English Literature Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 2

English Literature - Essay Example hat is to say, throughout Act I, a careful reader traces the development of corruption mostly through the powerful character of King Claudius and the impact of corruption connected with the king on the entire kingdom of Denmark is evident to the readers. The theme of decay becomes perceptible in King Claudius’ speeches which also reveal the moral, social and political corruption existent in the entire society. In fact, Shakespeare has been realized through the critical works of several scholars as a writer with great social commitments and he has been especially effective in dealing with the issue of corruption and its effect on the society of Hamlet. In the play, the images of disease pervade the dramatic language suggesting not merely the corruption of the individual but the degeneration of an entire society. Therefore, the images of disease and corruption can be seen right from the opening scene of the play which, in the course of action, turns out to be literal references to the decay of the society. These images of disease and corruption can be traced from the opening scene of the play to the end and Marcellus comment in the third scene points to the decayed state of affairs in the country: â€Å"something is rotten in the state of Denmark.† (I IV 90: 6678) All through his play, Shakespeare makes use of the imagery of disease, poison and decay and Marcellus’ statement indicates such imagery in the play. The playwright presents widespread corruption in the state of Denmark which is comparable to infectious diseases contaminating the entire court and such setting of disease also amplifies the readers’ revulsion for the nasty events in the play. Just as disease leads one to death, the disease of the society leads the state of Denmark to a damned situation. In short, the dramatist’s use of images of disease and corruption helps the readers comprehend the emotional and moral decay and the bitter relationships of the characters as well as the anxious, chaotic

Employment law 2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Employment law 2 - Essay Example In this regard, it was not necessary for Leslie Accounting Firm to ask Gale these questions. Question 2 Jill can not use this situation as a defense to a Title VII action. This can be analysed to mean that she used the excuse so that she could discriminate the Hispanic crew members. In fact, EEOC compliance requires that employers should not discriminate people for employment on the basis of their color, nationality, or race. Question 3 An affirmative action is a plan containing statistical information indicating the association of precise jobs between eligible people especially in metropolitan recruiting areas and actual number of employees employed (Goldman and Corrada 194). Conversely, quotas are never allowed except in situations where they are directed by the federal court as a result of continued discrimination. In essence, goals are established in relation to when the fraction of underrepresented is less than what is expected and available in the recruitment area. However, the key element is that the availability depends on individuals having the required qualifications for the job, not just the percentage of minorities. Question 4 Title VII’s of the civil rights Act of 1964 prohibits against discrimination. This law protects mothers of young children from workplace discrimination (Goldman and Corrada 200). It is the responsibility of employers to prevent harassment directed to caregivers from occurring in the work place. Employees subjected to such harassment are required to follow the employer’s harassment complaint process. In case the employee report the matter to the employer and no action is taken against the supervisor, the employee can sue the employer for hostile work environment that violated Title VII. If the investigator determines that the employee was subjected to a hostile work environment, the court may rule that the employer was liable. Question 5 In the legal definition, sexual harassment is considered to be undesirable vo cal, bodily, or visual demeanor of a sexual nature that affects working conditions (Goldman and Corrada 200). Firstly, going by this definition, it is apparent that the employee in the current scenario can sue the employer for sexual harassment. However, the employees would be required by the court to prove the claim of sexual harassment. Therefore, she needs to prove she belongs to a protected class and that the harassment complained of was based on sex. In this case, the employee is a woman and is protected under antidiscrimination law. The act of her supervisor touching her back qualifies as a physical conduct of a sexual nature, and his making of â€Å"untoward† statement qualifies to be a verbal conduct of a sexual nature. Nevertheless, in determining the case, the court may look in to some issues. For example, as an employee, it is advisable to report such cases to employer in the company under published sexual harassment policy and give them a chance to solve the probl em (Goldman and Corrada 201). In this case, if the worker does not report to the employer first, she might loose the case. The law states that sexual harassment has to be severe or pervasive. In this regard, since the incidence occurred once, can not be enough for a law suit. Question 6 National origin

