Impact of a major change at Blacks Essay Example for Free

Impact of a major change at Blacks Essay As I also stated in my introduction there have been many changes at Blacks recently in the last few months. Blacks are a fairly new business but have already become on of the UKs leading suppliers of outdoor gear. Since opening they have generated high revenue and have been highly profitable every year. Every year Blacks beats the previous year in sales which shows that their market share is also increasing. As Blacks looked at their financial status at the beginning of the year and looked at their objectives there was suddenly an opportunity in the market. Competitor called Outdoors, who supply similar products to Blacks for camping was in financial crisis. The only way for Blacks to increase their market share is to close in on competitors. Blacks saw their opportunity and starting buying Outdoors shares. Before buying shares though Blacks approached Outdoors and asked if they would be willing to comply with a friendly take over, but they rejected hoping that there financial crisis would be resolved. It soon became obvious that they were in too much debt so Blacks seized their opportunity and bought them out. A hostile takeover was imposed and there was nothing the firm could do. They tried to resist the takeover bid but could not manage the finances. The board of directors did their best to ensure shareholders that their interests would be best protected with the current board but many fled They are now in the process of changing these stores into Blacks stores. The implication of this change has had a big effect on both Blacks employees and Outdoors employees. There were feelings of fear as to what will happen with so many job that and who would work in the new stores. In order to show compassion to the existing workers of Outdoors it was decided that they were going to keep the majority of workers and only make a few redundant that had little product knowledge or were just simply not needed. However the staffs were assured that changes would be made in the culture so as to meet the required level of customer service that Blacks offer. This caused some unrest as they resisted to changes Due to workers being let go some rumours got around through to Blacks stores that existing Blacks employees may have been dropped. However it was just a rumour that fizzled out and started with no real reliable source. This was one main change that happened at Blacks. Another was the change of manager at the beginning of the year. As I have already stated the change in manager has not been the best to date. The new manger has adopted an autocratic style of management. This leaves no space for ideas to be shared or any participation in decision making. As a result of this many workers were threatening to leave as before the manger had come we were constantly making bonus by reaching our targets. Since he came though, we have not been able to make target because the workers are de-motivated. Ways of handling Resistance to Change The new changes at Blacks have affected the natural order of things at the workplace, for example, new working practices will be introduced, staff have been made redundant and some staff may be re-located to new stores. This in itself will lead a natural resistance to change, so the question is: how should managers handle this resistance to change? I will propose six easy steps: 1. Managers should keep workers informed at each stage as to what is going to happen. This can be done by having: -regular staff meetings -regular discussions -issue bulletins -team briefings 2. Managers need to involve workers in the decision making process. This way it helps them to feel a part of the organisation 3. Take steps to avoid rumours spreading and misinformation circulating within and outside the company 4. Set up works council where worker representatives can meet with senior management and discuss issues pertaining to the future of the business 5. Invest in training to enable workers to cope with change, also offer counselling to the workers who may need to be made redundant 6. Review the organisational culture to ensure it fits with the future plans for the business

1984 And The Left Hand Of Darkness Essay -- essays research papers

The two books Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Left Hand of Darkness help to define humanity and truth. Humanity is the condition, quality or fact of being human collectively. The definition of truth is things as they are, things as they have been, and things as they are to come. Truth cannot change because it does not reflect a personal perspective. These books illustrate how humans relate towards themselves, friends, enemies and humanity as a whole. Truth allows humans to stand-alone. When they find truth they are able to be one against the whole. "Being in a minority even a minority of one did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad."(Pg.171, Nineteen Eighty-Four) This fact allows Winston to fight against the party. Truth is a powerful weapon that can defeat all odds. "One voice speaking truth is greater force than fleets and armies, given time." (Pg. 27, The Left Hand of Darkness) Genly Ai knew that eventually the people of Winter would accept the truth, however it would only take time. Truth cannot be changed by man but can only be distorted. This fact is illustrated in both books. "The shortcomings are in the messenger, not the message." (Pg. 106, The Left Hand of Darkness) Genly Ai knew that sometimes when the responsibility of the truth is on one person it could get distorted. The truth can also get distorted when the people holding the power are in charge of keeping the truth. "Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." (Pg. 62, Nineteen Eighty-Four) When truth is distorted one loses the freedom to decide if one wants to support truth or untruth. When people's friendships go untested they believe a friend would do anything for them, but when the trials come the trials end in betrayal. Winston believes he will stay true to Julia no matter what happens. "If I could save Julia by doubting my own pain, would I do it? Yes, I would." (Pg. 184, Nineteen Eighty-Four) After Winston betrays everyone except Julia, he still believes he can withstand his torture and not betray Julia. "You have whimpered for mercy, you have betrayed everybody and everything. Can you think of a single degradation that has not happened to you? Winston had stopped weeping, th... ...ston is a part of his country by force, he eventually is brain washed by O'Brien and changes his hate for Big Brother to love for him. "Down with Big Brother!" (Pg. 18, Nineteen Eighty-Four) "He loved Big Brother." (Pg. 236, Nineteen Eighty-Four) He loses his freedom for he feels that freedom is the ability to die hating Big Brother. "To die hating them, that was freedom." (Pg. 223, Nineteen Eighty-Four) Winston is brain washed and as a result he loses the freedom to make his own decisions about whom he will hate and whom he will love. These books show that though the relationships between humans might be different, the principals are the same. These principals include the fact that humans will stand-alone when they have the truth on their side because truth cannot be changed. Secondly, when friendships are tried, they will break because of one's love of him self. Moreover, the death sentence is not a necessary way to punish one's enemies. Lastly, being part of a group can be helpful because an individual belongs, yet harmful because of blind loyalty. The relationships people build with others are a reflection of their beliefs of truth and humanity.

