Reading response Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 21

Reading response - Essay Example The Allies were forced to sign off as post First World War the allies were dependent on the United States for not only military and arms but also for fuel, food and other basic requirements. However, only some of the Wilson 14 points made it to acceptance particularly five of them the rest were rejected on the event of being overly ambitious and unrealistic. The impracticality of these points dominated the Great European powers and the experiences of wartime. Apart from the Russian evacuation and the Belgium restoration the other points created more negative vibe than positive effects. For example, the settlement of colonial claims, the French disputed territories; the Italy border adjustments based on nationality etc. all caused more tension and new national disputes rather than solving any problems. Thus not all the points presented by the President were fruitful in generating world peace. The most important point in my view and according to the historical perspective is the last point. ‘Establishment of the League of Nations to secure mutual guarantees of independence and territorial integrity.’ ("President Wilsons Fourteen Points"). This League of Nations was formed through the start of the Second World War and aimed at diluting national sovereignty and creating global and international government. However, this did not materialize as per the speech but this point was the backbone of the 14 points speech by the President Wilson in

Meaning and the Symbolical Features of Organisations Essay

Meaning and the Symbolical Features of Organisations - Essay Example The narratives, which is also referred to as organizational stories, sagas, and myths, work to guide members in understanding and representing the organization’s objective and the function of its members. The organizational narrative gives information about ideologies and standards, and it plays several roles in an organization—resolving gaps between the past and the present, moderating power relations, prevention of conflict, and reconciliation of tensions between individual and organizational interests (Gabriel, 2000, p.10). This essay discusses the relationship between narrative and heritage. A narrative in Organisations There is seven types of narrative that have been observed to occur in various organizations. First are narratives about how the organisation solves problems; second are narratives about how the person in charge or the manager responds to mistakes; third are stories addressing the issue of how much assistance or support an organisation will give to it s people when they have to transfer regularly; fourth are narratives about how an organisation acts when confronted with the likelihood of laying off or discharging employees (Czarniawska, 1998, pp. 2-3); fifth is a narrative about the likelihood of a praiseworthy employee being recognised or rewarded by the organisation; sixth is a narrative about the level of respect and compassion the manager shows in relation to his/her subordinates; and seventh is a narrative about breaking the rules wherein a senior manager violates a rule which his/her subordinate should then implement (Czarniawska, 1998, p. 3). Every narrative has good and bad versions, which always reveal the conflicts that develop from a tension between individual values and organizational interests. These conflicts relate to the problems of control vs. chaos, stability vs. instability, and equality vs. hierarchy within the organization (Lipman, 1999, p. 22). When these narratives or events come together to form a broader or more complete narrative, the central identity or purpose is formed. This central narrative consolidates events and experiences into a main interpretative system for the organization. In an article of the Administrative Quarterly Review, dedicated to the discussion of organizational culture, several organizational experts talked about techniques they have created for explaining the interpretative structures that work at more profound aspects of an organization (Polkinghorne, 1988, p. 122). For instance, as a support for planning and dealing with problems, Mitroff and Killman encouraged bosses to relate stories about an organization; afterward, they grouped them in accordance to the Jungian personality styles.

