zpCUbhkAlqAxZqsAqVw3Z_Q0I18 Sumber Perkongsian Ilmu ©: OLD SMOKE -CASE STUDYgoogle0d30047a50102498.html

Jumaat, 30 Mei 2014


1.0      REVIEW

          In this case study is associated with the smell of cigarettes in the workplace in a firm Redwood Associates, the complaint is Darlene Lambert. Darlene complained to his supervisor Charles Renford , associated with the smell of cigarettes in the file room at their firm . Darlene is not satisfied with the condition the cigarette smell epoch in the file room and was disappointed with the employees who work there because of the smoke in there. Darlene decided to take a stand and inform Renfold that he refused to work in the file room . This is in danger due to report immediately. In the four questions below I will try to explain the situation and also policies on smokers . I will also explain how the absence of cigarette smoke, but replaced with body odor and perfume from Fank and Alice . I will try to resolve fairly the rights of smokers and non- smokers . And also explain how the firm should or should not hire people who smoke . Although in principle the firm can provide a smoking area.

         Darlene may have a very good argument and have her rights as an employee . Charles Renford is the supervisor in this situation and Darlene does not show the correct protocol . Darlene Charles reminded that he never came to him to discuss this issue before. He also explained that the file room employees do not violate company policy by smoking them . Darlene otherwise being insubordinate by refusing to do the work. If I was I would remind Darlene supervisor of that fact and remind him of the danger that he put in the position to refuse to perform the essential duties . I would appreciate the desire to have a smoke free environment but suggested to him that he must follow the proper steps to change so that it will not hurt itself.  To answer this question, I will advance any theory of utilitarianism associated with 6 points
Point 1: The greatest happiness for the greatest number
Point 2: Action Affect to people to Different degrees
Point 3: Action Produce Different results in some PARTICULAR Circumstances, almost anything MIGHT, in principle, be morally right in some PARTICULAR Circumstances
Point 4: Long term effect of an act must be consider
Point 5: Choose the act that's cans give the Likely or expected happiness Which is as great as of this writing

Point 6: Do things Sincerely and honestly. Morally principled

1.0      Would Charles Renford be within his rights to discipline Darlene lambart for in subordination? Should he order Frank and Alice to stop smoking in their office altogether, or is Darlene oversensitive? How would you handle this situation if you were Charles? Is it possible for employers to find some compromise between smokers and nonsmoker?

           For a supervisor Charles Renford, this situation needs to be handled well for both sides, whether from the smoke as well as to non-smokers. How to discipline Darlene and her subordinates. How to make both sides get a fair judging the situation from management. In my opinion Charles Renford have the right the right to advise his subordinates with no moral values ​​of right and keep both sides. For Private atmosphere of their work, it is common or even no law that forbids to not smoke in the office they fired. According to the first theory of utilitarianism: "The greatest happiness for the greatest number". According to this theory, the amount of happiness that a lot more can overcome that happiness does not depend on the amount. Darlene only in this situation who do not smoke, and smoking amount not exceeding the amount of smoking. This situation makes the moral values ​​more favorable to smoking. As long as they comply with the moral values ​​that have been set. Perhaps as a supervisor Charles Renford can ask other employees to go to the file, as Darlene is so sensitive to the smell of cigarette situations created by his colleagues. Darlene be considerate with the colleagues, the possibility of co-workers is difficult for smokers to quit. This situation will become more complicated if there is no understanding between the two parties either smokers or non-smokers. While Charles Renford also asked his subordinates not to smoke in the file room for maintaining a clean and comfortable environment.
          Redwood Associates never even banning smoking in the workplace. But for Maintaining a work environment that is more comfortable for everyone who works, then what approach should be taken? But an answer is to provide areas for smoking is more suitable and comfortable for the workers who was smokers. This condition has to be right both sides more happiness and reduce stress all there for the party. This will create an atmosphere of neutral and quiet to do the job without any pressure. To find employees who do not smoke is difficult, because each person has different habits and actions. we as human beings cannot prevent someone be a habit. Smoking is a habit someone. how her face is the best way to avoid a state of uneasy colleagues. 
So, to maintain equilibrium in a firm, it is best that employers provide spaces that smoking and non-smoking. bai keep emotions and stress faced by people who do not smoke. The smokers and non-smokers should cooperate in order to maintain their happiness. This is in line with the six points of the fourth utilitarianism of "Long term effects of an act must be consider".
         Some employers actively discriminate against smokers by not hiring anyone who smokes. As (or not) of smokers is not one of the grounds specified unlawful discrimination under the Human Rights Act. However, it is possible that a person who has been discriminated against because they are smokers can claim that it is indirect discrimination on the grounds of one illegal. For example, they can make the claim that smoking tobacco is addicted to "defect", which is one reason unlawful discrimination.

