Human Resource

Examine the major effects of unfair bargaining actions on the negotiation climate.Suggest two actions that an employer could take against an employee to reduce the possibility of engaging in unfair negotiation tactics.

To attract, motivate, and retain good workers, companies need to define what an employee wants from the employment relationship. One way to define employee needs is to consider “total rewards,” which are everything an employee perceives to be of value resulting from working for the company. Benefits are a core element of total rewards and the ever-growing package of offerings have evolved. You must now work with the company to define precisely where the various programs will be categorized.Write a six- to seven-page paper in which you do the following:Identify and discuss at least three important variables that almost always should be considered by organizations when providing employee benefits programs. Be sure the response is specific and relevant.Compare and contrast income protection programs and pay for time not worked programs, both of which are usual elements of benefits programs. How are the programs similar? Are they mandatory?Research and discuss at least four to five of what may be referred as “Other Benefits” that you could recommend to the management team as necessary elements for the benefitspackage. Hint: Flextime and product or service discounts are good examples.Develop an employee benefits package for any exempt or non-exempt position level of your choosing, making sure you support the selection of your program elements. Note: The preferred method for presenting your benefits package information is using a table or exhibit, but either approach is not mandatory. Examples:US Bank Benefits at a Glance and UW-Madison New Employee Benefits Summary.

Compensation PlanInstructionsSelect a company for which you would like to work and determine the necessary components of an attractive compensation planRequirementsWrite a 5–7-page paper in which you:Describe (briefly) your “dream job” with the selected company.Create a rewards and compensation package for this position that would attract skilled workers and control costs.Create a benefits package for this position that is competitive and advantageous to the company.Speculate on how the negotiating and collective bargaining of this position would contribute to the company’s talent management strategy for retaining high performing employees, including your rationale.

Identify three metrics HR professionals can use to support organizational goals.Explain how your chosen metrics can offer strategic value to the organization.Illustrate how HR professionals can leverage human capital analytics to support organizational change.350 words apa format

Why is it important for HR Management to transform from an administrative and operational function to a strategic partner? Provide a brief history of the HR function (i.e., not more than 1 page), and research regarding a specific organization of your choice that has successfully made this transition to support your ideas, arguments, and opinions.

Incidents: “You Can’t Fire Me,” “The Controversial Job, ” “A Benefit Package Designed for Whom?”, “Should He Be Fired?”

Meiorin CaseNEW TEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONBritish Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Comm.) v. B.C.G.E.U. (1999), 35 C.H.R.R. D/257 (S.C.C.)The Supreme Court of Canada holds that the Government of British Columbia’s aerobic standard used to test the fitness of forest firefighters discriminates on the basis of sex, and further that the Government failed to show that the discriminatory standard is justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (“BFOR”).This case arose as a grievance before a labour arbitrator. Tawney Meiorin was employed for three years as a member of the Initial Attack Forest Firefighting crew. Although she did her work well, she lost her job when the Government adopted a new series of fitness tests for forest firefighters. She passed three of the tests but failed a fourth one, a 2.5 km run designed to assess whether she met the Government’s aerobic standards, by taking 49.4 seconds longer than required.The arbitrator found that the aerobic standard constituted adverse effect discrimination based on sex because men as a group have a higher aerobic capacity than women, and consequently are more able to meet the standard. The average man, with training, could meet the standard. The average woman, with training, could not meet the standard. Consequently, the same standard applied to both sexes excluded more women than men.The arbitrator also concluded that the Government did not show that it had accommodated Ms. Meiorin to the point of undue hardship. The arbitrator ordered that Ms. Meiorin be reinstated and compensated for lost wages and benefits. This arbitral ruling was overturned by the British Columbia Court of AppealIn the view of the Supreme Court of Canada the narrow issue is whether the Government improperly dismissed Ms. Meiorin from her job as a forest firefighter. The broader issue is whether the aerobic standard unfairly excludes women from forest firefighting jobs.The aerobic standard was developed for the Government by University of Victoria researchers. The Court finds that two aspects of the researchers’ methodology are problematic in this case. First, it was primarily descriptive, based on measuring average performance levels, and converting this data into minimum performance standards. Therefore, it did not demonstrate that these performance standards were in fact necessary to the safe and efficient performance of the job. Second, it did not seem to distinguish between male and female test subjects. The record did not show whether women and men require the same minimum level of aerobic capacity to perform this job safely and efficiently.The Court holds that the Court of Appeal mistakenly read the arbitrator’s reasons as finding that the aerobic standard was necessary to the safe and efficient performance of work. The arbitrator found, on the contrary, that despite her failure to meet the standard Ms. Meiorin did not pose a serious safety risk to herself, her colleagues, or the general public. The arbitrator did not find that meeting the aerobic standard was necessary to safe and efficient job performance.The Court agrees with the arbitrator that on the conventional legal approach to applying human rights legislation a case of adverse effect discrimination was made out and the Government failed to show that it had accommodated to the point of undue hardship.However, the Court decides that the conventional analysis should be revisited. The conventional analysis has distinguished between direct discrimination and adverse effect discrimination, defining direct discrimination as that which is open or overt, discriminatory on its face, and adverse effect discrimination as that which results from the discriminatory effects of seemingly neutral practices. The defence to direct discrimination has been to show that the rule is a bona fide occupational requirement. Absent such a showing, the rule would be struck down. The defence to adverse effect discrimination has been to show that a complainant could not be accommodated without undue hardship. This bifurcated approach has caused some confusion on the part of tribunals and courts, and the Supreme Court of Canada takes this occasion to articulate a new “unified” approach which avoids the distinction between direct and adverse effect discrimination.Under the unified approach there is a three-step test for determining whether a discriminatory standard is a BFOR. The employer must establish:1. the standard was adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to job performance;2. the particular standard was adopted in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate work-related purpose;3. the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate purpose. This includes a requirement to demonstrate that it is impossible to accommodate without undue hardship.Applying the unified approach to this case, the Court holds that Ms. Meiorin discharged the burden of establishing that, prima facie, the standard discriminates against women, and the Government has not shown that the standard is reasonably necessary. The Government did not show that it would experience undue hardship if a different standard were used.The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeal that accommodating women by permitting them to meet a different aerobic standard necessarily discriminates against men. The Court also finds that individual testing, without more, does not negate discrimination.The appeal is allowed, and the order of the arbitrator is restored, with costs to the appellant in this Court and the Court below.

After completing the module readings, you will think about what you have read and pull upon any HR experience you may have. Then, in your own words, write one or two paragraphs answering the following question: If you became a new manager at a restaurant with high employee turnover, what actions would you take to increase employee retention? Title your assignment 3-2 Managing Employee Turnover.

The Impact of Social Movements on Policy DevelopmentSocial change and, ultimately, policy development often emerge from social movements in areas such as civil rights, gender equality, labor, religious rights, family planning, ecology and climate change, and community services.Chapter 7 of your Simons Public Policy text discusses movements and social upheavals growing out of discontent or demands for change. In this discussion, analyze how two of these movements may affect the field of human services.

1.The video response assignment #1 pertains to the video from Thijs Homan that speaks to the inner side of organizational change. Using your own experiences from work and school, address the following questions:VIDEO LINK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n-c6iAKFggComment on Thijs Homan’s opening statement that “the more you try to manage change, the more it comes to a halt”.How does the TedTalk connect into the course material for the opening module of the course?Describe the portion of the video you found the most interesting and why you found it interesting.*** Your submission must be 400-500 words, clearly answering the questions provided. There is no reference requirement; however, your answers must be organized and full sentences.**2.The video response assignment #2 pertains to the video from Lisa Bodell. In the video, she discusses how simplication is the key to change. Answer the following questions:VIDEO LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm172DbaSbcComment on the question posed within the video about your work “what do you spend your day doing”?Comment on the “three simple ways” to make the space for innovation and change to happen.Describe the portion of the video you found the most interesting and why you found it interesting.***Your submission must be 400-500-words, clearly answering the questions provided. There is no reference requirement; however, your answers must be organized and full sentences.