Rbs staff grievance procedure

Rbs staff grievance procedure INTRODUCTION Grievance is a complaint held by a member of staff against the RBS as an employer, including a grievance against another member of staff acting on behalf of the RBS. The grievance procedure established by RBS does not apply to collective disputes neither it entertains disputes between members of staff in their private capacities. These procedures mean a ground for complaint against an action taken by another member of staff of the employer acting under the authority of management. RBS Grievance procedures consist of several stages. Throughout all stages of the procedure, every attempt is made to settle the matter by conciliation and negotiations. STAGE 1 INFORMAL DISCUSSION 1. A member of staff when thinking of raising a grievance should try to resolve the matter by a direct approach to the person under the authority usually a Line Manager. www.worthingtonslaw.co.ukf STAGE 2 ONE ON ONE WITH LINE MANAGER 2. If the matter after informal discussion remains unresolved, the aggrieved he or she should request a personal hearing with their line manager. STAGE 3 IN WRITING 3. Then the request shall be made in writing or should be lodged on a Internal Operational Complaint system and shall specify: the grounds for the grievance; Such other background information as may appear relevant and useful. 4. The line manager shall: If appropriate seek the advice of the Human Resources Department or should consult his supervisor or Manager. Should meet the aggrieved staff within five working days. Aggrieved staff and the line manager shall have a copy of the written request or the reference number for the lodged complain. (Marson: Business Law) 5. Another member of the staff as a witness if required can accompany the aggrieved staff at the hearing with line manager. 6. Line manager should then write the report of the meeting or minutes of the meeting or hearing and send it to HR or in case if HR department is not involved or consulted for advice should keep it as a record. Please note: In the case of a grievance against a line manager, this initial hearing shall be with the appropriate Head of Department. STAGE 3 INFORMING AND MEETING THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT 7. If the matter still remains unresolved and is not in hands of line manager, the aggrieved staff then requests a meeting with the Head of Department. The copy of request shall be sent to Head of Department or the lodged complaint print as a request for meeting. 8. The Head of Department then arranges the meeting within ten working days of receiving the request. 9. He shall also then obtain a copy of the written report of the initial meeting or hearing with line manager and if any relevant papers or documentary proofs from the line manager. 10. One of the Human Resources department members should be present at the meeting with Head of Department to keep a written record of the hearing. 11. Even, while meeting the Head of the Department, another member of the staff as a witness (if needs) may accompany the aggrieved staff on his hearing with Department Head. 12. After the hearing, the Head of Department shall: write to the member of staff to record the outcome of the hearing; copy the letter to the line manager, Head of Human Resources and to the Vice Chancellor; Please Note: In the case of a grievance against the Head of Department the hearing shall be with a Pro Vice Chancellor. STAGE 4 APPEAL TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR 13. If the aggrieved staff wishes to raise the grievance against the decision of the Head of Department she or he may appeal to the Vice Chancellor. But, the appeal should be made within five working days of receiving the letter from the Head of Department. 14. A full written statement of the grievance should be submit to the Vice chancellor; which shall be: a comprehensive background and the facts of the grievance and the issue raised and should attach the relevant supporting documents and in case of the member of the staff witnessed, his or her statement and complete detail. 15. The Vice Chancellor then will copy the written statement and any supporting documents and send it to the member of staff against whom the grievance has been raised. 16. The member of staff will be given ten working days within which to submit written answer or justification against the issue rose, which will then be submitted to the aggrieved member of staff. 17. If the justification is not satisfactory enough or the aggrieved staff does not agree with then a meeting is held with ten days with Vice chancellor holds a hearing with both the member of staff, aggrieved and the one against whom the grievance is made. 18. The Vice Chancellor may delegate this stage of the procedure to the appropriate Pro Vice Chancellor. The conduct of the hearing shall be: Both the aggrieved member of staff and the member of staff against whom the grievance is made. if any facts are in dispute, either or both parties may nominate witnesses and they can accompany them in the hearing but they should be the member of the staff only. 19. The decision of the Vice Chancellor will be the final say in the case and will be notified to the member of staff within five working days of the hearing. Please note: If the grievance is against the Vice Chancellor personally the aggrieved member of staff may submit a written statement of grievance to the Chairman of the Board of Governors through the Secretary to the Board. The Chairman if decides after examining the statement can carry out investigation and if not then declines the request. CONCLUSION RBS follows these 4 stages as their grievance procedure and throughout all the stages, the people in authority i.e. Line Managers, Head of Department, HR, Vice Chancellor, Pro Vice Chancellor and Chairman of the Board tries their level best at their stages to resolve the grievance raised by the aggrieved staff. Reference http://www.worthingtonslaw.co.uk/downloads/EmployeeDismissal.pdf Marson: Business Law http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199544455/resources/updates/statutory_dismissal.pdf