Questions and Issues of Affirmative Action

Question at Issue Affirmative action was implemented with the idea and hope that America would finally become truly equal. The tension of the 1960's civil rights movement had made it very clear, that the nation's minority and female population were not receiving equal social and economic opportunity. The implementation of affirmative action was America's first honest attempt at solving a problem, it had previously chose to ignore. However, there are many people that don't see affirmative action as a positive solution to this major societal problem of racial inequality. These people feel that Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination in the workplace. The Enthymeme Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination because Affirmative action makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose simply the best employee. A= Affirmative action v1= uses B= reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination Because A= Affirmative action v2= makes C= employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose the best available employee. Assumption: Anything that makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having to simply choosing the best available employee uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination. Assumption and Audience The assumption for this paper will appeal to employees who do not qualify for Affirmative action, as well as employers and minorities. Employees not qualifying for Affirmative action feel shortchanged due to the fact employers, for a lesser skilled employee, bypassed them. They feel tricked by the government or the minority therefore firing up racism among the bypassed group, while Affirmative action was introduced to decrease racism. Employers also feel as if they have ended up with a lesser skilled employee therefore increasing the amount of lesser quality work. Employees provided with equal opportunity jobs bear the mark of â€Å"not being the best pick, but only the best pick from a limited group. † Organization Question at Issue: Does Affirmative action use reverse discrimination to solve discrimination? Definition of A: Affirmative action is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities for members minority groups and women. A -* C Relationship: Affirmative action causes federal contractors/employers to choose from the best available employee from the minorities instead of choosing the best available employee from the whole Definition of B: Reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination is using discerning treatment against a white male or female instead of a black male or female to solve a problem of racial inequality. A -* B Relationship: Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination. Definition of C: Employers ability to choose the best available employee from the whole instead of a select minority is the outcome of affirmative action. It insures that minorities are recruited to have real opportunities to be hired in the workplace. C -* B Relationship: By employers having to choose from the best of a minority group for employment rather than just simply the best employee, reverse discrimination is used to solve the problem of discrimination. This is due to the fact that unequal opportunity is given to the minority. This argument would be represented in an editorial form due to its appeal to the common everyday man trying to make an honest living. Affirmative Action Animosity Affirmative action is the U. S. program set forth in the early 1970's to correct the effects of past discrimination by giving preferential treatment to women and ethnic minorities in the workplace. At the time of affirmative action's induction to society, proponents of affirmative action programs felt that the only way to increase the number of minorities in the workplace was to establish a system of quotas to be maintained by law. However, by forming and maintaining these laws over the past twenty-five years, a development of an entirely new set of problems arose; problems that would fuel controversy over affirmative action. A majority of people are dissatisfied with current affirmative action policies, but are opposed to eliminating them completely: â€Å"Americans hold doggedly to notions of family and liberty, but they also believe in a sort of rough equality of opportunity that gives the underdog a real chance in life† (Kahlenberg 209). Once necessary, affirmative action programs have outlived their usefulness, and promote discrimination by continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices. Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination because it makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility of simply choosing the best available employee. The primary goal of affirmative action programs was to increase the number of minorities, including women, in the workplace. The American Association for Affirmative Action states that they are â€Å"dedicated to the advancement of affirmative action, equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnic background or any other criterion that deprives people of opportunities to live and work,† (AAAA Sept. 1998). Most people would agree that goal has been realized. There was a definite need for action to enlighten individuals and corporations to the negative results of their prejudices. It is unlikely that corporations would have taken the initiative to hire from the minority groups had it not been for government intervention. Affirmative action has created numerous opportunities for women and minorities in this country. It would be difficult to argue that these programs were not absolutely essential in making progress toward the semi-equality that we have