Student Solution

-->

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”
– Nelson Mandela

1 University

1 Course

2 Subjects

Week 7 Discussion-Topic 1&2

Week 7 Discussion-Topic 1&2

Q Discussion Topic Option #1 – U-Tube Employee Comments Situation: Your boss comes to your office. He has just seen a YouTube video. A single person appears in the video. Although he appears in the shadows in an effort to hide his identity, the boss clearly recognizes who it is. The person names the company and makes disparaging remarks about the boss and the company. He also complains of unsafe conditions - some of which you know or strongly suspect are true. The person recently received an unfavourable performance evaluation. The boss wants to fire the employee immediately. You have attended an HR conference and learned that the NLRB has spoken on this subject. 1. What advice would you provide to your boss? 2. What information from the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) said on the subject that you would include in your discussion with your boss? 3. What does a specific state law say on the issue? Discussion Topic Option #3 – Employee Comments on a Public Blog Situation – You have learned that an employee is writing a publicly-accessible blog. The employee is using their own name, and the name of the company. In the blog the employee makes accurate and humorous comments on fellow employees - who you easily recognize from the descriptions. Some of these comments are unflattering. Address the following questions: 1. What advice would you provide the CEO of the company? Consider in your advice - Should the CEO respond or not to the blog? Why or why not? And if so, what should blog say? 2. What actions, if any, should our CEO take against the blogger? 3. What specific actions should the company take to protect its brand? 4. Pick one specific state law and is it applicable and if so why and if not, why not?

View Related Questions

Solution Preview

1. I would advise my boss that, according to NLRB a few states seem to be "all in all correct to work" states, in which a business can terminate a worker under any conditions or no explanation by any stretch of the imagination, given that the terminating isn't predicated on the representative being an individual from a secured class (i.e., one can't be terminated exclusively dependent on their race, identity, age, sex, political association, familial status, and so forth) or done in reprisal for whistleblowing(such as because of a report of inappropriate behaviour or for advising the public authority of criminal operations) (Morgan & Davis, 2013). Additionally, one must recollect that the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment option to free discourse just applies to an individual's cooperation with the public authority, and private bosses can fire somebody dependent on things they state with no worry about abusing somebody's social equality.