Eulogy for Friend :: Eulogies Eulogy

Eulogy for Friend Yesterday, as Martin's friends poured into town, I was struck by how many distinct sets of friends he had. Family, skaters, punks, his Swampland posse, his boys and his girls, Professors, colleagues, Ann Arbor friends, Chicago friends, cyberspace friends who'd never met him "in the flesh"... Trying to walk down the street with him was an exercise in frustration, as Martin's fans flocked to him like the Pied Piper. He was so much, to so many. One of his greatest gifts to us is each other. I remember the first time I saw Marty 12 years ago. You couldn't miss him, of course. It was Computer Science 101, a lecture hall with hundreds of students. He would skate into class 20 minutes late, flip his skateboard up onto his desk, crack open a chocolate milk and begin to drink... 200 eyes on him. Martin would turn around and give us a little wave. The thing was, and it *clearly* pissed off the Professors, he routinely scored the highest marks in the class on every assignment. Immediately I said to myself, "I need to know this guy..." So I cornered him and announced, "You and I are going to be friends..." Martin looked me up and down and said, "Uh....No thanks..." And so it began. Martin, in those days especially, had an approach to people that was at best "challenging", & at worst confrontational. Those who didn't "get" Martin brushed him off as a clown, but to those who watched, and listened, it was clear there was something extremely profound going on. Martin had an uncanny ability to see into people, to look through you, to reflect your own insecurities and hangups back at you, until you had no choice left but to drop them... and dance with him. Martin called your bluff every time... Despite his best efforts to the contrary, eventually we did become friends. I simply refused to let him go, or to let him push me away... I knew in my core that if being Martin's friend required change, well then I'd change. He was worth it... Martin was a hacker in the true MIT tradition. As a teenager, and Marty didn't often brag about this, he reengineered some communication software into what became the de facto standard for software pirates around the world. In those days he was known by his handle, the "Redheaded Freak". Eulogy for Friend :: Eulogies Eulogy Eulogy for Friend Yesterday, as Martin's friends poured into town, I was struck by how many distinct sets of friends he had. Family, skaters, punks, his Swampland posse, his boys and his girls, Professors, colleagues, Ann Arbor friends, Chicago friends, cyberspace friends who'd never met him "in the flesh"... Trying to walk down the street with him was an exercise in frustration, as Martin's fans flocked to him like the Pied Piper. He was so much, to so many. One of his greatest gifts to us is each other. I remember the first time I saw Marty 12 years ago. You couldn't miss him, of course. It was Computer Science 101, a lecture hall with hundreds of students. He would skate into class 20 minutes late, flip his skateboard up onto his desk, crack open a chocolate milk and begin to drink... 200 eyes on him. Martin would turn around and give us a little wave. The thing was, and it *clearly* pissed off the Professors, he routinely scored the highest marks in the class on every assignment. Immediately I said to myself, "I need to know this guy..." So I cornered him and announced, "You and I are going to be friends..." Martin looked me up and down and said, "Uh....No thanks..." And so it began. Martin, in those days especially, had an approach to people that was at best "challenging", & at worst confrontational. Those who didn't "get" Martin brushed him off as a clown, but to those who watched, and listened, it was clear there was something extremely profound going on. Martin had an uncanny ability to see into people, to look through you, to reflect your own insecurities and hangups back at you, until you had no choice left but to drop them... and dance with him. Martin called your bluff every time... Despite his best efforts to the contrary, eventually we did become friends. I simply refused to let him go, or to let him push me away... I knew in my core that if being Martin's friend required change, well then I'd change. He was worth it... Martin was a hacker in the true MIT tradition. As a teenager, and Marty didn't often brag about this, he reengineered some communication software into what became the de facto standard for software pirates around the world. In those days he was known by his handle, the "Redheaded Freak".