today. However, affirmative action has always been a compromise, and with the progress made, a price has also been paid. Affirmative action must now be rethought and restructured. Laws created preference programs that â€Å"were based in the conscience of the American people and in their commitment to equal treatment,†(Roberts & Statton 67). The racial quotas that we experience today are blatant perversions that are illegal under the statutory language of the Civil Rights Act† (Roberts & Stratton 67). If the goal is true equal opportunity employment, removal of all advantages and allowing people to be hired for their skills and abilities only should occur. Continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices, affirmative action programs promote discrimination. Using reverse discrimination, defined as the discerning treatment against white males instead of black males or women of any race, to solve the problem of discrimination will always receive criticism for its hypocrisy. For example, in 1965, the Newport News Shipbuilding Co. buckled under the heavy hand of the EEOC, who had solicited complaints by knocking on the doors in black neighborhoods. The company reluctantly agreed to promote 2,890 of its five thousand black workers, designating 100 blacks as supervisors, and agreed to a quota system. One shipyard worker stated that the EEOC had done its best to â€Å"set black against white, labor against management, and disconcert everybody. † (Roberts & Stratton 93). Another example of this reverse discrimination was in the education system; the public case of Cheryl J. Hopwood, Douglas W. Carvell, Kenneth R. Elliott, and David A. Rogers. They filed discrimination charges again the State of Texas stating they were discriminated against and denied admission to the University of Texas School of Law. The college granted admission to less qualified African American and Mexican American applicants through the use of a quota system. This practice of preferential admissions for minorities furthers the practice of reverse discrimination, now not just in the workplace, but also in the school systems. This creates animosities between workers that lead to further segregation, defeating the intentions of the programs entirely. Through the demise of race-dividing policies, underrepresented individuals shielded by affirmative action would be forced to compete, on a level playing field, for jobs and admission to colleges and universities. Competition has nothing but positive effects and is crucial in accelerating capitalism. The debilitating effects of affirmative action and quotas hinder an individual's desire to compete in society. Destroying discrimination caused by past offenses may never have perfect solutions, therefore, creating valid arguments for maintaining the existence of equal opportunity programs. But, to continue to offer one group opportunity, due only to their minority status, at the expense of another is wrong. Non-minorities continue to feel that their rights have been violated and that they are being punished for crimes that they had no part in committing. And when non-minorities are subject to the same discrimination, they have little recourse: â€Å"Under the 1991 Civil Rights Act, white males can have no grounds for discrimination lawsuits until they are statistically underrepresented in management and line positions. The 1991 Act, in effect, repealed the 1964 act by legalizing racial preferences as the core of civil rights law† (Roberts & Stratton). Regardless of good intentions, changing the past effects of discrimination is a goal that is far from reach, however, not unattainable. Women and minorities should be entitled to enjoy the same successes as the rest of the country, without the fear of being seen as the beneficiary of entitlements. Business owners should be free to make intelligent hiring decisions based on a persons skills and talents, without the fear of penalty from the government. As Marsha M. tates, â€Å"Affirmative action is used not to level the playing field, but used to strong-arm employer's into jobs, raises and promotions for Black Americans and women. † The growing tensions that result from these programs continues to divide races, not bring them closer together. â€Å"Ultimately, either quotas will go or democracy will, because legal privileges based on status are incompatible with democracy's requirement of equal standing before the law† (Roberts & Stratton 177). Allowing different sets of rules and lower standards to separate people based on race or sex, defeats any efforts made toward finally ending discrimination. Today every American has access to employment and educational opportunities. Americans live in a world of free enterprise where they can create their own successes. Americans have the means to achieve and succeed, they just have to have the drive and incentive to go out into the world and do it. As in every aspect of life some things may not come easily. Yet these experiences make one stronger and sometimes even more determined to achieve their goals. Individuals of any race should not use or misuse the color of their skin or sexual orientation for advancing themselves over others.    