Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … transferring employees from one to another employer, it is important for a company to have the necessary agreements in place. There should be an agreement not only with the new employer, but also with employees themselves. In Thompson's case, the employees were transferred to the PEO for the purpose of restructuring the organization and saving on labor costs. The PEO acted as a subsidiary company for Thompson.
In terms of the agreement with the subsidiary PEO, Thompson has certain obligations (Ministry of Manpower, 2014). The new employer, for example, should inform Thompson of anything that might affect its employees as a result of the transfer. One case that might be considered under this obligation is the new health care scheme employees are obliged to use under the PEO. One employee's wife, for example, has breast cancer and is no obliged to use a different medical establishment for her care. Her husband has told a fellow-employee that he is not certain if she could handle the many changes that have resulted from the transfer. Employees should have been informed of these changes as well.
The PEO should also have agreed to take over all the rights, powers, duties, and liability of the previous contract of service, which the employees' union had with Thompson beforehand. It does not appear that such an agreement was in place, which could result in legal liability for Thompson.
The terms and conditions should have not been changed, since there was no agreement...
Employees or their union, for example, should have been notified of the transfer within a reasonable time, including the terms of the transfer so that consultations and negotiations could be held with the company. This was not done. Thompson should also have ensured that the terms of the employees' employment were not less favorable than before. This is also not the case, particularly in terms of health and other benefits.
Thompson's employees therefore had the right to be notified of the transfer and all matters associated with it. They also had the right to consult with the employer about the matter of the transfer and to maintain their terms and conditions of employment in place with the new employer.
All the employees seem to be holding up their own obligations, which is to serve the new employer in the same way as the original employer.
According to the nature and obligations of their work, the employees seem to be co-employees of Mayfield and Thompson. Although they are classified as independents, they are unable to do any other contract work due to the hours they are obliged to spend at the company. Furthermore, the duties they are expected to perform are still those of employees rather than independent contractors. The companies receive all the benefits, since they are exampled from taxes on payroll or benefits…
Employee Privacy Torts Issues relating to employee privacy have been at the forefront of businesses for many years. This has been fuelled by the dynamic workplace which changes constantly and also by employees and employers being more litigation-conscious. Technology has also spurred on employee privacy issues with e-mail and the internet being related to heightened concerns about vulnerability of employers to litigation. Many employers have thus exacerbated their concerns relating to
Employee Privacy Torts History of Employee Privacy Changing Trends of Employee Privacy Impact of Innovative Technology on Employee Privacy Role of Social Media towards Employee Privacy Impact of Changing Community/Society on Employee Privacy Adaptation to the new Environment pertaining to Employee Privacy Employee Monitoring and Surveillance Laws and Employer Policies for Text Messaging and Social Media Electronic Communication Privacy Act Monitoring of Employee Conversations over Telephone & Email Recommendations for creating Effective Policies Future Implications of Employee Privacy As years have passed and
The answers offered by the high profit seekers as stakeholders is to take advantage of the immigrant, by demanding high work hours, and even in some cases taking advantage of the individual's low level of knowledge about the rights and responsibilities of the employee and the employer, denying overtime pay, when earned, unauthorized deductions from pay, even things as simple as demanding less "ethnic" hairstyles from employees to the
Indeed, effective problem solving in these circumstances often requires high levels of creative collaboration (Richards, 2007a, p. 34). In recognition of this reality, employers consistently name the ability to work together creatively as a primary and crucial skill -- even though many organizations have created cultures that undercut individual and collective creativity. In order to solve this problem there is a need of a comprehensive review of the facility management
Rights of the employees and employers in the UAE This paper is divided into two parts: art one highlights the responsibilities and rights of the employers working within the UAE; the second part highlights the rights of the employees, including expatriates, working within the UAE. Employer Rights and Duties Prevalence of Arabic In all sorts of records, contracts, files, statements and documents Arabic language will be used and its use will also be compulsory
privacy in the workplace encourages contempt. Legitimate Limits Economic reasons for supervision. Reasons of inter-employee, and employee-customer safety. Reasons of performance. Definition of excessive supervision/invasion of privacy. Examples of excessive supervision/invasions of privacy. Legal consequences/ramifications. Effects of legal yet employee-perceived insufficient privacy. Effects on performance Effects on Morale Possible psychological/health effects Ultimate Employee Contempt results from: Illegal/unethical supervision and invasion of privacy. Legal yet excessive supervision/surveillance or what employees view as excessive invasion of privacy. Conclusion: Employees view invasion of privacy with contempt that