EU Commission on Auditor Liabilities

EU Commission on Auditor Liabilities Auditors are increasingly finding that they are being targeted by those who feel that they have been wronged by the quality of the financial accounts. Auditors are required to consider the financial accounts that are prepared by the company and to establish whether they believe that they give a true and fair representation of the underlying financial position. By ‘true’ they are looking for whether the transaction actually occurred and by ‘fair’ they are looking to ascertain whether the value of the transaction has been accurately recorded. In the UK, there is a rule that liability for misstatement is joint and several between wrongdoers. This often results in auditors taking a much greater portion of the liability than would seem just. Auditors are often seen to have deep pockets due to their insurance policies and, as such, make more promising targets for those who believe that they have lost out financially due to the inaccuracy of the accounts[1]. Background to the EU Consultation on Auditor Liability There have been widespread concerns over this practice, with many countries operating a more proportional approach where the extent of the blame dictates the extent of the liability. The European Union has shown particular concern over the potential reduction in competition that this lack of capped liability leads to. With the limit level of professional insurance policies playing a huge role in the company’s decision as to which auditor to appoint, this is thought to favour the larger auditors and exclude the smaller players from some of the larger lucrative contracts. It is also thought that this requirement presents such a great barrier to entry for auditor firms that there is a real danger that the audit market is not operating competitively. The EU consultation undertook a study based on four possible options that were available to produce a cap for auditor liability. Firstly, they considered a monetary cap on a Europe wide basis. Secondly, they considered a monetary cap based on the size of the auditor firm. Thirdly, there was an option to produce a monetary cap based on a multiple of the audit fee and finally, they considered the option of member states entering into a policy of proportionate liability, which would require the courts to split the liability based on the level of responsibility for the breach and on a proportional basis. This could either be achieved through statutory provisions or through the contractual provision between the company and the auditor. Upon consultation, the commissioners found that there was overwhelming support for the concept of having a cap on auditor liability, both from inside and outside the auditing profession. The Commission noted that the issue of auditor liability was not a new one, with consideration having been given, in 2001, to whether the extent of the differences between the countries in relation to auditor liability would prevent a single market across Europe. Although, at this stage, the substantial differences across jurisdictions were recognised, they were not thought to be so large that anything had to be done to rectify the position. However, since 2002, the large scale collapse of Arthur Andersen has occurred, bringing the issue of potential liability caps back into the forefront. The Commission initially identified the potential problems that the current auditing regime causes in terms of market stability and competition within the auditing function. Considerable attention was paid to the issue of public interest and the need to have a stable auditing function which can be relied upon to be accurate. For an auditing function to be efficient, the company must be able to select an appropriate auditor for its business needs but still allow it to maintain the independence of the function so that the stakeholders can rely on the statements. It is accepted that auditors will not always be 100% accurate; however, they should be able to be relied upon as this is critical to the overall efficiency of the European capital markets. Concentration of the Audit Market The central importance of the auditing profession is not disputed, with investors relying on the financial statements in order to make investment decisions. However, the magnitude of the risk that auditors are exposed to is becoming increasingly