approx 275 words per page
Assess the types of personality measurements and research designs used in in the peer-reviewed articles you researched. Briefly describe the main theoretical models represented within each of the perspectives of personality and explain the commonalities found across all five.
Sample Solution
approx 275 words per page
a. Interpret nursing theories
b. their utilization in nursing education,
c. their utilization in nursing practice,
d. their utilization in nursing research.
e. Include theories and concepts from liberal education in providing safe and effective care.
Sample Solution
Describe in detail the theory of sleep with which you most agree and why. Be sure to support the response.
Discuss one common sleep disorder and possible treatment options. Be sure to support the response.
(Response should be no less than 150 words in length and information from our textbook should be used to support the responses. Citations must be included in the body of the post and a reference section should be included at the end of the post
Sample Solution
Using the Internet, determine what applications are commercially available to enable secure remote access to a PC. Sample Solution
The post Accessing remote access to a PC. first appeared on nursing homework essays.
attachment_1
attachment_1
PG 96
Content of the Report
PSI reports should be flexible in format, reflecting a difference in the background of different offenders and making the best use of available resources and probation department capabilities. A full report should normally contain the following list of items (American Probation and Parole Association and the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts):
1. Legal data. Arresting officer, victim, original charges filed, and summary of court action as well as complete description of offense and circumstances surrounding it (not limited to aspects developed for the record as part of the determination of guilt).
2. Defendant statement. Defendant’s version of offense and his or her attitude.
3. Codefendant(s). Information about any codefendant(s), including age and court status.
4. Victim statement. Statement from victim and description of victim’s status, impact on victim, losses suffered by victim, and restitution due to victim.
5. Prior record. Full description of offender’s prior juvenile and/or criminal record (if any).
6. Probation/parole. Offender’s prior adjustment and performance on probation, parole, or any other supervised sentence (if any).
7. Education and employment. Description of offender’s educational background, present employment status, financial status, and capabilities.
8. Military service. Description of offender’s military record (if applicable)
9. Social history. Information on offender’s family relationships, marital status, dependents, interests and activities, residence history, and religious affiliations as well as reports from clinics, institutions, and other social agencies with which offender has been involved.
10. Medical and mental status. Offender’s medical history and (if desirable) psychological or psychiatric report.
11. Environments. Information about environments to which offender might return or to which offender could be sent should probation be granted.
12. Community resources. Information about special resources available to assist offender, such as treatment centers, residential facilities, vocational training services, special educational facilities, rehabilitation programs of various institutions to which offender might be committed, special probation department programs, and other similar programs particularly relevant to offender’s situation.
13. Summary and analysis. List of most significant aspects of report (special effort should be made in preparation of PSI reports not to burden the court with irrelevant and unconnected details).
14. Recommendation. Depending on the jurisdiction and or the sentencing judge’s preference, the PO may offer a sentencing recommendation; particularly important when probation is being considered.
Some jurisdictions, for example, Colorado, require that the PSI include offender RNA information.
Choose 2 supply chain strategies aimed to improve organizational performance and enhance competitiveness.
Explain each strategy and give an example of an organization that has used each type of strategy.
Was each strategy successful? Why or why not?
Sample Solution
BUS 3150 Politicians Interested in Collective Bargaining Rights Case Study
Read the following two questions, then answer the questions in orders, no word limits, just answer the questions clearly.
Case 1: The New Union Battles: Public Unions vs. Rich World Governments
While private sector unions may be rapidly declining in the United States, public sector unions are still strong … or at least were. In 2011, public sector unions representing teachers, prison guards, police officers, railworkers, and civil servants were dealt a blow by their employers— the government. At the forefront of the battle was the issue of collective bargaining. And it began in Wisconsin.
But this is not the first time Wisconsin has been at the forefront of collective bargaining. The Wagner Act of 1934 did not grant public employees the right to collective bargaining. In the 1950s and 1960s public sector employees pushed for collective bargaining rights. Finally, in 1959 Wisconsin became the first state to grant this right to public employees. In a dramatic turn of events, Wisconsin is now the first to repeal collective bargaining rights for its public sector employees.
After a standoff with state Democrats and prounion demonstrators, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and the state legislature decided that public employees did not have the right to collective bargaining. This set off a chain reaction in other states. For example, in 2017 lawmakers in Iowa proposed a bill to prohibit collective bargaining for state employees. This crackdown on collective bargaining could now act as a model for President Trump to overhaul the federal workforce. Scott Walker said that he spoke with Vice President Mike Pence about “how they may take bits and pieces of what we did” with the union law and “apply it at the national level.” However, these are only the words of Walker; President Trump hasn’t said anything about it yet. Either way, public sector employees are concerned about their future.
Questions
1. Why are politicians so interested in trying to repeal collective bargaining rights for public sector employees?
2. What risks does losing their collective bargaining rights hold for public employees?
3. As an elected politician charged with major cuts in your state budget, how would you negotiate with the public sector unions? As a public sector union leader, how would you negotiate with the state legislature?