Human Organ Donation Opinion Paper Essay

1. The progress and spread of transplant medicine and surgery nowadays makes possible treatment and cure for many illnesses which, up to a short time ago, could only lead to death or, at best, a painful and limited existence. This â€Å"service to life,†[1] which the donation and transplant of organs represents, shows its moral value and legitimizes its medical practice. There are, however, some conditions which must be observed, particularly those regarding donors and the organs donated and implanted. Every organ or human tissue transplant requires an explant which in some way impairs the corporeal integrity of the donor. 2. The present shortage of available organs for transplant has resulted in a number of propositions for improving the situation so as to preserve the life of those in danger of imminent death, and/or to improve the health of those who are suffering from various aliments. These propositions range from state-funding of more Organ Donation coordinators, to the establishment of a free market in organs. 3. Not all options, however, are morally acceptable. Moreover, every option must be subject to clear, coherent and rationally defensible ethical analysis. The approach used in this opinion is that of the authoritative moral teaching of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and the natural law tradition (specifically that articulated by the Magisterium). It does so on the basis that (a) all other approaches that purport to be based on reason alone are essentially deficient and ultimately incoherent; and (b) that the moral truth of natural law is, by definition, accessible to all. The Church thus rejects those approaches to morality, such as all forms of utilitarianism, that require people to engage in the epistemologically and intellectually impossible task of measuring and weighing all the certain and possible good and evil effects of an action.[2] To cite John Paul II, â€Å"How could an absolute obligation resulting from such debatable calculations be justified?†[3] Instead, the Catholic analysis of a policy’s moral dimension focuses upon asking whether an option is choice-worthy, or if it is excluded from upright choice by its opposition in some way to the human goods (bona humana) to which St. Thomas Aquinas says all people, religious or otherwise, are directed by the first principles of practical reasonableness,[4] the basic reasons for action which the encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor calls â€Å"fundamental human goods.†[5] 4. This opinion considers only one proposition: that is, â€Å"The Richard M. De Vos Position Paper on Financial Incentives for Organ Donation† (hereafter the Position Paper). This proposition involves the establishment of a tax incentive or an insurance benefit to be received by the designated beneficiary of a donor upon the successful transplant of the donor’s organs following the donor’s natural death. This policy encourages people to designate, unambiguously, if they wish to have their organs recovered after death with the object of an act being the saving of human life. 5. Should there be any change in the composition of the Position Paper, this opinion should be considered null and void until the author has had the opportunity to consider the ethical implications of the changes. 6. Should the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church pronounce authoritatively and specifically on the proposition articulated in the Position Paper or a similar proposition, then the author’s position should be henceforth assumed to adhere to that of the Church. The Catholic Position on Organ Transplantation and Compensation for Donation of Human Organs There are positive and negative dimensions to the teaching of the Catholic Church on organ transplantation and the question of compensation. Positive Dimensions 1. Transplantation between species, specifically from animal to human, in general, is not morally forbidden. â€Å"It cannot be said that every transplant of tissues (biologically possible) between two individuals of different species is morally reprehensible, but it is even less true that every heterogeneous transplant biologically possible is not forbidden and cannot raise objections. A distinction must be made between cases, depending on which tissue or organ is intended for transplant. The transplant of animal sexual glands to humans must be rejected as immoral; but the transplant of the cornea of a non-human organism to a human organism would not create any problem if it were biologically possible and advisable.†[6] 2. Transplantation from a corpse requires that the corpse be treated with the respect due to the abode of a spiritual and immortal soul, an essential constituent of a human person whose dignity it shared.[7] 3. Transplantation from a corpse to a living being is permissible. Physicians should not, however, be permitted to undertake excisions or other operations on a corpse without the permission of those charged with its care and perhaps even in the face of objections previously expressed by the person in question.