worrying both for the auditors and for the general competitive landscape. Due to the nature of internationally listed companies, there are only four companies that are capable of providing the necessary auditing services. These are refereed to as the ‘Big Four’: Deloitte, KPMG, Price Waterhouse Coopers and Ernst Young. It is not necessarily the expertise that prevents others entering the market, but rather the high level of professional indemnity that is required which is simply not cost effective for smaller firms entering the market. It is recognised that there is little or no chance of a new entrant into the market, yet there is a danger that any one of the four could be forced out of the market, at any point, thus further re ducing the competition in large scale auditing. In reality, international auditing firms are not actually one large firm but are a network of smaller firms that recognise they are not able to manage the level of risk that is required for international auditing. With strict rules relating to auditing firms, it is unlikely that another network will emerge, making the international audit market particularly fragile[2]. Auditors often become the target in cases of insolvency as they are the ones with the resources available to deal with any financial losses due to misstatement. It is this potential redress that offers investors a degree of confidence in the market and, therefore, it is seen as desirable that auditors are held to be liable in situations where they get it wrong. However, it is recognised that the current joint and several approach is simply inefficient and consideration should be given to alternatives. For the auditing profession to be truly efficient, it is necessary for there to be a substantial degree of choice. This is not currently the case and effort should be made to ensure that the auditing options are widened so as to become accessible to other medium sized firms. One of the recognised ways of doing this is to have a liability cap or a proportionate regime so that the deep pocket syndrome does not restrict the choice of auditor to the hands of the big four[3]. Extent of Risk for an Auditor The major barriers for mid sized auditor firms are recognised as being the lack of available indemnity insurance and the large amount of potential risk that is involved when auditing large international firms. Clearly, an auditor has a duty towards the company itself, based on either contract or tort when it has behaved negligently or with wilful misconduct. The vast majority of cases are related to negligence and it is this area of liability that has generated the most interest from the European Commission[4]. Liability is clearly owed to the client itself; however, this has also extended to be liability towards third parties, causing further barriers to entry for mid sized auditing firms. For a third party to bring a claim, it is necessary for there to be a causation link between the act of negligence and the damages suffered by the third party which, although difficult to prove, has resulted in some high profile payouts further jeopardising the chances of mid tier firms entering the international auditing market[5]. At the heart of this widespread liability is the concept of joint and several liability. Under this process, a third party who has a claim against a director can also bring a claim against an auditor who has given an unqualified opinion as to the accuracy of the accounts. In a case of corporate insolvency, the directors rarely have any finances available to pay out third party losses, therefore, encouraging actions against the auditors who are seen to have ample financial backing. It is this high level of risk that the cap on liability is aiming to address. Oppositions to an Auditors’ Liability Cap Despite the overall acceptance of the need to do something to alter the balance of power within the international auditing market, one of the main objections was that placing a limit on liability would give the auditing profession a privileged position in comparison to other professions. A main aim of establishing a cap was to encourage mid sized firms to enter into the market and it is feared that a liability simply would not achieve this aim. Much of the exposure faced is outside of the EU (i.e. in the US)[6] and, therefore, the cap would make little or no difference. Equally, the insurance requirements would remain high. A cap would not make the insurance requirement less; it would simply make it more ascertainable. There are also concerns that the cap would encourage poor performances and weaker audits. From a competitive point of view, those in opposition to the cap were concerned that such a move would reduce the competitive position of European companies in comparison to other international jurisdictions where no such cap exists. Concerns were also raised that a cap on auditors’ liability would be contrary to the overall proposition of better regulation that the EU has been working towards, in recent years[7]. Alternative Options As it is accepted that the main reason for imposing such a cap would be to open up the international auditing market to other mid sized auditing firms; alternatives to a cap on liability were also considered by the EU because of the potentially negative competitive impact of such caps. One of the possible options is to impose a compulsory insurance on audit firms. There is currently an insurance gap where the amount that an insurer is prepared to insure an auditor for is substantially less than the potential liability. Forcing the auditor to take out insurance to cover all losses would not be practicable due to the high level of potential risk. Therefore, the premiums would be prohibitively expensive, particularly for the smaller firms. Alternatives to funding this additional insurance would have to come from investors or the companies themselves. Another approach would be to reduce the potential risk faced by auditors by introducing safe harbours. This would involve carving out certain areas from the potential liability of the auditor such as any external reviewers’ comments on the company or any future plans which have happened after the end of the financial accounting year. However, in doing this, there are fears that the underlying principle of professional judgment would be eroded in favour of formalised approaches to ensuring that as much of the safe harbour carve out could be enjoyed. EU Recommendations On considering all of these factors and a widespread discussion of the pros and cons of the possibility of a cap on auditors’ liability, the EU commission has established a proposal that aims to achieve the middle ground[8]. When considering the four options as stated above (cap for all European audits, cap based on size of audit firm, cap based on the fee and a proportionate regime), the EU Commission concluded that a combination of a proportionate liability and an auditors’ cap on liability would make the foundations of their recommendations. The report advised member states to require a limitation to auditors’ liability to be established either through a statutory cap, a limitation based on proportionality or limitation of liability through the contract between the audit company and the auditor. Proportional liability gained considerable support from the non-auditing respondents to the proposals as it was felt that this would deal with the issue of reliance on auditors’ deep pockets, but would also ensure that the quality of the audit would be maintained. The commission recommended that any member state implementing this approach should not set a specific proportion and should simply set the principle in place to be applied through the judicial processes, where necessary. Unsurprisingly, the auditing profession preferred the concept of a cap on liability, arguing that it would have no long term impact on the quality of the audit and would allow mid sized firms to enter the market. This was not entirely followed by the EU Commission who preferred to suggest a principle of proportionate liability. Based on all arguments, the EU Commission has advised a regime of proportionate liability across all member states. Conclusions The issue of auditors’ liability and how risk is apportioned has been raising concerns on an international level and has, therefore, become the subject of an EU Commission report. Currently, the international auditing market is heavily dominated by the big four accounting firms and several barriers of entry exist to prevent mid sized firms entering the market. Many of the barriers result directly from the fact that auditors are jointly and severally liable for misstatements in the financial accounts. Therefore, due to their deep pockets, auditors are often the main target for those taking actions against struggling companies[9]. Based on this position, the EU Commission looked into the option of establishing a cap on liability (either statutorily or through contractual provisions). After careful consideration of all of the options, it was felt that a principle of proportionality would be the best approach, given all of the issues raised. It was concluded that proportionality would reduce the deep pockets issue, yet would still ensure that the level of quality of auditing work is maintained. This level of proportionality should not be cast in stone and should be established on a case by case basis. It is anticipated that this will provide sufficient security for the smaller auditors to compete on a level playing field with the domain that has traditionally been that of the big four firms. Bibliography Allen, Robert D., Hermanson, Dana R., Kozloski, Thomas M., Ramsay, Robert J., Auditor Risk Assessment: Insights from the Academic Literature, Accounting Horizons, 20, 2006 Clarke, Frank L., Dean, G.W., Oliver, Kyle Gaius, Corporate Collapse: Accounting, Regulatory and Ethical Failure, Cambridge University Press, 2003 Garner, Don E., McKee, David L., McKee, Yosra AbuAmara, Accounting and the Global Economy After Sarbanes-Oxley, M.E. Sharpe, 2008 Hay, David, Davis, David, The Voluntary Choice of an Auditor of Any Level of Quality, Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, 23, 2004 Hillison, William, Pacini, Carl, Auditor Reputation and the Insurance Hypothesis: The Information Content of Disclosures of Financial Distress of a Major Accounting Firm, Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 2004 Pacini, Carl, Hillison, William, Sinason, David, Auditor liability to third parties: an international focus, Managerial Auditing Journal, 15, 8, 2000 Pong, C.K.M., Burnett, S., The implications of merger for market share, audit pricing and non-audit fee income: The case of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Managerial Auditing Journal, 21, 1, 2006 Smith, Roy C., Walter, Ingo, Governing the Modern Corporation: Capital Markets, Corporate Control, and Economic Performance, Oxford University Press US, 2006 Soltani, Bahram, Auditing: An International Approach, Pearson Education, 2007 Footnotes [1] Pong, C.K.M., Burnett, S., The implications of merger for market share, audit pricing and non-audit fee income: The case of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21, 1, 2006 [2] Clarke, Frank L., Dean, G. W., Oliver, Kyle Gaius, Corporate Collapse: Accounting, Regulatory and Ethical Failure, Cambridge University Press, 2003 [3] Soltani, Bahram Auditing, An International Approach, Pearson Education, 2007 [4] Hillison, William, Pacini, Carl, Auditor Reputation and the Insurance Hypothesis: The Information Content of Disclosures of Financial Distress of a Major Accounting Firm, Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 2004 [5] Pacini, Carl, Hillison, William, Sinason, David, Auditor liability to third parties: an international focus, Managerial Auditing Journal, 15, 8, 2000 [6] Garner, Don E., McKee, David L., McKee, Yosra AbuAmara, Accounting and the Global Economy After Sarbanes-Oxley, M.E. Sharpe, 2008 [7] Hay, David, Davis, David, The Voluntary Choice of an Auditor of Any Level of Quality, Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, 23, 2004 [8] Smith, Roy C., Walter, Ingo, Governing the Modern Corporation: Capital Markets, Corporate Control, and Economic Performance, Oxford University Press US, 2006 [9] Allen, Robert D., Hermanson, Thomas, Dana R., Kozloski, M., Ramsay, Robert J., Auditor Risk Assessment: Insights from the Academic Literature, Accounting Horizons, 20, 2006

Life in New England Opposed To The Chesapeake Bay In The 1600s :: American America History

Life in New England Opposed To The Chesapeake Bay In The 1600s During the 1600's, many people in the American colonies led very many different lives, some better than others. While life was hard for some groups, other colonists were healthy and happy. Two groups that display such a difference are the colonists of New England and Chesapeake Bay. New Englanders enjoyed a much higher standard of living. This high standard of New England's was due to many factors, including a healthier environment, better family situation, and a high rate of reproduction. First, the inhabitants of the New England area were far healthier. Their clean water supply was a sharp contrast to the contaminated waters of Chesapeake Bay. Air was also fresh and clean in New England. Chesapeake Bay colonists were plagued by disease due to their unsanitary way of life, and New Englanders could expect ten extra years of life because of migrating there in fact, on average, they lived to be nearly 70, close to the same life expectancy as today. Second, those who migrated to New England tended to come over as families, quite dissimilar to the single men who flooded Chesapeake Bay. Obviously, a much more stable family life took root in New England. Single women in Chesapeake Bay were few and far between, and the few that were around were not single for long. It was much easier to establish families in New England, where the balance between men and women was much closer to equal. These strong families provided security and made the New England colonists live a more stable life than those who lived to the south in Chesapeake Bay. Finally, partially due to the stable family life of New England, reproduction was much steadier in the north than in the Chesapeake Bay region. New England's women married young, around 20 years of age, and had many children before their child bearing days were over. They could expect to have at least 10 children, with 8 of them surviving. Chesapeake's lack of families-and more importantly-lack of women kept reproduction rates from being up to par. Thus, New England's growth was steady a nd stable, whereas Chesapeake Bay suffered the effects of an extremely low growth rate.

Doing The Dirty Work

Business magazines and newspapers regularly publish articles about the changing nature of work in the United States and about how many jobs are being changed. Indeed, because so much has been made of the shift toward service-sector and professional jobs, many people assumed that the number of unpleasant an undesirable jobs has declined. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Millions of Americans work in gleaming air-conditioned facilities, but many others work in dirty, grimy, and unsafe settings.For example, many jobs in the recycling industry require workers to sort through moving conveyors of trash, pulling out those items that can be recycled. Other relatively unattractive jobs include cleaning hospital restrooms, washing dishes in a restaurant, and handling toxic waste. Consider the jobs in a chicken-processing facility. Much like a manufacturing assembly line, a chicken-processing facility is organised around a moving conveyor system. Workers call it the chain.In re ality, it’s a steel cable with large clips that carries dead chickens down what might be called a â€Å"disassembly line. † Standing along this line are dozens of workers who do, in fact, take the birds apart as they pass. Even the titles of the jobs are unsavory. Among the first set of jobs along the chain is the skinner. Skinners use sharp instruments to cut and pull the skin off the dead chicken. Towards the middle of the line are the gut pullers. These workers reach inside the chicken carcasses and remove the intestines and other organs.At the end of the line are the gizzard cutters, who tackle the more difficult organs attached to the inside of the chicken’s carcass. These organs have to be individually cut and removed for disposal. The work is obviously distasteful, and the pace of the work is unrelenting. On a good day the chain moves an average of ninety chickens a minute for nine hours. And the workers are essentially held captive by the moving chain. F or example, no one can vacate a post to use the bathroom or for other reasons without the permission of the supervisor.In some plants, taking an unauthorised bathroom break can result in suspension without pay. But the noise in a typical chicken-processing plant is so loud that the supervisor can’t hear someone calling for relief unless the person happens to be standing close by. Jobs such as these on the chicken-processing line are actually becoming increasingly common. Fuelled by Americans’ growing appetites for lean, easy-to-cook meat, the number of poultry workers has almost doubled since 1980, and today they constitute a work force of around a quarter of a million people.Indeed, the chicken-processing industry has become a major component of the state economies of Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama. Besides being unpleasant and dirty, many jobs in a chicken-processing plant are dangerous and unhealthy. Some workers, for example, have to fi ght the live birds when they are first hung on the chains. These workers are routinely scratched and pecked by the chickens. And the air inside a typical chicken-processing plant is difficult to breathe.Workers are usually supplied with paper masks, but most don’t use them because they are hot and confining. And the work space itself is so tight that the workers often cut themselves—and sometimes their coworkers—with the knives, scissors, and other instruments they use to perform their jobs. Indeed, poultry processing ranks third among industries in the United States for cumulative trauma injuries such as carpet tunnel syndrome. The inevitable chicken feathers, faeces, and blood also contribute to the hazardous and unpleasant work environment.Question: Q1 How relevant are the concept of competencies to the job in a chicken- processing plant ? Ans:- concept of competencies is basically The ability to perform some task; Meeting specified qualifications to perform; implicit knowledge of a language’s structure or the ability to do something well, measured against a standard, especially ability acquired through experience or training so competencies is the skills ,knowledge, ability to do the particular task.So in chickenprocessing plant anyone can’t work or will be not able to work because of environment of plantand also because of some jobs in plant are dangerous like they have to fight the live birds when they first hang on chain, and the air inside the plant is difficult to breathe. Usually workers are provided mask for but most don’t use it because it is hot and confining .And work space at plant itself is so tight that the workers often cut themselves and sometimes their co-workers with many instruments they use to perform their job. And they have to captive with moving chain for example no one can vacate a post to use the bathroom or for other reason without the permission of the supervisor’s according to conc ept of competencies anyone will be not able to do these type of dirty jobs so these jobs require those people who can work efficiently and can stay at plant and who are non vegetarianQ. 