Join the fun, post what you learned this week, and link up below. The code for the image is located in my sidebar. All I ask is you link back to this post. Oh, and make sure you link to your post and not your blog in general, okay?

I am now in my second week of my Ethics & Legal course and had an entirely different topic to post, then I saw this on Wheel of Fortune:

We hold these truths to be self-evident

My husband and I were discussing its origin. He said it was from the preamble. Well, when I think preamble I think to the Constitution of the United States. I am quite familiar with the preamble to the Constitution as I still have it memorized from the fifth grade when we had to recite it in front of the class. And that was a loooooong time ago.

So, I did a search and found he was not incorrect in that it is from the preamble – of the Declaration of Independence. But you probably knew that, didn’t you? So, why am I talking about this? And what does it have to do with people not liking change? Well, I read the rest of that preamble and, much as I always do when I start reading these things, I started having these wild thoughts.

Let me continue with the preamble:

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Did you know wherever ‘men’ is listed it literally means ‘men’. Women were not a part of our forefathers’ thinking when it came to equal rights. In fact, men of color [is that correct?] were given the right to vote before women of any race by a little over 50 years.

Here is what started my wheels turning:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It is our right to alter or abolish our government if it is no longer fulfilling its duties to the citizens it serves. That is right, the government works for its people, NOT the other way around.

But it gets better:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Our forefathers knew we would rather bitch and moan and suffer under an intolerable government then do what it takes, do what our forefathers’ did, and take a stand for what is right for the people and tell the government it needs to shit or get off the pot!

Here is my favorite part:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It is not just our right to remind the government who is really in charge, but our duty as United States citizens to abolish our government if its powers become so vast as to be destructive towards are inalienable rights of ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’.

It is time we told our government officials they can no longer sit on their seats for decades, but that they need to have term limits. They do not need to be as stringent as the Presidential term limits, but no one person should be allowed to stay in office for more than 10 years in a row. Maybe we enforce a term break by 4 years, then they may be re-elected, after all, if they are that good, then you will put them back in office after their short leave of absence.

Sometimes I think we’ve forgotten all our forefathers’ gave up just so we can have the freedoms we hold so dear. Greed and power have clouded our thinking. We are no better than we once were with the haves and the have-nots, the religious persecution, our modern day caste system. Don’t we want something better for our children? For ourselves? I know I do.

What have you learned this week? Grab the button from my sidebar, then add a link to your post below using MisterLinky. Not sure how to link up? Leave a comment or send me an email (or both) and I will happily walk you through it.

Join the fun, post what you learned this week, and link up below. The code for the image is located in my sidebar. All I ask is you link back to this post. Oh, and make sure you link to your post and not your blog in general, okay?

In my final week in Management Law and Employee Relations we touched on a few more forms of discrimination and the dos and don’ts of employers when dealing with unionization. Interestingly, an employer may not allow antiunion meetings in the workplace, but may send letters to employees’ homes.

FMLA [Family Medical Leave Act] covers you taking time off to care for a parent, but not an in-law [mother-in-law or father-in-law]. I did not know this. To some degree I disagree, but do understand the need to draw the line somewhere. I mean, if you take care of your cousin and uncle should you be able to take time off with job protection? What about a second or third generation relation? How many people do you believe would take advantage of this? I am sure many, many people would, while others would not. You know what they say about a few bad apples…

The most interesting bit of discrimination I learned was in regards to age discrimination. Did you know that it only is considered age discrimination if the discriminated party is age 40 or older? To me that seems like a case of age discrimination in and of itself!

When I was 19 I was openly and blatantly discriminated against due to my age. I was a little slow in realizing this was happening, but my boss [then 38] pointed out that I had no case as it was my word against hers and no one would ever believe me. Well, looks like the joke is on her! I did not qualify anyway. That was 19 years ago [WOW, really?] and she probably still is a teller making barely anything in a field where no one respected her. See, she was discriminated against due to her sense of, or lack thereof, style. That and she did not have the proper “look” to work in the fancy smancy Palm Beach office.

What about you? Have you ever felt discriminated against due to your age? What about other reasons? Employers are getting smarter and know how to get around these laws, but you should know your rights and how to stand up for yourself if you feel you or someone you know is being treated unfairly. Know your company’s whistleblower policy and if you can file an anonymous complaint through this type of program. But be sure you are being fair in your complaint. Take an honest look at yourself and make sure it is discrimination and not just that you are unqualified or not ready for those other functions. In other words, don’t cry wolf! It hurts every legitimate claim when you do!

What have you learned this week? Grab the button from my sidebar, then add a link to your post below using MisterLinky. Not sure how to link up? Leave a comment or send me an email (or both) and I will happily walk you through it.

Join the fun, post what you learned this week, and link up below. The code for the image is located in my sidebar. All I ask is you link back to this post. Oh, and make sure you link to your post and not your blog in general, okay?

That got your attention, didn’t it? It is so not what you were thinking when you stumbled upon this post today. This past week we learned about sexual harassment in the workplace. Interesting stuff, to say the least.

Did you know that sexual harassment does not have to have any sexual overtones? Really. A great example would be a woman working in a male-dominated field such as construction. If the men harass this woman just because she is a woman, say things like ‘you can’t do this or that as well as a man’ then that is construed as sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment in the form of you do this for me and I do that for you is called ‘quid pro quo’. And when it creates an abusive, offensive, or intimidating environment it is considered creating a ‘hostile work environment’ [see construction example above].

If you give in to a sexual relationship then remove yourself from said relationship and lose your job, position, or are otherwise punished it still is sexual harassment. It does not matter that you once consented.

This should not be carte blanc for everyone to go and complain of harassment that is nonexistent. If your boss [or any other co-worker] creates an unpleasant work environment by issuing unwelcome remarks or gestures, then you should speak to the person next in line. If that does not solve your issue, then you should look into your company’s policy regarding these types of situations. Know your rights and things will go much smoother in your work environment.

What have you learned this week? Grab the button from my sidebar, then add a link to your post below using MckLinky. Not sure how to link up? Leave a comment or send me an email (or both) and I will happily walk you through it.

Join the fun, post what you learned this week, and link up below. The code for the image is located in my sidebar. All I ask is you link back to this post. Oh, and make sure you link to your post and not your blog in general, okay?

I am getting down to the nitty gritty, the down and dirty, the crux of the matter. Yes, I am finishing up my final classes towards my degree. Everything I have learned over the years, in class, in the workplace is being reinforced and reiterated in these final courses.

This past week we discussed a case where a potential employer approached a prospective employee about employment within their organization. Boy, could I have used more forms of the word ‘employ’ in one sentence? That was a rhetorical question.

In this case the company assured the prospective employee they would have continued employment as long as they maintained position performance reviews. This person accepted the position. She received two highly praised positive performance reviews, then six months later was terminated without explanation. The question was posed as to whether this employee was entitled to any restitution.

Given the majority of employment is at-will, meaning, may be terminated by either party at any time for any reason as long as it is within the law, the employee would have to prove breach of implied contract. Those words spoken by the representative during the recruitment phase may very well come back to haunt the employer as this is a valid argument for wrongful termination.

Amazing! I really did not know this. Most employers will tell prospective employees that employment would be contingent upon performance, so I really did not believe this meant a whole lot. Although, this does explain why my former employer had me sign an acceptance letter stating my employment was at-will, as well as, having all employees sign paperwork showing they understand employment is at-will. We must cover out butts, people.

What have you learned this week? Grab the button from my sidebar, then add a link to your post below using MckLinky. Not sure how to link up? Leave a comment or send me an email (or both) and I will happily walk you through it.