The Bakeshop Act regulated the amount of hours that bakery employees were allowed to work and restricted them to ten hours per day and sixty hours per week. New York’s highest court upheld the law and Joseph Lochner took his case to the Supreme Court (Irons 255). The state of New York exercised its police powers in order to “protect working people against low wages, long hours, and unsafe and unhealthy ‘sweatshop’ conditions” (Irons 254). This case deals with Lochner’s Home bakery owner, Joseph Lochner appealing his $50 fine for violating the Bakeshop Act. It all began with a baker, Aman Schmitter who Lochner allowed to work more for than sixty hours in a week.
The Sabbath for Seventh-day Adventist is considered from sundown on Friday thru sundown on Saturday. After she was given her regular days off which consist of Wednesdays and Thursdays, it meant that she would be required to consistently work on the Sabbath day. Should an employer be held liable for an employee to have certain days off due to a religious preference? Ms. Myers felt as if she could voice her issue with her Union only to have the request rebuffed regarding the regular off day request. Conclusion: Based upon the facts of the case it can be concluded that Ms. Myers has no grounds for her request to be granted that she receive permission to have a day off that is high in demand.
Major HR Laws Affecting Equal Opportunity Group 2 Scenario 1: As a manger I would honor his request and put him on the first shift on Friday. Then Monday put it on the third shift to accommodate him. I don’t see that there is any law being violated here. Scenario 2: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race is being violated here. The employees would get a written warning so if this behavior continued it would be grounds for termination.
In addition, I would also provide her a copy of the employee handbook with all procedures for calling in or asking for time off as well as the employment-at will doctrine (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). Regarding Jennifer’s attempt to form a union, I would not take any actions excluding one: asking her not to do this during work hours, as adjustments to the employment-at-will gives the right to employees to organize and form unions (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). Should the firm be legally allowed to fire her based on the employment-at-will doctrine? Why or why not? Since Jenifer took the day of due to her religious holiday, it is not clear if firing her should be a good action taken by her firm because of religious freedom guaranteed by Title
However, plagiarism can also be unintentionally if sources or not cited correctly. Whether it's intentional or unintentional, there are still consequences that come with using others work. No crime is victim-less and those consequences will be handle properly. This is an unethical act that's not taken lightly by the employer nor the employee who's the victim. Plagiarism in the workplace is something that many employers deal with throughout the year.
The company had accomplished multiple unfair practices, from interrogating employees to not recognizing their bargaining rights. After reading the case study I couldn't help but side with the union. The way Larry Melton went about finding information from his employees was interrogating and disrespectful. They had valid persuasive arguments against the company including to threaten an employee for refusing to reveal the identities of employees who attended a union meeting. There is no reason Melton should be personally calling multiple employees on finding out who was involved.
Enron Corporation did not give the CFO’s factual or expected benefits from these previous transactions or provide financial statements in its entirety. Not changing the original structure could have been completely different. Enron made a huge decision by hiring people that was outside the company and giving them the power to make critical decisions that would affect the organization. The reward system within the company changed and gave the Top performers more opportunity for bonus and stock options. Since this system was organized by an internal authority, it did not work too well.
What should the court decide? Why? > Background check is very important before hiring an employee because it presents the potential liability of employers for the harmful acts of the people they hire. Employers are generally responsible for the actions of their agents so they should avoid negligent hiring. If an employer fails to meet its duty to conduct an adequate background check and hires an unfit employee who uses his or her position to inflict harm on others, that employer may be liable for negligent hiring.
There should be consideration for the worker’s culture too. 2. An MNC would be unsuccessful in an effort to insulate themselves from negative perception through the use of a third party contractor. Even though it would not be the MNCs direct operations and policy that abuses their employees, the public perception is that the business endeavor enables and funds this advantageous behavior. The only real way to insulate from these sorts of attacks would be to control the perception of activities.
We believe that both the employee and the employer were unethical in this case because it illustrates a degree of moral intensity. The employee had a due diligence to the employer and should have brought his concerns to higher management instead of blogging it on a low profile under a false name. The employer had a due diligence to the employee and should have expressed their concern to the employee. The employer could of asked the employee if he could have deleted the blog or edit it so that the name of the employer was not mentioned. The degree of harm that could have happened to the company was not justified because when a search was made in an Internet search and the blog was not easily accessible in the public domain and this does not give the employer the just cause for termination of the employee.