2:- How might you try to improve the jobs in a chicken processing plant ? Ans:-we can improve the jobs in chicken processing plants by†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦1)hire or recruit those people who are non vegetarian so they will be more able to do and handle these type of work more efficiently2) we can provide them any machine that will cut the chicken automatically so that we can overcome the safety issues like cut and injury etc.3)We can make the environment more friendly so that workers will enjoy the work4)we will arrange more space on assembly line or moving chain so that workers can easily handle the work safely and by this we can reduce the dangerous jobs5) will provide cool and eco friendly paper mask to the workers so that those workers who don’t like the air inside the plant can work easily6)those workers who don’t like to work on assembly line or don’t know the process we can shift them to another jobs7)if any workers want to go for bathroom they can go without the permission of super visior and while other workers will handle his job So by all above decision we can improve the jobs in a chicken processing unit because no. of poultry workers are increasing day by day in U. S. as well as in many countries like Georgia Alabama etc. Q. 3:-Are dirty, dangerous, and unpleasant jobs an inevitable part of any economy?Ans:- Yes, because chicken processing industry has became a major component of the many state economies like Georgia ,North Carolina, and Alabama etc and jobs such as these on the chicken processing are actually becoming increasingly common. And also because of growing appetites for lean, easy to cook meat. And numbers of poultry workers has almost doubled since 1980 in U. S. because meat is cheaper there compare to veg food And also because some some un employed workers in any economy doesn’t have skills to doany other work and for their basic needs they has to do these type of dirty and dangerous jobs Because they don’t have any other options. In India also no. of non vegetarian are increasing and a large no. of our population is non vegetarian and unemployment rate is also high so many people have to these type of dirty jobs. Doing The Dirty Work Business magazines and newspapers regularly publish articles about the changing nature of work in the United States and about how many jobs are being changed. Indeed, because so much has been made of the shift toward service-sector and professional jobs, many people assumed that the number of unpleasant an undesirable jobs has declined. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Millions of Americans work in gleaming air-conditioned facilities, but many others work in dirty, grimy, and unsafe settings. For example, many jobs in the recycling industry require workers to sort through moving conveyors of trash, pulling out those items that can be recycled.Other relatively unattractive jobs include cleaning hospital restrooms, washing dishes in a restaurant, and handling toxic waste. Consider the jobs in a chicken-processing facility. Much like a manufacturing assembly line, a chicken-processing facility is organised around a moving conveyor system. Workers call it the chain. In r eality, it’s a steel cable with large clips that carries dead chickens down what might be called a â€Å"disassembly line.† Standing along this line are dozens of workers who do, in fact, take the birds apart as they pass.Even the titles of the jobs are unsavory. Among the first set of jobs along the chain is the skinner. Skinners use sharp instruments to cut and pull the skin off the dead chicken. Towards the middle of the line are the gut pullers. These workers reach inside the chicken carcasses and remove the intestines and other organs. At the end of the line are the gizzard cutters, who tackle the more difficult organs attached to the inside of the chicken’s carcass. These organs have to be individually cut and removed for disposal. The work is obviously distasteful, and the pace of the work is unrelenting. On a good day the chain moves an average of ninety chickens a minute for nine hours. And the workers are essentially held captive by the moving chain.Fo r example, no one can vacate a post to use the bathroom or for other reasons without the permission of the supervisor. In some plants, taking an unauthorised bathroom break can result in suspension without pay. But the noise in a typical chicken-processing plant is so loud that the supervisor can’t hear someone calling for relief unless the person happens to be standing close by. Jobs such as these on the chicken-processing line are  actually becoming increasingly common. Fuelled by Americans’ growing appetites for lean, easy-to-cook meat, the number of poultry workers has almost doubled since 1980, and today they constitute a work force of around a quarter of a million people. Indeed, the chicken-processing industry has become a major component of the state economies of Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama.Besides being unpleasant and dirty, many jobs in a chicken-processing plant are dangerous and unhealthy. Some workers, for example, have to fight the live birds when they are first hung on the chains. These workers are routinely scratched and pecked by the chickens. And the air inside a typical chicken-processing plant is difficult to breathe. Workers are usually supplied with paper masks, but most don’t use them because they are hot and confining. And the work space itself is so tight that the workers often cut themselves—and sometimes their coworkers—with the knives, scissors, and other instruments they use to perform their jobs. Indeed, poultry processing ranks third among industries in the United States for cumulative trauma injuries such as carpet tunnel syndrome. The inevitable chicken feathers, faeces, and blood also contribute to the hazardous and unpleasant work environment.Question:Q1 How relevant are the concept of competencies to the job in a chicken- processing plant ? Ans:- concept of competencies is basically The ability to perform some task; Meeting specified qualifications to perfo rm; implicit knowledge of a language’s structure or the ability to do something well, measured against a standard, especially ability acquired through experience or training so competencies is the skills ,knowledge, ability to do the particular task. So in chickenprocessing plant anyone can’t work or will be not able to work because of environment of plantand also because of some jobs in plant are dangerous like they have to fight the live birds when they first hang on chain, and the air inside the plant is difficult to breathe. Usually workers are provided mask for but most don’t use it because it is hot and confining.And work space at plant itself is so tight that the workers often cut themselves and sometimes their co-workers with many instruments they use to perform their job. And they have to captive with  moving chain for example no one can vacate a post to use the bathroom or for other reason without the permission of the supervisor’s according t o concept of competencies anyone will be not able to do these type of dirty jobs so these jobs require those people who can work efficiently and can stay at plant and who are non vegetarianQ.2:- How might you try to improve the jobs in a chicken processing plant ? Ans:-we can improve the jobs in chicken processing plants by†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦1)hire or recruit those people who are non vegetarian so they will be more able to do and handle these type of work more efficiently2) we can provide them any machine that will cut the chicken automatically so that we can overcome the safety issues like cut and injury etc.3)we can make the environment more friendly so that workers will enjoy the work4)we will arrange more space on assembly line or moving chain so that workers can easily handle the work safely and by this we can reduce the dangerous jobs5) will provide cool and eco friendly paper mask to the workers so that those workers who don’t like the air inside the plant can work easily6) those workers who don’t like to work on assembly line or don’t know the process we can shift them to another jobs7)if any workers want to go for bathroom they can go without the permission of super visior and while other workers will handle his job So by all above decision we can improve the jobs in a chicken processing unit because no. of poultry workers are increasing day by day in U.S. as well as in many countries like Georgia Alabama etc.Q.3:-Are dirty, dangerous, and unpleasant jobs an inevitable part of any economy? Ans:- Yes, because chicken processing industry has became a major component of the many state economies like Georgia ,North Carolina, and Alabama etc and jobs such as these on the chicken processing are actually becoming increasingly common. And also because of growing appetites for lean, easy to cook meat.And numbers of poultry workers has almost doubled since 1980 in U.S. because meat is cheaper there compare to veg food And also because some some u nemployed workers in any economy doesn’t have skills to doany other work and for their basic needs they has to do these type of dirty and dangerous jobs Because they don’t have any other options. In India also no. of non vegetarian are increasing and a large no. of our population  is non vegetarian and unemployment rate is also high so many people have to these type of dirty jobs.

Hang It Up Essay

Should students bring electronic devices to school? Some people agree with that, and some others are not; opinions are widely divided. In the article â€Å"Hang It Up,† by Jesse Scaccia, students who have electronic devices in class can affect their performance. Scaccia gives us a couple of examples. First, children have cellphones are distracted. Also, the reason children want to take cellphones to school is that cells make them look cool. Lastly, some parents say that they need to keep in touch with their children for an emergency. I strongly agree with the author when he states that cell phone use distracts students’ attention. First, I believe that cell phone use in class is distractions because it may cause children fail the class and not having a bright future. Most people do not have self-control, especially children. As the author mentions, â€Å"students fail is because of distractions in the classroom.† Children take cells will be distracted in classroom; by the end of semester, they will get low grade or fail the class because they do not have enough knowledge. After several of failures, students will put themselves become bad students, so a bad student may not go to college; it directly affects their future. However, if students do not have electronic devices distract them, they will learn more in class, and it will affect them in a positive future. Also, the bad habits will formed when children use cell phone since they are young. Children have electronic devices may develop bad habit which is disrespectful to others. For example, my friend and I ate at a restaurant last week. There was a couple sitting next to us, the boy was sitting there and playing with his cellphone, and had no conversation with his girlfriend, even his girlfriend complained to him. So, his bad habit probably formed when he was young. Otherwise, if he could put his cellphone away and talk to his girlfriend, that could be a nice dinner for them. As you can see, children take electronic devices to class is not only affect their grade in school; but also affects their habits in the future, and have a good habits is your first step towards success.