3.0  Do Frank and Alice have right to smoke in their office if no one is there ? Should companies make an effort to accommodate the needs of smoker? What policy on smoking would you recommend to Redwood Associates? If, as this case, state law doesn’t` mandate it, are employers morally required to ban smoking altogether inside  their facilities? What about smoking outside but on company grounds?

             In principle there is no law set by employers for smoking in the workplace. Most employers and workers realize that smoking in public places so the job is generally prohibited for some local governments. Thus the employer must ensure that workers do not want to be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace is protected and workers who do not smoke may object . Employers can also prohibit smoking in the workplace. Even though Frank and Alice want to smoke at work if no one in their area is not working properly. This is because the resulting smoke after they smoke cigarettes will still leave an impression in the area. This will give rise to dissatisfaction of the workers who do not smoke. especially Darlene, who is no smoking.
           If employers want to also allow smokers to smoke in the workplace , all policies should be studied carefully . This allows both sides to get proper defense.
There are not many cases on smoking in the workplace has been recorded at this time. Sometimes smoking in the workplace in some workplaces allow employers to dismiss employees who smoke in the workplace. This condition has also depends on a firm. This sometimes some employees are also suffering from asthma. So it might be worth even a firm that prohibit employees from smoking . If an employer wishes also prescribe that the work can smoke , they should also provide appropriate spaces for their employees to smoke . This was due to some employees have the expertise needed by employers. therefore to dismiss workers who smoke is inappropriate and very detrimental to the firm . There should be a sign of a smoking ban in some places. the employer must provide a place or a special space for smokers . Smokers used to smoke during their breaks in the parking lot or cafeteria. The Company provides a smoking room.
            Smoking is separate from the cafeteria and are only used for smoking. Advancing ventilation systems and room design which means that tobacco smoke does not enter any other area in the workplace. There is also no one is working to clean the rooms.
The company believes that this agreement be allowed to meet the Smoke-Free Environment policy, which has the stated aim of preventing the adverse effects of other people smoking in the workplace to people who do not smoke or do not want to smoke
               Smoking is not allowed in the office or in public areas of the workplace. Smoking is only allowed in designated areas and it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the Act is complied with. If the employer fails to implement antismoking laws in the workplace. Action because the employer unlawfully in allowing employees to smoke in the administration building. Redwood Associates should set their law firm so that smokers can only smoke in designated areas. Although there is no one area, if the area is non-smoking area, then the area is also not smoke.
Employers are basically allowed to formulate their laws related to smoking prohibition . Although we have seen a smokers not overweight and do not various diseases that are not true . This is because if a chronic smoker will invite more serious disease and will cause greater medical expenses to save lives .
If the decision is based on the costs associated with health , cannot be the case for banning people who have weight-related problems , such as high cholesterol or diabetes ? And would not that raise fears of discrimination ?
Are you going to turn away good talent for smoking addiction - an addiction that can be licked by hand?

Sure, when unemployment is high and many people are looking for work , you can choose . But do you really want to lose a top salesperson or IT managers to competitors because of smoking?
And what about when the job market turns around, and you find yourself scrambling to good people ?

4.0 Most People These Day Believe that employer Have a right to smoke-free work area, but do they also have right to a workplace free of the odor of old smoke-or of any other odors they dislike? If so, does this right justify Darlene`s refusal to the report ? Does it make a difference how important the report is, or how much her refusal inconveniences her employer?

              In essence it is the employer who determines whether to allow smokers to smoke at work or not. Most employers also allow employees trademark smoking in the workplace is of the opinion , as long as the productivity improvement and skill that in an indication of the smoker is very good , it feels like there is no problem for employers allow employees to smoke in their workplace. But there are also some employers who continue to prohibit their employees to refrain from smoking on the part of those work . they will also be subject to company law .
           Focusing on the work , not smoking . Employees are either smokers or non-smokers. This dichotomy raises the potential for conflict in any organization . Are smokers abusing their privileges break ? Some smokers think they do. Workers who smoke and take frequent breaks envy source of workers who do not smoke and do not take a break. Person administering HR policies need to be sensitive to that and limit how many times people leave their desks for smoking. In terms of a general rule of the firm , the are some firm  don't hire smokers, the firm hard pressed to see a business necessity. Many companies have seen their policies evolved over the years from restrictions smoking to certain areas of the property not to smoke on the premises. Monitor the impact of the company's policy and get input from employees - smokers and non-smokers. Make the necessary changes to reflect the legal, business needs and preferences of employees. Smoking policy. Basically the government has banned smoking in government premise-premises and public places. There are also private places that allow smoking and some initial parcel that provides a smoking room or area. As an employee Darlene is also entitled to make a report and it is timely for him to make a report about two friends who smoke the workers. Darlene Employers need to analyze all relevant reports. to get a balance of both sides. by 6 points utilitarianism the latter, behavior or our actions will determine or result in a very significant difference to both sides. When reporting overcome it will bring deep impact in the relationship colleagues. This will give rise to feelings of hate and revenge against Darlene. Similarly, if an employer in favor of co-workers who smoke, this will leave a lasting effect on behalf of the complainant.

