GET HELP WITH YOUR ESSAY
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional Essay Writing Service is here to help!
DISCOUNT CODE FIRST25
Something I have noticed that is a problem when students write about their cases is that they don’t completely provide their concepts or theories from the text fully before they apply them. Therefore, I am providing something you may have already read on my feedback for all of you to prep you before you begin:
When I state to place the text in your own words, that does not negate incorporating all the key terms of the theorists or concept in your explanation of the concept before you apply it to the case. What are the concepts of your theories you used as tools to reveal a deeper analysis of your character or case? Do this with each key point you are analyzing… state your point concerning the analysis of a particular key part of the case situation or character’s actions/responses in the scenario or case, then state the theory or concept you are applying, (don’t stop there because you have not shown me anything yet) then explain the key tenets of the entire theory or concept, and then how those tenets apply or don’t apply to the example or point you are trying to make concerning the case scenario, character or situation you are analyzing. You then cover your answer comprehensively and no one believes you are just picking pieces from your text without understanding or being able to apply the complete theory or concept comprehensively. You are using these theories and concepts to take apart the case or scenario. It is with these tools your analysis goes further and deeper than just the superficial actions or characteristics. This is how you get a comprehensive analysis that looks at many assets and not just one. You are getting there. Place word count for each case study.
You work for Ms. Napp the Human Resource Manager Director for the agency. Write Ms. Napp’s (HRM) your recommendation for each case/scenario she must decide on below. Use all the information you have learned in this course reading that is applicable to supporting each situation and facts and analysis that should be taken into consideration. In other words, show me in your analyzed recommendation to Ms. Napp how much you have learned in the course.
You will answer each case/scenario with a justification response from the perspective of the HRM Director. Accordingly, you will NOT summarize the case, you will NOT cite the key players, nor a complete a case analysis of the alternatives. I say this so you do not provide all the steps to solving a case study. In the format being used here, you will only prepare the response of the HRM director as to her recommended resolution of the multiple issues posed within each case. You will have a fully written recommendation for each scenario with a justification that thoroughly addresses each area discussed (for example, employee rights, union rights, union security, negotiable items grievance procedures, First Amendment free speech rights, Hatch Act provisions, Freedom of Association issues, sexual harassment issues, etc.) to name a few.
Provide a solid recommendation and make sure each area is fully supported. Use your textbook as your source to support your points, your analysis, and your justification in addressing the elements to consider. NO bullet statements or lists as they do not constitute a comprehensive essay response. Each case/scenario response should be “minimal” 600 words each or more (PLACE word count at the beginning of each essay response). You must work on your own and all exam responses are subject to Turnitin. ANY Plagiarized material will result in zero credit for submitted responses. Again make sure you label your responses as “Case One and Case Two.” You have 5 hours and 15 minutes to complete the exam. Time yourself. The test will automatically submit at 5 hours 15 minutes. You will receive a zero if you have not submitted your response. NO EXCUSES no second attempts to re-open the exam, but still contact me immediately as I will be asking you what happened for my records and documentation. You need to keep your own time in case your internet disconnects. Once you have entered the exam the time has started.
Ms. Anita Napp is a new personnel administrator at the Oakland Federal Health
Department. The previous personnel administrator, Mr. Bill Board, made several poor decisions in the past and was dismissed. Ms. Anita Napp has been hired to take Mr. Board’s place to review personnel concerns and respond to them with justifications for her
recommendations. However, Ms. Napp has to forward her decisions to the legal department to ensure that her recommendations meet legal requirements and to have someone double-check her work.
Ms. Napp knows that in order to look professional in the eyes of the legal team, she must base all of her responses on appropriate legislation, previous cases and sources (your textbook with page numbers) that serve as precedents for her decisions. She wants to be accurate in her responses and very thorough. The past administrator demonstrated that he had limited HR personnel knowledge and several of his justifications were overturned. Many of his decisions were resolved with penalties to the agency because he had never consulted with the legal staff prior to taking action. Anita Napp does not intend to make the same mistakes. A thorough review and justification of cases, along with solid support from past case decisions, legislation from her graduate HRM text by Pynes, will demonstrate Ms. Anita Napp’s knowledge and abilities to her superiors and the legal team.
If you do not cite the text and use page numbers with the citations you cannot pass this exam.
Summary: Ms. Ida Claire alleges that she has had an issue with her Supervisor, Mr. Amos Manley, not liking her party affiliation ever since she was moved into his division. Ms. Claire claims that Mr. Manley had stated this fact to her and she says she has witnesses to support her statements. In addition, Ms. Ida Claire also asserted that she should be able to talk with her coworkers about her political beliefs and about the candidate she is supporting inside or outside of the office. As an indication of the problems cited here, recently Mr. Manley asked Ms. Claire to pull a Republican poster off of her desk as well as her support sticker for one of the local candidates. He also asked her to stop discussing her political beliefs with co-workers in the office.
