PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL/COMPENSATION EMAILS Situation:

The OL organization is a medium to large-sized service organization in New England. The OL organization’s performance appraisal system, which was designed by the HR Department several years ago, requires that all employees be evaluated by their supervisor on an annual basis except for new employees, who are appraised after the first 90 days (the probationary period). The performance appraisal form, which is used for all employees, is shown below. Supervisors are required to complete this form covering each of their employees at the appropriate time. They should discuss the evaluation with the employee, ask each employee to sign the form at the end of the interview, and return the completed form to the HR department. The organization has several different wage structures, including one for executives, one for managers, and one for all the other workers. The job evaluation is the point factor technique in which all jobs receive a point value based on an assessment of compensable factors. Jobs are then assigned to a grade level, and each grade has an entry or minimum rate and a maximum salary payable for the jobs in that grade. The amounts between the entry rate and maximum comprise the salary range for the grade. Adjustments to the ranges are made periodically as area market rates change. Salaries are directly related to the work they do and how well they do it. The salary is based on the point evaluation and the survey results. The company is generally considered to be competitive when surveyed in their market. Usually employees begin at the bottom of each pay grade. Employees are considered for a merit increase after six months of service and then they annual receive a merit increase at the end of each year. Cost-of-living increases are also granted periodically by the organization to all employees. You are Sandy, the Human Resource Manager, and have received the following memos and emails over the last several days while you were out of the office. Please respond to each of the memos. First, you should reply to the memo. Then if necessary state what other actions you might take (other than replying to the email). Finally, you should state the importance of each memo as either critical, medium, or of low importance.

Item 1 FROM: Charlie Counter, Accounting Department, [email protected] SUBJECT: 90-Day Employee Evaluation TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

I just received my first performance evaluation and received mostly “3s” or very average ratings. I asked my supervisor why I did not receive better ratings she said that her evaluation of me was good. She said that I was making good progress on the job. She added that, if I continue to show improvement, I will receive higher ratings in the future. When I asked her why I did not receive better ratings, she replied that I was relatively inexperienced compared to other employees. Why am I being evaluated against older, more experienced employees? That does not seem fair. I believe that considering my limited experience I deserve higher evaluations.

Item 2 FROM: Johnathon Pine, Computer Center, [email protected] SUBJECT: Performance Evaluation TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

I just received my evaluation and found out that I received mainly 4s. I have been working at the Computer Center a few years and I don’t seem to improve much. I asked my supervisor for feedback so that I could improve. I wouldn’t complain but I have asked my supervisor for feedback so that I could get a better appraisal next time, and he had difficulty telling me how to do it. If I can’t get the proper feedback how am I expected to improve? I don’t think this system is fair. Can somebody give me feedback? ________________________________________________________________

Item 3 FROM: Bonnie Jell, [email protected] SUBJECT: Administering Employee Evaluations TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

I have recently received from your office a request to conduct evaluations this month on my employees. As you probably know, I was promoted to this supervisory position only one month ago from another company as a result of the former supervisor’s termination. I don’t feel that I can presently conduct a fair evaluation of these employees because I have only observed them for one month. Can I receive help since the appraisal should assess a full year’s performance?

Item 4 FROM: Kelly Pool, Supervisor, [email protected] SUBJECT: Evaluation of Karen Kent TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

Yesterday afternoon I conducted an evaluation interview with Karen Kent and when I told her I gave her a “3” on “Teamwork” she got quite upset and defensive. She said that the evaluation should have been at least a “4” and possibly a “5.” I attempted to explain my evaluation to her, but she disagreed and would not listen to me. She continued to argue with me stating that I did not really understand her teamwork skills. Karen received a “4” evaluation last year on “Teamwork” and a 3.5 overall evaluation this year. What should I do if this happens again?

Item 5 FROM: Matt Million, Supervisor, [email protected] SUBJECT: Evaluation complaints TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

I have received a number of complaints from some of my employees that I grade too hard compared to other supervisors. These employees complain that this results in very little merit pay for them each year. They are not listening to the feedback I am giving them since they are so concerned with some of the low ratings which result in lower pay increases. I don’t know what to do. Should I ignore it or should I change the way I give ratings? Please advise.

Item 6 FROM: Mary Smith, Purchasing, [email protected] SUBJECT: Improving Performance TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

I was wondering if you can offer me some advice or assistance. I have been getting good appraisals, mostly 4s. I would like to improve and spent a lot of time working on my self- appraisal. When we sat down for my evaluation, my supervisor pretty much ignored everything I had written. In fact, he seemed to concentrate on some of the more trivial duties. Please advise.