These problems are what fuel the controversy over affirmative action. Most people are dissatisfied with current affirmative action policies, but are opposed to eliminating them completely: â€Å"Americans hold doggedly to notions of family and liberty, but they also believe in a sort of rough equality of opportunity that gives the underdog a real chance in life† (Kahlenberg 209). Once a necessary evil, affirmative action programs have outlived their usefulness, and promote discrimination by continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices. The primary goal of affirmative action programs was to increase the number of minorities in the workplace. Most people would agree that that goal has been realized. There was a definite need for action to enlighten individuals and corporations to the negative results of their prejudices. It is unlikely that corporations would have taken the initiative to hire from the minority groups, had it not been for government intervention. Affirmative action has created numerous opportunities for women and minorities in this country. It would be difficult to argue that these programs were not absolutely essential in making progress toward equality that we have made today. The American Association for Affirmative Action states that they are â€Å"dedicated to the advancement of affirmative action, equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnic background or any other criterion that deprives people of opportunities to live and work (AAAA Sept. 1998). † However, affirmative action has always been a compromise, and with the progress made, a price has also been paid. Affirmative action must now be rethought and restructured. Laws created the preference programs: â€Å"were based in the conscience of the American people and in their commitment to equal treatment. The racial quotas that we experience today are blatant perversions that are illegal under the statutory language of the Civil Rights Act† (Roberts & Stratton 67). If the goal is true equal opportunity employment, removal of all advantages and allowing people to be hired for their skills and abilities only should occur. By continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices, affirmative action programs promote discrimination. Using reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination will always receive criticism for its hypocrisy. By requiring corporations to fulfill quotas, the affirmative action laws promote the hiring of less qualified workers. For example, in 1965, the Newport News Shipbuilding Co. buckled under the heavy hand of the EEOC, who had solicited complaints by knocking on the doors in black neighborhoods. The company reluctantly agreed to promote 2,890 of its five thousand black workers, designating 100 blacks as supervisors, and agreed to a quota system. One shipyard worker stated that the EEOC had done its best to â€Å"set black against white, labor against management, and disconcert everybody. † (Roberts & Stratton 93). This creates animosities between workers that lead to further segregation, defeating the intentions of the programs entirely. Another example of this â€Å"reverse discrimination† was in the education system; the public case of Cheryl J. Hopwood, Douglas W. Carvell, Kenneth R. Elliott, and David A. Rogers. They filed discrimination charges again the State of Texas stating they were discriminated against and denied admission to the University of Texas School of Law. The college granted admission to less qualified African American and Mexican American applicants through the use of a quota system. This practice of preferential admissions for minorities furthers the practice of reverse discrimination, now not just in the workplace, but also in the school systems. Affirmative action has never been a perfect solution and people will always have valid arguments for maintaining its existence. But, to continue to offer one group opportunity, due only to their minority status, at the expense of another is wrong. Non-minorities continue to feel that their rights have been violated and that they are being punished for crimes that they had no part in committing. And when non-minorities are subject to the same discrimination, they have little recourse: â€Å"Under the 1991 Civil Rights Act, white males can have no grounds for discrimination lawsuits until they are statistically underrepresented in management and line positions. The 1991 Act, in effect, repealed the 1964 act by legalizing racial preferences as the core of civil rights law† (Roberts & Stratton). Regardless of good intentions, changing the past effects of discrimination is an unattainable goal. Women and minorities should be entitled to enjoy the same successes as the rest of the country, without the fear of being seen as the beneficiary of entitlements. Business owners should be free to make intelligent hiring decisions based on a persons skills and talents, without the fear of penalty from the government. As Marsha M. states, â€Å"Affirmative action is used not to level the playing field, but used to strong-arm employer's into jobs, raises and promotions for Black Americans and women†. The growing tensions that result from these programs continues to divide races, not bring them closer together. Allowing different sets of rules and lower Standards to separate people based on race or sex, defeats any efforts made toward finally ending discrimination. â€Å"Ultimately, either quotas will go or democracy will, because legal privileges based on status are incompatible with democracy's requirement of equal standing before the law† (Roberts & Stratton 177). Today every American has access to employment and educational opportunities. Americans live in a world of free enterprise where they can create their own successes. Americans have the means to achieve and succeed, they just have to have the drive and incentive to go out into the world and do it. As in every aspect of life some things may not come easily. Yet these experiences make one stronger and sometimes even more determined to achieve their goals. Individuals of any race should not use or misuse the color of their skin or sexual orientation for advancing themselves over others. Instead by using their talents, knowledge and sense of fairness to achieve their goals, affirmative action will become outdated.