Because of the problems she had with Supervisor Manley, Ida Claire has gone to the newspapers to express her belief that Mr. Manley is treating her badly because of her political affiliations and that he is harassing her for this because she is a woman. She gave no indication that anyone else was treated this way and gave the impression that she was the only one being singled out by Mr. Manley. She even hinted in the newspaper article that he should be removed for incompetency in his supervisory position.
Because of her actions, Mr. Manley submitted a request to the personnel administrator, Ms. Anita Napp, that Ms. Claire should be fired. After learning of Mr. Manley’s actions, Ms. Claire asserted that Mr. Manley’s actions are all because she has claimed sexual harassment by him as well as her party affiliation rights being violated. She further claimed that his actions are based on her going to the newspapers in violation of her freedom of speech rights.
Action Request: What does Ms. Anita Napp decide? To begin, Ms. Napp realizes that there are several laws she must address in reviewing this case and dealing with Ms. Claire and her supervisor. She must not only discuss the cases and other legislation that apply to the claims but discuss the employee rights and provide a recommendation for the legal unit as to how she must proceed. Ms. Napp is fully prepared to write details and support for this information using a textbook she used in a course entitled Public Human Resource Management. She intends to cite this textbook to support and explain her decisions and recommendations.
Summary: Ms. Anita Napp has one other case that she needs to decide quickly before it becomes a much larger issue and possibly a labor union battle. Mr. Joe King was hired to be an X-Ray technician to include running the MRI equipment. He had previous training in the position as well as recommendations from his previous jobs. However, all other x-ray technicians have complained that Mr. King was dangerous to work with because of his incompetence with the technology and his failure to follow safety procedures. Accordingly, his supervisor, Lance Boyle, sent Mr. Joe King to a three-week, $5,000 training program with the agency covering all boarding, travel, and food expenses. He returned from the training program, but still displayed poor procedures in completing his work. Other technicians that had undergone the same program came back and performed in a competent manner. Supervisor Boyle sent Mr. King a second time through the training with the agency paying all fees.
Upon his return from a second training program, Mr. Joe King, injured a patient in the MRI because he did not follow a safety procedure of ensuring all metallic objects were cleared from the room prior to starting the MRI. A cigarette lighter that he left next to the machine became a projectile that flew into the activated MRI and hit the patient’s face leaving a deep gash and narrowly missed the patient’s eye. This is a safety protocol that is taught over and over again to all MRI technicians ever since the death of a 6-year old that was hit in the head by a flying metallic-oxygen container while in an MRI.
Mr. Lance Boyle wants to fire Joe King due to incompetence. At a planned meeting to discuss Joe King’s pending dismissal, the union representative, Mr. Lou Pole, requested to sit in on the meeting as Mr. King’s union representative.
At one point in the meeting, the union representative leaped to his feet exclaiming that Mr. King was being discriminated against because he is Asian and that there were few Asians considered in the hiring process and nor did Oakland Federal Health meet the Affirmative Action requirements in the union contract. Thus, Union Representative Lou Pole stated that the Oakland Federal Health Department could not fire Mr. King. Supervisor Boyle responded that affirmative action selections are considerations only under the contract, but are not mandatory for hiring and firing. He pulled out his collective bargaining agreement to prove the point. Union representative Lou Pole had no further response on this point and then said that the firing of Mr. Joe King could become grounds for a strike of many of the Oakland Federal public health employees. At that point, Supervisor Boyle halted the meeting to confer with the agency’s personnel administrator, Ms. Anita Napp.
Action requested: Mr. Boyle has elevated the decision to Ms. Napp and requested her assistance in helping him assess his next step in firing Mr. Joe King. Ms. Napp realizes she must look at the legality of any strike and be clear on what she can or cannot do in dismissing Mr. King. She must also assess the claim of discrimination as being an issue in this case as well as claims by Mr. Lance Boyle that not only is Mr. King incompetent, his continued employment poses a danger to patients. She also knows that her decisions and justifications will be reviewed by the legal unit before any actions are taken. Ms. Anita Knap has her work cut out for her in this situation and realizes she must provide a strong and convincing recommendation to the legal unit. She must address the issue of the legality of strike threats, claims of discrimination and claims by Supervisor Boyle that Mr. Kings poses a threat to his co-workers and the hospital’s patients.
The book that must be used is “Human Resources Management Public Service 7th edition. Paradoxes, processes, and problems. By Berman, Bowman, West, and Wart.
DISCOUNT CODE FIRST25