Item 7 FROM: Jeff Flock, Supervisor, [email protected] SUBJECT: Performance evaluation of Linda Lester TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

I have received a number of complaints from some of my employees. They believe that my appraisals and feedback seem to be based only on what they do in the last several weeks. They say that their evaluation ratings are not fair. Please advise.

Item 8 FROM: Donna Carol, [email protected] SUBJECT: My Performance evaluation TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

In my last performance appraisal, I was rated much lower than my previous appraisal. Before this current appraisal my supervisor, Tom Trash, asked me out on a date and I declined. I thought the issue was over because he did not react very negatively when I declined to date him. It seems, however, that it might have since I am pretty sure that my performance has not changed significantly even though my ratings have. Furthermore, the rumor is that the woman he is dating is receiving higher appraisals since they have been dating. I don’t believe this is fair, but I am not sure what to do?

Item 9 FROM: Sam Mullen, [email protected] SUBJECT: Pay TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

Tom Jenkins has been with the company for ten years. His present position is Systems Analyst 1 and is at the maximum pay level for his grade. The Wonton Company has offered him another position, which would give him a 10% increase in salary for similar duties. Based on his financial obligations to his family, he claims he is need of higher pay. Since he enjoys working for our company and has been a tremendous asset to our company, and it would be difficult to promote him to SA II, is there any way you could match their offer? I know he would stay if we could offer him a significant increase. Can we give him more than his grade allows?

Item 10 FROM: Shawn Sollen, [email protected] SUBJECT: Pay TO: Human Resource Department, [email protected]

One of my employees has been working in IT for more than 8 years and is making about the same salary as one of my new employees in the same job. This is unfair since the one with seniority, Jake, is likely to find out about this sooner or later and I don’t want to lose him. This compression problem is likely to cause conflicts since the market has continued to increase entry-level IT salaries 30% over the last three years. Can we increase the salaries of the high-performing, senior IT people? What can we do about this?

1. Much of pay is based on equity or perceptions of equity. People compare themselves to others both inside and outside the organization. These comparisons on both outcomes and inputs can result in tension and dissatisfaction and then turnover. Can you give examples of inequity that caused problems for yourself or others? Try to use equity theory in your discussion if you can

2. The Fair Labor Standards Act deals with minimum wage, child labor laws, and Overtime. The last administration wanted to allow more overtime for more jobs (exempt versus non-exempt). The current administration is likely to change this so that there are fewer jobs of non-exempt status (can receive overtime). What do you think? Second, minimum wage is an important topic and the question is why isn't the minimum wage tied to inflation?

3. With job-based pay, there are a number of problems that can occur. One example is compression when the market lifts the starting pay for the job to approximately the same level as that of workers with more experience in the same job. The reason is that previous raises have not been large enough to offset the steep rise in pay for that job in the market. The result is that experienced workers are making around the same pay as those with no tenure in the job. Then there are other problems such as employees not receiving wages for extra time spent on the job (wage theft). Have you seen compression or other compensation problems?

Considering the Rockwell Collins case study complete following: 1) Program objective, 2) Suggestions for program design, 3)Suggestions on delivery method for training, 4) Recommendations on who should develop and deliver training.

The J&B Lawnmower Company produces small motors (e.g. 3hp,) for use in lawnmowers and garden equipment. The company instituted a quality management program in 2010 and has recorded the following quality cost data and accounting measures for five years.

The company wants to assess its quality assurance program and develop quality index numbers using sales and manufacturing cost bases for the five-year period.

The formula for quality index would be the following

Quality Index=((Total Quality Costs) / Base ) * 100

For example, if the total quality costs come to $2,000,000 in 2009 and the sales for that year were $10,000,000, the equation would be (2,000,000/10,000,000) * 100 and that would equal the quality index of quality cost per sale to be 20.00.

For this assignment,

use Excel to calculate the Quality Sales Index by year and the Quality Manufacturing Cost Index by year

use Excel to calculate the ratios of prevention and appraisal costs to total failure costs.

As you evaluate the Quality Index numbers as well as the ratios of prevention and appraisal to failure costs, does the company appear to be taking the right measures with their quality management system? If so, what makes you think that? If not, why don't you think so? Make sure you use the data in this problem along with what you learned in Chapter 4 about the costs of quality

International Marketing Chapter 15 Cases: 15-1: How Do You Like Your Reality: Virtual? Augmented? Mixed?

1. What are the differences between VR, AR, and MR?
2. Which Technology do you think will be the first to reach mass-market acceptance: VR, AR, or MR?
3. What experiences have you had with VR? AR?

2. What is the organizational structure of Home Depot company? Note: Draw a graphical representation of this structure

We take up first the question of whether the trial court erred in piercing the corporate veil of On Top to hold Russell Nugent personally liable on plaintiffs' claims. Shareholder insulation from liability for corporate debts or obligations has been a cornerstone of corporate law in the United States since the 19th century. . Although courts will look through corporate organizations to individuals when necessary to prevent injustice, doing so is the exception rather than the rule, and, ordinarily, a corporation will be regarded as a separate legal entity even though there is but a single stockholder.

.Courts will pierce the corporate veil or disregard the corporate entity once a plaintiff shows:

(1) Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances, but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; and

(2) Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetrate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiff's legal rights; and

(3) The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of.

"Where a corporation is used for an improper purpose and to perpetrate injustice by which it avoids its legal obligations, `equity will step in, pierce the corporate veil and grant appropriate relief.'"

   There was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the three-part test for piercing the corporate veil was satisfied in this case. Russell Nugent was clearly in control of On Top Roofing, Inc. He and his wife were the sole shareholders of the corporation and he was the president and chief operating officer and clearly made all the decisions.

There also was substantial evidence to support the second and third prongs of the test. A court may pierce the corporate veil or disregard the separate legal entity of the corporation and the individual where the separateness is used as a subterfuge to defraud a creditor. . But actual fraud is not necessarily a predicate for piercing the corporate veil; it may also be pierced to prevent injustice or inequitable consequences. From the evidence it appears that Russell Nugent was operating an intricate corporate shell game in which he would cease doing business as one corporate entity when he was unable to pay the corporation's creditors and he then would form another corporation in place of the prior one in order to get a "fresh start." After On Top supposedly went out of business in the summer of 1987, for at least two years Nugent continued to run an On Top Roofing Yellow Pages ad, kept the On Top Roofing name on the sign on the building at 614 Main, kept the On Top Roofing name on the side *550 of his roofing trucks, continued to use bid estimate sheets with the On Top Roofing name on them, and continued to represent to callers over the telephone that he was still operating as On Top Roofing. Although Nugent was only paying secured creditors of On Top, he went ahead and ordered the supplies from the plaintiffs both of which were unsecuredat a time when On Top was insolvent and had outstanding debt of approximately $100,000 to other roofing suppliers.

   Through his domination and control over On Top, Russell Nugent was using it for the unfair or inequitable purpose of avoiding their debts to plaintiffs. Nugent continued to hold On Top out to the public as though it was still operating after it supposedly went out of business, yet he refused to honor On Top's obligations to its creditors. The actions of Nugent worked at least an injustice if not to defraud the plaintiffs. It would be unfair, unjust or inequitable to allow Nugent to hide behind the corporate shield and avoid his legal obligations to plaintiffs. We hold that the trial court did not err in piercing the corporate veil and holding Russell Nugent personally liable for the debts owed plaintiffs.

--Brief the decision of the court  in 200 words . Pay special attention to the structure. Make sure you clearly clarify the governing rules.

What are 6 clear and achievable remedies to protect patient records from compromise?

Develop a compensation and appraisal system for an International McDonald"s restaurant business.

(If you know how to do sales forecasting please) (Still learning) (Pretend values as well, just creating a make believe short forecast)

*For a fake beer company that is completely healthy and adds electrolytes*

1) Forecasting Methods: What method or methods are you using to help forecast demand for your product or service? Why did you choose this method(s)? Be sure to show proof of your forecasting efforts.

2) Initial Forecast: Given what forecasting work you have done, create an initial forecast for your product or service. Be sure you have clearly explained the interval of time you have measured.

write a SMART goal for a healthcare organization to support patient use of a personal health record.

"From the employer's point of view, it is inherently inequitable—the laws notwithstanding—to require the payment of equal wages to women and men for performing the same job."

Construct the strongest case that you can in support of the above statement, and then balance your case with the most convincing opposing arguments that you can muster.

What is "RELUCTANCE TO SIMPLIFY" as it pertains to implications for leaders and managers in high hazard and non-hazard organizations?

Is JellyTip ice cream the least favorite ice cream of TipTop NZ? why?

please explain related to BCG matrix that it is in DOGS column( low in market growth and market share)

Conduct a SWOT analysis for the current risk management practices of an organisation with which you are familiar.  Complete the template below.  If you do not know an organisation, then you are able to make up an example if you demonstrate an understanding of what is required.