of its workers is given first priority over company practices. This is because, the business organisation cannot function in the absence of its workers; for this reason, informed decisions have to be made in the best interest of the organization workers. Currently, some parts in West Africa are currently fighting the deadly Ebola virus that has so far resulted in the death of approximately 5,000 people. Many international organisations are sending their workers to help in offering health care services to people affected by these Ebola virus in the countries affected in West Africa (Baas, 2012; Bueche, 2004). International health care workers are playing an important role in ensuring that people in these regions are isolated to prevent further prevalence of the disease, and those already diagnosed with the virus get necessary medication before they are deeply affected (Parker & International, 2003; Hirschmann, 2007). In sending their workers to these countries, organisations are faced with many considerations before making his important decision in the interest of their workers and people in countries affected by the virus. This paper examines some of the management decisions that human resources managers in international organisations sending their workers to Ebola infected countries in parts of West Africa. It focuses in the effect that various management decisions over the welfare of its workers are being arrived at. Management of workers As pointed, management of workers is an important function of human resource management in any organization (Gilmore, 2009). In this case, the organisation has to put the interest of its workers ahead of its functions. The organisation has to consider its future activities when deciding on the way to manage its workers in the face of the need to take care of people in the Ebola infected country. It is always important that an organisation focus on its future functions before deciding on the strategies to use in the management of its workers. Sending the workers back to the United States Faced by the dilemma of sending workers back to the United States and the cost implications, the organisation has to consider some of the following important aspects. First, the health of the workers is very important for its success in the market, both at present and in the future (Weimei, 2013). When recruiting employees to work in an organization, the organisation takes the responsibility of ensuring that the welfare of its workers are effectively taken care of. In this understanding, the organisation has to ensure that it evacuates its workers from West Africa in the face of the current threat of the Ebola Virus they are exposed to (Willett, 2003; Macdonald, 2000). In as much as other organization have used a lot of money to evacuate their workers, the organisations has to option than to follow suit. It is has to remember that if its workers end up contracting the virus, the costs in treating and taking care of them can be many times as much as that which would be used in evacuating them back to the United States. The organization has to understand in all management functions, prevention of a problem is better than solving it once it has occurred (Mondy & Noe, 2005). In addition waiting for the workers to be directly affected by the virus so that other organisations can help in evacuating them is not economically viable. This is because; the company will end up using much money in taking of their health insurance as compared to the costs incurred in evacuating them before the danger arises. Evacuating the workers The decision to evacuate workers has to be done after careful consideration of the possible outcomes in any of the alternatives that the company has. For instance, evacuating the workers to a neighboring country will be a temporary solution that will only have short-term positive effects. First, it will provide a temporary reprieve for its workers so that they can avoid the possibility of contracting the virus. Secondly, it will give the organisation workers the chance to monitor the prevalence rates of the Ebola virus in the area that they have gone to provide their services. In this case, the company will have an advantage if the situation improves in the country they had gone; they will effectively discharge their services (Noe, 2006). However, if the situation does not improve, evacuating workers back to the United States will see the company face increased costs in the whole exercise, which would have been easier if the organisation decides to make a decision to evacuate its workers directly to the United States. As a management function, the company has to consider the cost effects of this evacuation process. Taking its workers directly to the United States would be cheaper in the end. For this reason, the organisation would be better off economically, if it decides to evacuate its works directly to the United States (Chang, 2005). It is important for the management functions at the organisation to understand that the life of its human resources is costly; in this case, it has to use all approaches at its disposal to ensure that the welfare of its workers is taken care of effectively for both the present and future organisation functions. Currently, the world is still grappling with efforts to identify the most reliable medical interventions in dealing with the Ebola virus (Stimola, 2011; Plotkin, 2008). Some of the approaches that have been advised by the various international health agencies including the World Health Organisation is an incubation period for 21 days for people travelling from countries identified as being at risk contracting the Ebola virus (Baas, 2011; Smith, 2011). The incubation period is important so that any cases can be identified and taken care of before they can affect other people in the new areas that they are moving to (Palmer, 2011). The organization’s human resource functions should understand that all these processes, though they are hard to bear, are essential in ensuring that the health of their workers are safely secured amidst the Ebola Virus that has so far become a world disaster (Palmer, 2011). Taking precautions The decision to restrict the organisation workers from visiting their churches and supporters is one of the important safety precautions advised by the World Health Organization in preventing the prevalence of the Ebola Virus (Draper, 2002). This is the reason why there incubation period of 21 days is often advised for people travelling from countries deemed to be at risk of contracting the Ebola virus (Kuhn, 2008; Cote, 2013). It is important to understand that many organization works may develop cold feet about visiting the countries ravaged by the Ebola virus because of the perceived risk (Maron, 2014). The organization should therefore understand this development and not force its works to travel to these countries to offer their services (Martin, 2009). Instead, it should provide firm assurance for the safety of their workers and other incentives for their workers to agree to travel to these countries (Martin, 2009). Overall, the organisation has to ensure that the welfare of its workers are given priority over company goals and objectives. References Baas, T. (2011). Niemann-Pick(ing) on Ebola. Science-Business EXchange.4(23), 45-65. Baas, T. (2012). Target on Ebola. Science-Business EXchange. 4(35), 38-81 Bueche, S. (2004). The Ebola virus. Farmington Hills, MI: Kidhaven Press Chang, A. (2005). Magills medical guide (3rd rev. ed.). Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press. Cote, M. (2013). The Ebola virus journey into the host cell. Postdoc Journal. 10(9), 390-371. Draper, A. (2002). Ebola. New York: Rosen Pub. Group. Gilmore, S. (2009). Human resource management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirschmann, K. (2007). The Ebola virus. Detroit, MI: Lucent Books/Thomson Gale. Kuhn, J. (2008). Filoviruses a compendium of 40 years of epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory studies. Wien: Springer, New York. Macdonald, R. (2000). Ebola virus claims more lives in Uganda. BMJ, 21(3), 1037-1037. Martin, J. (2009). Human resource management. Los Angeles: SAGE. Maron, D. (2014). Will the Ebola virus go airborne? Nature. 1(5), 12-34. Mathis, R., & Jackson, J. (2003). Human resource management (10th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-western. Mondy, R., & Noe, R. (2005). Human resource management (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. Noe, R. (2006). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage (5th ed.). Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill. Palmer, S. (2011). Oxford textbook of zoonoses: Biology, clinical practice and public health control (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Parker, J., & International, I. (2003). The official patients sourcebook on Ebola hemorrhagic fever. San Diego, Calif.: Icon Health Publications. Plotkin, S. (2008). Vaccines (5th ed.). Philadelphia, Pa.: Saunders/Elsevier. Stimola, A. (2011). Ebola. New York: Rosen Pub. Smith, T. (2011). Ebola and Marburg viruses (2nd ed.). New York: Chelsea House. Weimei, Z. (2013). Design of Functions and Framework of Enterprise Human Resource Management Information System. Information Technology Journal, 7(2), 33-39. Willett, E. (2003). Ebola virus. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Pub. Read More