[8] â€Å"Organ transplants are not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak for him have not given their informed consent. Organ transplants conform with the moral law and can be meritorious if the physical and psychological dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. It is morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.†[9] 4. People may choose in their wills to dispose of their bodies after natural death for legitimate medical purposes.[10] 5. Organ transplantation from a live donor is also permissible. People are not, however, free to destroy or mutilate their members or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body. This does not rule out live organ donation for transplantation, provided that the donor’s own health, identity, or adequate biological functioning is not endangered. â€Å"One can donate only what he can deprive himself of without serious danger to his life or personal identity, and for a just and proportionate reason.†[11] Vital organs may only be donated after death.[12] 6. Organ donation is neither a duty nor â€Å"an obligatory act of charity.†[13] But â€Å"a transplant, and even a simple blood transfusion, is not like other operations. It must not be separated from the donor’s act of self-giving, from the love that gives life. The physician should always be conscious of the particular nobility of this work; he becomes the mediator of something especially significant, the gift of self which one person has made—even after death—so that another might live.†[14] 7. Specifically regarding the issue of incentives for organ donation, compensation (financial or otherwise) is not in principle ruled out. â€Å"In advertising (for cornea donors) an intelligent reserve should be maintained to avoid serious interior and exterior conflicts. Also, is it necessary, as often happens, to refuse any compensation as a matter of principle? The question has arisen. Without doubt there can be grave abuses if recompense is demanded; but it would be an exaggeration to say that any acceptance or requirement of recompense is immoral. The case is analogous to that of blood transfusion; it is to the donor’s credit if he refuses recompense, but it is not necessarily a fault to accept it.†[15] Hence, while organ donation is commendable, acceptance of compensation may be permissible. Negative Dimensions 1. The following conditions would render compensation for donating human organs morally impermissible: (a) if the compensation were carried out in a manner that obfuscates, denies, or undermines the belief in the divine origin of human life or the dignity thereby due the corpse; (b) if the intention and object of seeking compensation for either oneself or others was an illegal, immoral, or irreligious end, or directly violated one or more of the fundamental human goods; or (c) the act of compensation amounted to merely instrumentalising the donor or the donor’s mere self-instrumentalization. 2. The transplantation of the sexual glands from animals to humans is to be rejected as immoral[16] because such a transplant would directly deny the sacred element in humanity and the goods of human love. 3. Society, specifically in the form of its political organization, the State, may not commandeer the organs of a deceased human being without the prior permission of that person or the consent of his family.[17] The relation of individual human persons to the body politic is moral, not organic. This rules out any form of coercive donation, including organ procurement strategies such as presumed consent in which, absent a specific refusal, one is presumed to have consented to donation. 4. It is forbidden for any form of organ donation, be it by a living donor or from a corpse, to involve any mere instrumentalization of the person from whom the organ is taken. This prohibition includes any mere self-instrumentalization by a living donor. John Paul II states, â€Å"The body cannot be treated as a merely physical or biological entity, nor can its organs ever be used as items of sale or exchange. Such a reductive materialist conception would lead to a merely instrumental use of the body and therefore of the person. In such a perspective, organ transplantation and the grating of tissue would no longer correspond to an act of donation but would amount to the dispossession or plundering of the body.†[18] Acceptance of compensation for oneself or others, as described above, however, need not proceed from a choice merely to instrumentalise oneself. 5. It is forbidden to engage in the commercial trafficking of bodies. â€Å"Also, in the case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited.†[19] 6. â€Å"Ethically, not all organs can be donated. The brain and the gonads may not be transplanted because they ensure the personal and procreative identity respectively. These are organs which embody the characteristic uniqueness of the person, which medicine is bound to protect.†[20]