A Case Of Mecial Ethical Dilemma - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 972 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2019/05/18 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Ethical Dilemma Essay Did you like this example? An elderly woman, age 91, named T.B was found unresponsive. Emergency services was called and for approximately 45 minutes, attempts were made to revive her and to regain a heartbeat. Although she regained a heartbeat, she did suffer an anoxic injury to her brain because of the extended period without oxygen to her brain. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A Case Of Mecial Ethical Dilemma" essay for you Create order She is now on life support and is developing pressure sores because of being bed bound for so long and is also developing pneumonia because of using a ventilator for a long period of time. T.B has three children who are adults, and concerned about their mothers future. The doctors explain to them that their mother has no quality of life, her prognosis is poor, she is very advanced in age and her neurological status is not getting better. Taking into consideration all this, the doctors recommend putting a do not resuscitate (DNR) order into her chart and taking her off life support. Naturally, this has stirred up many different emotions in T. Bs children and has caused them to be divided as to what to do. This case is very delicate because it deals with human life and whether it would be ethical to keep her on life support or not. Careful deliberation will have to be made to make the best decision possible. Medical Indicators The patients medical problem is an anoxic brain injury. The article Evoked potentials not just to confirm hopelessness in anoxic brain injury states, Complete cerebral circulatory arrest and oxygen deprivation cause unconsciousness within seconds (Kreiger, 1998, p.1). The brain can survive only a few minutes without oxygen so making a full recovery from this is very rare. T. Bs prognosis is very poor, and her case is terminal. As stated in Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals Although there may be a duty to provide life-sustaining equipment there is no duty to continue its use after it has become futile and ineffective to do so in the opinion of qualified medical personnel (Pozgar, 2016, p. 125). Even if T. Bs neurological status did improve and she did make a recovery, the damage she sustained is already severe and the quality of life she would lead would be poor. Given T.Bs advanced age. the possibility of recovery is little to none and medical and nursing care would b e of little help to her if she made a recovery, because she is now permanently disabled. Patient References T. B has not been made aware of the risks and benefits of being on life support or the termination of life support. The patient is unresponsive and currently does not have the mental capacity to grasp the intensity of her situation and she has not stated what she would like done incase a situation like this should occur. She does have three adult children capable of making decisions for her. Although they are divided on what the best decision is to make, they each want to do what is best for their mother. The patient is not unwilling or being uncooperative or denying medical treatment. Quality of Life Without the patient being on life support, there would be little chance of a normal life because the patient would not survive. With the patient being on the treatment, there is also little chance of having a normal life because T. B would be bedbound. The doctors can judge her quality of life because having a patient that suffered an anoxic brain injury, medical personnel would know that there is little to no chance of having a normal life. An article called Euthanasia statesthe motive is to relieve comatoseness, physical suffering, anxiety or a serious sense of burdensomeness to self and others (Frederich Tischauser, 2013). Taking T. B off life support would be reliving her of any physical suffering she might have to endure or might have to live with. It would also relieve the children of the trauma of seeing their mother with a disability and ultimately dying. The ethics of euthanasia are highly debatable; some agree with it and think that you are saving that person from a life o f pain. Others disagree and according to the article Top Ten Reasons Euthanasia Should be Illegal, Euthanasia is the conscious act of ending a life by withholding necessary treatment (passive euthanasia) (Anderson, 2015). In the article, Anderson goes on to say that euthanasia can be viewed as murder by some. Many would disagree with this because although euthanasia is debatable, there are many benefits to it. Contextual Features There are no professional, business interests or interprofessional interests that might create conflicts in the clinical treatment of the patient. There are not any other parties interested in this case except the family members and the doctors. There are also no known religious or monetary issues that would prevent them from making a decision. However, there are health issues that would affect the decision; the patient is developing bed sores from being bedbound for a long time and pneumonia because of prolonged use of the treatment. On top of dealing with a permanent disability, if she gets well, she would also have to deal with pneumonia and bed ulcers; at her age, this could be life threatening. There are not conflicts within hospitals that may affect the patients welfare and clinical decisions. Conclusion The correct decision must be made in this situation. Taking T. B off life support would be the best situation in this case. In the article Active and Passive Physician-Assisted Dying and the Terminal Disease Requirement, Varelius statesa patients disease is terminal when it leads to her death within a given period, usually that of six months (2016. P. 2) T. B did suffer a terminal injury and her chances of living and prognosis is not good. In this case, removal of life support would be the best decision.