5.0 Suppose that what bother Darlene is not old smoke but the smell of Alice`s perfume or Frank`s body odor? How would this change the case?

          If it is related to body odor frank and Alice wear perfume, chances are it is note problem. This is because body odor and perfume also does not bring a lasting and profound effect on Darlene physiologic. This is because the effect is not lasting. they are also more and more ignore dangerous. it also varies with the cigarette smoke that may permission is profound side effects on our health. But sometimes it is also disturbing, but it does not bring a lasting impression.
      Body odor is not pleasant aromas lead to smelt. Body odor owners risk shunned by the people around them. At this point, it is worth seeking medical discretion to restore the disturbed social life. perfume also have a high impact on the environment as well. perfume we wear are not necessarily in love by our environment, even though we love her. but its impact is not as bad effects suffered by the effects of cigarette smoke by smokers.
        Unfortunately there is no law that prohibits Blocking or proceedings of perfume worn by someone. Similarly, body odor no restrictions and laws that restrict smoking tobacco. This is because the application of perfume and body odor also depends on the individual, how the man did prepare them respectively. It is not fair for us to report to our employers that we wear perfume friends who we do not like and also proceedings of body odor uncomfortable for inhaled by us. Report if they do more to embarrass one of the parties only. This is contrary to the moral and theoretical 6 utilitarianism point stating that "Do things Sincerely and honestly. Morally principled".Theory point to 6 states we have to be honest and sincere to make reports and accusations against those who wear perfume and body odor unpleasant. As where we deal with the problem.? I think if this happens we should be honest with our colleagues about body odor and perfume that we are not happy to be alive. Body odor and perfume also most are related more to personal. Usually employers will not care to matters related to personal matters of the workers.   

6.0 Conclusion

               Cigarette smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals of which 200 of them are poisonous and 43 other types can cause cancer of the body . Some very dangerous substance that is tar, nicotine , carbon monoxide . Everywhere you look , the anti - smoking campaigners against smokers . They claimed that smoking kills one third or half of all smokers , that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem . that smokers impose significant costs to the community and for all of these reasons , the tax on cigarettes should be raised . But there are those who still defend these smokers . Among the reasons are :
1 ) Smokers have to pay taxes that are too high to be fair, and far above any costs   they impose on the rest of society .
2 ) the public health community campaign to demonize smokers and other forms of tobacco are based on junk science .
3 ) lawsuits against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse , and was " loaded gun" for lawsuits against other industries .
4 ) Cigarette hurt small businesses and violate private property rights .
5 ) hazards caused by smoking can be reduced by educating smokers about their options.
6 ) Punishing smokers " for their own good " is repugnant to the basic principles of libertarian government should limit the use of force .

               Concerns about the health effects of smoking and second-hand smoke has led to calls for a ban on smoking in public spaces. In the case of this study morally it depends on the management of Redwood Associates, will allow the smoker to smoke and ignore those who do not smoke. any short-term and long-term effects should be refine and examined. This will cause one to be unhappy with the decision made. Does the management have to keep smokers smoking to be able to increase productivity or otherwise. It's basically the employer can provide a lounge and not smoke. Smoking is a fundamental right of every human being. Prohibit smoking smokers violate human rights. But in a firm will depend on the owner of the firm. When employers sorting of smoking with non-smoking areas, will create two groups and clusters within a firm. basically it is the right and moral of a firm to take care of its employees.

Word : 3035

1.      .Maimunah Aminudin (1993) Human Resources Management 6TH Edition
2.      Thomas Davenport and jeannes Haris, Competing on Analytic, HBS Press 2007
3.      J. Hendry “The Problem with Porter`s Generic Strategies” European Management Journel, December 1990
4.      De Geaus, “Planning as learning” HBR March May – june 1989
5.      Bussines Ethic  William h.swa

Berdasarkan anslisis admin ketika menjawab soalan case study Old-Smoke, huhu tak tahu admin student MBA ke berapa yang menjawab case study ini. Case study ini begitu popular di seentero universiti di dunia yang sering menjadikan tajuk ini sebagai assigment MBA student  , kalau ko rang tak caya cuba search ada tak case study seumpamay ini yang bertajuk old smoke,:

Tiada ulasan: