Should Employees Be Allowed to Openly Criticize Management and Their Superiors Publicly? Should They Also Answer to Them? The Great Debate.?
Why should people be allowed to criticize the boss? Why shouldn't they be allowed to? As for those who have been working, we know all too well what happens when management falters. Companies loose money, go out of business and ultimately, the workers suffer the consequences. Well if the people could light a fire under the higher ups and pressure them to do better, maybe companies and the country would be a lot better off. They say not to bite the hand that feeds you. Well what if that hand is also the one that later down the line leaves you out to dry? They say that you should quit if you feel that deeply about it. Well that's the cowardly and easy way out. People who are in charge have a responsibility. When we don't perform to our best, we get a lecture, why shouldn't they? If you have a legitimate claim against them, then they need to shut up and fix it. Because you might loose some business from being publicly called out, but in the long run, you will loose much more than business if the incompetence and lack of performing isn't solved. People loose their livelihoods because companies couldn't get right. Southern Pacific, Rock Island, Circuit City, Montgomery Ward, Mervyn's, Hostess (Although they came back) to name a few that were ruined by poor management. What are you thoughts?
Why should public employee unions be allowed?
A union is really just exercising your right to free association with others.Then you exercise your right to freedom of speech to discuss whatever you want.Then as a group, you can decide if you want to try to get something together by using the power that many employees can have instead of only one.Unions of all kinds need to be permitted, except perhaps in the most extreme of circumstances, because all that is required for a union to exist is exercising some basic rights.
Why do people act like it's blasphemy if you criticize people who serve in the military?
I honestly don't care what you have to say about the military, whether it is negative or positive. It is your right to say it and if you want to say stupid things that are false and based on stereotypes, then that is your right as an American. But you shouldn't get all butthurt if someone reports your comment and claims it is an attempt to silence your free speech. The First Amendment only states that the government can't censor your speech, unless it is something that is not protected such as inciting riots, true threats, distributing child porn, and a few other things. Yahoo! Answers not ran by the government, but is a privately-owned website that has established rules in place put there by the owners. If you violate those rules, such as posting a rant, then you can be reported and have your post taken down. *In regards to your additional details, are you an employee of Yahoo? Is your livelihood dependent on you being able to post this question? The answer to both of those questions are no. Laws are in place to prohibit discriminatory hiring and firing, so you can't be fired for what deity you believe in. Based on your argument, I could invite you into my house, you could start insulting my family, and when I ask you to leave you refuse, stating that if I force you to leave I'm violating your First Amendment right to insult my family. I'm not taking away your right to do it, I'm just telling you to get off my property and continue your tirade on the sidewalk, just like Yahoo would be telling you that you can keep criticizing the military, but you can't use their servers to do it.
Is it appropriate for an employer to tell their employee that they aren't doing a good job in front of others?
Swallow your pride. Hold your head up. I've been clobbered by my boss. He can be a reall butthead. But, if I really need or want something - I can usually get it. It's a two way street. No one deserves to be humiliated in public, but it's okay and we'll survive. Usually, the humiliator is the one who looks worse than the humiliatee (is that a word?:-) I know how badly it feels. The upside is we can move on, and learn. If your co-workers are doing whatever it is that made the boss yell, maybe the boss thought you could handle it and was using you to get his point across (cowardly, but it happens). Be the best employee you can be, and don't measure your performance or privileges by others. I call that using the "F" word = meaning Fair. Life and work is not fair. If life were fair I'd get a speeding ticket every day :-) If you feel comfortable, speak to your boss at a time that works for him. Tell him how his actions made you feel; and that you'd really like to avoid that scenario in the future. Ask him if he has any ideas on how to improve your working relationship? Be sure to apologize for whatever you did that was an infraction. You may want to add that his talking down to you in public "isn't like him," and you wanted to make sure there was nothing else going on that you may need to know about. It's all BS in the end, but sometimes you gotta play the game. Good luck.
One of our company's most essential employees is harassing another employee who would be relatively easy to replace. The situation is so severe that the two cannot work in the same office. What should I do?
You should talk to an attorney well versed in employment law to figure out how to protect yourself and your company from a sexual harassment lawsuit, which is exactly what you deservedly face. I say deservedly because you said that this situation has become "so severe." That means you knew about his harassement for quite some time, looked the other way, and made your office a hostile work environment not only for the victim but for other employees as well. You could have and should have put a stop to this the moment that you saw something amiss. If you see it ,that means it has been going on far longer, and everyone else now sees it. In other words, it had to have gotten pretty bad that this guy thinks he can so openly and brazenly attack and harass this employee. He knows you will look the other way.So congratulations -- by trying to avoid the problem, you have merely made it much worse for yourself. You will contact an attorney tomorrow. In the meantime, you will pull the harasser aside and explain to him that his ass is on the line, and all contact -- and I mean ALL CONTACT -- between him and his harasser will end now until you have made a final decision on how to handle this on the advice of counsel. You will put nothing in writing right now pending your attorney's advice. You will contact the victim and tell her that you have instructed the harasser to avoid all contact with her, and should he violate that for any reason whatsoever, you are to bring it to your immediate attention. This is how a real CEO handles a personnel issue.If you think this employee is "essential" to your company, by all means, go ahead and keep him. Meanwhile, the victim will file a sexual harassment suit against your company, and you will go bankrupt trying to defend it, and since you are possibly culpable as well, your name will be dragged through the mud. Oh, and by the way, the email that you just sent to Quora will be discoverable in any lawsuit the victim files against you, as will these answers that you have just read, and that will all be evidence used against you.
Why should not we criticize the government?
The question is valid for serving government officials in India.The question is valid in countries like china, with communalism.The question is valid in rule of Kim Jong Un-North Korea.The question is valid , if you are a dedicated party worker of parties like AAP, or Congress.The question is valid, in bygone era, like era of Indira Gandhi.Well recently, during Civil Services day on 21st of April, P.M Modi instructed all the civil servants to cautiously use the social media. 2009 Batch IAS officer Mr. Shah Faesal , is known for his presence on social media.Well , its the obligation and moral responsibilities of the citizens, the people of india to have a say , and should participate in the democracy to strengthen the roots of system .For instance, capital Delhi of India. Currently AAP is the ruling party in the Delhi. Recently, people of Delhi are actively participating in this religious democratic system, and are well criticizing , suggesting, helping, participating the active system, and believe , it has improved, once thought hard and rigid system into a flexible system. Gone are the days, when one party would rule for decades, and it would need revolutions to uproot the powerful the government.
What should I do about employees that challenge my strategy as CEO?
It is really important that every employee buys-in to the company's long-term strategy. 100% of employees should believe in the company's strategy (and they should leave if the company is pursuing a strategy they completely disagree with).Once a year, a company should hash out its core strategy. The company leaders should meet and dive deeply into what the company does and where it is going. Everyone on the leadership team should agree with the strategy. They will not agree to every action, but they need to support the core direction. If there is a strategy change from the prior year, the CEO's job is to clearly communicate that change to all the employees. Once a quarter the leadership team of the company should question some of the assumptions of the strategy during a half-day session. This should be an honest review of what is working, how the market is changing, and where the company should be going. At the end of the meeting, the CEO needs to get buy-in from her entire leadership team.And here is the key thing: besides for the yearly strategy review and the quarterly questioning, the entire company should be executing the strategy. If you question the strategy every day, you will never get anything done.Of course, to do this well you need to have a good strategy that you can clearly communicate. It needs to be clear. It needs to be short. It needs to be understandable by all your employees. And all the employees need to agree with the strategy (or they should get off the boat). Because if your employees do not understand the strategy, they will not implement it well (or you will be forced to micro-manage them which is not a good use of time). And if your employees do not agree with the strategy, they may undermine it.Recap: Everyone must buy into the core company strategy because you need everyone rowing in the same direction.
Military Supporting Presidential Candidates?
You can support a candidate by voting while in the military. You can have personal opinions. You cannot voice your personal opinions publicly and in uniform such as a tv commercial, demonstrations, rallies ect.... You cannot use your status as a member of the US armed forces in a political fashion, or for political purposes this is a major violation of the UCMJ. Attempting to influence non-military personnel on political descions due to your status as a member of the US armed forces will land you in jail, and rightly so civilians control our military not the other way around. Once your discharged totally then its a different story.
Do people in the US think it's wise to publicly and consistently berate their president and his staff (not constructively criticize, but all out insult)?
There are several aspects to understanding the continual criticism of Donald Trump and his choices.First, one of America’s founding philosophies is freedom of speech. America takes the ability to criticise and speak freely to what a lot of people would consider an extreme. The freedom of speech is, in fact, revered by virtually all Americans.Secondly, it is an emotional reaction. Being “wise” does not enter into it. The twitter responder isn’t thinking about how wise their response is—it is purely emotional.Thirdly, in 2016, the current president is not a good human being. He has been caught in lies repeatedly, has little governmental or legal expertise and knowledge, has been accused of rape and inappropriate behavior, stiffing employees and contractors, and more. His approval ratings are the lowest of any new president ever.Lastly, leaders are not revered. Leaders are just people, like the rest of us. Americans don’t treat their leaders like royalty nor like a spiritual leader. This American (Western?) treatment can be contrasted to the treatment of Thai royalty or of the Pope in the Vatican. (Note that criticising the Thai King is actually illegal.)Given these things, Americans may be more prone to criticise their leaders, most especially the current occupant of the White House. Some of these reasons are based on human psychology, and some are based on Western culture. The most American aspect of it all is the focus on the freedom of speech—that is, the ability to say whatever you please (as long as it doesn’t encourage riots and violence) is protected, even if it is hateful speech.