Workplace Bullying
Many people might want to or prefer to think that bullying is something specific and endemic only to the young. However, bullying takes on many forms and it absolutely happens with adults as opposed to just with children and teenagers. Indeed, forms of adult abuse and bullying can include domestic abuse, bullying of friends and acquaintances through threats and the like and then there is workplace bullying. The cliquish, threatening and otherwise puerile behavior that typically is the bastion of the teenager demographic often happens with adults in a workplace setting as well. This brief research/editorial report will give examples of this and opinions of the author of this report shall be offered as well. While people in a workplace setting should act like and conduct themselves as adults, there are many people that simply refuse to act their age and not in an insidious nature.
Research
Workplace bullying can be subtle or it can be rather overt. It can simply be limited to a glance or passive aggressive behavior or it can be as overt as sexual harassment or physical threats. Sexual harassment and physical violence are much more egregious, are much easier to spot and deal with (compared to more nuanced misdeeds, anyway) and there is little debate that there is no place for such depravity and savagery in the workplace. However, much the same thing can and should be said about people that act in an immature, insidious or incendiary way. It is the penchant of many middle school and high school girls to split off into social groups and circles rather than trying to work with all coworkers as a collective. There are reasons, valid ones at that, that can lead to people not wanting to associate with certain other people but there is a sometimes fine line between that process and reaction structure being reasonable and it being unfair or even bigoted. An extreme example of this would be workers who are from varying parts of a metropolitan city and those areas are divided, from a perception standpoint or a verifiable standpoint, along social, racial and/or economic lines. If an office is in Midtown and the people in the office congregate based on what part of town they are from, that is concerning. For example, if the people from Harlem are a group and the people from Manhattan are a group, that is a red flag. While those groups may feel comfortable with others that are like them in terms of their personal and workplace life, that logic and behavior can be taken too far. To make the point clearer, let us supposed that the Manhattan people are mostly (if not entirely) white people while the Harlem people are mostly (if not entirely) black people. While bigotry and bullying are not technically the same thing, they can certainly intersect and that could certainly happen in the instance described above. On the other hand, if the 20- and 30-somethings congregate while the 40- and 50-somethings are their own group, this is more acceptable because people of differing ages tend to have different interests and mindsets and there is nothing wrong with that. After all, it would be common for 20- and 30-somethings to go to a bar to vent or talk about one's while a 40- or 50-something would probably rather go home and spend time reading a good book or with family (Chapman, 2014).
Regardless of how the above manifests, employees have a right to go to a workplace that is free of intimidation, rampant rumor mills (especially if the rumors are contrived and/or defamatory), any sort of unwanted touching (sexual or not), insults and so forth. For example, if two people vie for a job and only one gets it, the one who does not will surely be disappointed and this is to be expected. However, if the non-selected person reacts by insulting or demeaning the person, to the person's face or not, then that needs to be halted immediately. If it does not, that employee needs to be suspended or fired. Further, if the jilted employee reacts by suggesting things like the person is "sleeping their way to the top" or only got the job because they are buddies with the manager, then that behavior also needs to be shut down. Employees are going to be competitive and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, employees that react to a setback like that or anything else with bullying need to have their mind made right or they need to leave the company...
Causation: Irrespective of whether or not ABC Apartments satisfied its duty of reasonable care with respect to the safety of its tenants, the harm for which liability is claimed must relate directly to any failure to satisfy that standard. More particularly, to establish liability, the plaintiff must also establish that any negligence of ABC in failing to exercise reasonable care was the proximate cause of the harm that resulted (Freidman 2005). For
The Common Law Theory of Negligence Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the appropriate care that is expected to be exercised under the specified circumstances. In law, negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care that results in damage undesired by the defendant. The underlying concept of negligence is that individuals should at all times exercise reasonable care in their actions (Scott). This is done by
Hospital Liability The parties involved in the case are Charles Cullen, the primary guilty party, the families of the victims who were murdered by Cullen's actions, and the hospitals that employed Cullen, including the Somerset Medical Center. Other hospitals that employed him are located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In 2003, Charles Cullen was arrested for the murder of 29 patients in hospitals in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Of these victims, 13
(Regan & Regan, 2002) All the health care workers are surely part of some form of administration or a unit. Contrastingly, this law will not be applied to private practices because in those cases, only the direct health care worker is considered responsible. This brings us to the idea of shared responsibility of a certain situation. This doctrine can be applied to the administration because at the end of
National Do-Not-Call Registry and the CAN SPAM Act are both attempts to protect individuals from corporate marketing strategies. The National Do-Not-Call-Registry attempts to limit the ability of corporations to place unsolicited commercial calls to consumers, by allowing consumers to register up to three numbers on a Do-Not-Call list. Charities and political organizations are exempt from the list. The CAN SPAM Act is aimed at preventing spam email. While these
False Claims Act is a piece of legislation from the U.S. Congress that allows any individual with knowledge of a fraud being perfected against any agency of the U.S. Government to file a claim on behalf of the Government against the individual or business that has or is committing such fraud. The individual filing such claim on behalf of the U.S. Government is identified as the qui tam plaintiff and,
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now