Rizal Biography

Biography of Jose Rizal The Birth of a Hero: Born On June 19, 1861, Seventh of the 11 Children of Theodora Relonda and Francisco Mercado Real Name: Jose Protacio Alonzo Mercado Rizal y Realonda Rizal as a Child: Age of 3 – learns his alphabet from his mother. Age of 5 – learns how to write and read. Age of 8 – wrote his first poem â€Å" Sa aking mga Kababata â€Å" 11 Children of Francisco and Theodora Saturnina ( 1850 – 1913 ) – eldest child of the family. Paciano ( 1815 – 1930 ) – Older brother of Jose Rizal. Narcisa ( 1852 – 1939 ) – also called as â€Å"Sisa† and the third child of the family.Olimpia Rizal ( 1855 – 1887 ) – a telegraph operator in Manila. Lucia ( 1857 – 1919 ) – married to Mariano Herbosa of Calamba. Maria ( 1859 – 1945 ) – also called as â€Å"Biang†. JOSE ( 1861 – 1896 ) ( The greatest hero and Philippine encyclopedia ) – also called as â€Å"Pepe†. Concepcion ( 1862 – 1865 ) – also called as â€Å"Concha†. Died at the age of 3 due to a serious case of illness. Josefa ( 1865 – 1945 ) – also called as â€Å"Panggo†. Trinidad ( 1868 – 1951 ) – also called as â€Å"Trining†. Soledad ( 1870 – 1929 ) – youngest member of the family. She marry Pantaleon Quintero of Calamba. The Hero’s PainRizal is very sad when his sister concha died, because concha is very close to him, they play together and do other stuffs together. Concha died at the age of 3. The story of the Moth This is the story of Thoedora to Rizal, he made this his inspiration. School in Binan, Calamba Rizal went to Binan Rizal went to Binan to go to school. First day of School Rizal doesn’t know anyone from the school so he just sits in one corner and doing nothing. First Fight One of the school bullies of Rizal’s school bullied him and because he can’t hold his temper anymore, Rizal’s First fight was made.Rizal Enters Ateneo Rizal went to school at Ateneo Municipal de Manila, where he excelled in class, also he made lots of works their including poems, dramas sculptures and many more. â€Å"Aking Unang Inspiration† This is a poem that Rizal made for his mother’s birthday. Poems of Education Rizal also wrote poems that talks about Education. â€Å"Sa Edukasyon ay Magtatamo ng Liwanag ang Bansa† â€Å"Malapit na Ugnayan ng Relihiyon at Mabuting Edukasyon† Rizal’s Religious Poems Rizal also wrote religious poems. â€Å"Sa Sanggol na si Hesus â€Å"Para sa Berhing Maria† First LoveOur hero’s first love was Segunda, Segunda is the sister of Mariano which is also his classmate. Unfortunately Rizal and Segunda weren’t able to be together because Sugunda already has a boyfriend that time. Medical Student of University of Santo Tomas (1877-1882) Rizal go to medic al school at the University of Santo Tomas, his reason is that he wants to cure his mother that suffers from blindness. Rizal’s Love life Miss L – nobody knows the real and full name of Miss L. Leonor Valenzuela – also called as Orang. Leonor Rivera – Rizal doesn’t know that Leonor Rivera is his far away cousin.Education Abroad Rizal went to school abroad, he enrolled at different colleges at different countries. Exile and Courtship: In 1892, Rizal returned to the Philippines. He was almost immediately accused of being involved in the brewing rebellion, and was exiled to Dapitan, on the island of Mindanao. During that same period, the people of the Philippines grew more eager to revolt against the Spanish colonial presence. Inspired in part by Rizal's organization, La Liga, rebel leaders like Andres Bonifacio began to press for military action against the Spanish regime. Life In DapitanRizal became an inventor, a farmer ( he planted abacas ), a tea cher ( he teaches young boys to speak English ) and also a doctor ( ophthalmologist ), it is also here where he met Josephine Bracken, Josephine brought her stepfather for Rizal to cure, Rizal courted Josephine and even wrote a special poem just for the lady, then they decided to get married but they were not permitted because the government is still mad at Rizal. Trial and Execution: The Philippine Revolution broke out in 1896. Rizal denounced the violence, and received permission to travel to Cuba in order to tend victims of yellow fever in exchange for his freedom.Bonifacio and two associates sneaked aboard the ship to Cuba before it left the Philippines, trying to convince Rizal to escape with them, but Rizal refused. He was arrested by the Spanish on the way, taken to Barcelona, and then extradited to Manila for trial. Jose Rizal was tried by court martial, charged with conspiracy, sedition and rebellion. Despite a lack of any evidence of his complicity in the Revolution, Rizal was convicted on all counts and given the death sentence. He was allowed to marry Josephine two hours before his execution by firing squad on December 30, 1896. Jose Rizal was just 35 years old.