Case 2 :The Arbitration Case of Jesse Stansky
At the arbitration hearing, both parties were adamant in their positions. Nancy Huang, HR manager of Phoenix Semiconductor, argued that the grievant, Jesse Stansky, was justly terminated for arguing and hitting a coworker—a direct violation of company policy and the employee handbook. Stansky argued that he had been a good employee during his 10 years of employment.
The submission agreement governing the case read, “It is the employer’s position that just cause existed for the discharge of Mr. Jesse Stansky and the penalty was appropriate for the offense committed.” Additionally, the employer introduced into evidence the labor agreement, which defined just cause termination as follows:
“Just cause shall serve as the basis for disciplinary action and includes, but is not limited to: dishonesty, inefficiency, unprofessional conduct, failure to report absences, falsification of records, violation of company policy, destruction of property, or possession or being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.”
Stansky was hired as a systems technician on November 20, 2003, a position “he held until his termination on October 25, 2017. According to the testimony of Huang, Phoenix Semiconductor strived to maintain a positive and cordial work environment among its employees. Fighting on the job was strictly prohibited. Stansky’s performance evaluation showed him to be an average employee, although he had received several disciplinary warnings for poor attendance and one 3-day suspension for a “systems control error.” Stansky was generally liked by his coworkers, and several testified on his behalf at the arbitration hearing.
The termination of Stansky concerned an altercation between himself and Gary Lindekin, another systems technician. According to witnesses to the incident, both Stansky and Lindekin became visibly upset over the correct way to calibrate a sensitive piece of production equipment. The argument—one witness called it no more than a heated disagreement— lasted approximately 3 minutes and concluded when Stansky was seen forcefully placing his hand on Lindekin’s shoulder. Lindekin took extreme exception to Stansky’s behavior and immediately reported the incident to management. After interviews with both Stansky and Lindekin and those who observed the incident, Huang, Samantha Lowry, the employee’s immediate supervisor, and Grant Ginn, department manager, decided that Stansky should be terminated for unprofessional conduct and violation of company policy.
Question:
1. Which arguments should be given more weight: those based on company policy, the employee handbook, and the labor agreement or mitigating factors given by the grievant and his witnesses? Explain.
2. How might unprofessional conduct be defined? Explain.
3. If you were the arbitrator, how would you rule in this case? Explain fully the reasons for your decision.
Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 50
Use the following coupon code :
NURSING10
Politicians Interested in Collective Bargaining Rights Case Study
Read the following two questions, then answer the questions in orders, no word limits, just answer the questions clearly.
Case 1: The New Union Battles: Public Unions vs. Rich World Governments
While private sector unions may be rapidly declining in the United States, public sector unions are still strong … or at least were. In 2011, public sector unions representing teachers, prison guards, police officers, railworkers, and civil servants were dealt a blow by their employers— the government. At the forefront of the battle was the issue of collective bargaining. And it began in Wisconsin.
But this is not the first time Wisconsin has been at the forefront of collective bargaining. The Wagner Act of 1934 did not grant public employees the right to collective bargaining. In the 1950s and 1960s public sector employees pushed for collective bargaining rights. Finally, in 1959 Wisconsin became the first state to grant this right to public employees. In a dramatic turn of events, Wisconsin is now the first to repeal collective bargaining rights for its public sector employees.
After a standoff with state Democrats and prounion demonstrators, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and the state legislature decided that public employees did not have the right to collective bargaining. This set off a chain reaction in other states. For example, in 2017 lawmakers in Iowa proposed a bill to prohibit collective bargaining for state employees. This crackdown on collective bargaining could now act as a model for President Trump to overhaul the federal workforce. Scott Walker said that he spoke with Vice President Mike Pence about “how they may take bits and pieces of what we did” with the union law and “apply it at the national level.” However, these are only the words of Walker; President Trump hasn’t said anything about it yet. Either way, public sector employees are concerned about their future.
Questions
1. Why are politicians so interested in trying to repeal collective bargaining rights for public sector employees?
2. What risks does losing their collective bargaining rights hold for public employees?
3. As an elected politician charged with major cuts in your state budget, how would you negotiate with the public sector unions? As a public sector union leader, how would you negotiate with the state legislature?
Case 2 :The Arbitration Case of Jesse Stansky
At the arbitration hearing, both parties were adamant in their positions. Nancy Huang, HR manager of Phoenix Semiconductor, argued that the grievant, Jesse Stansky, was justly terminated for arguing and hitting a coworker—a direct violation of company policy and the employee handbook. Stansky argued that he had been a good employee during his 10 years of employment.
The submission agreement governing the case read, “It is the employer’s position that just cause existed for the discharge of Mr. Jesse Stansky and the penalty was appropriate for the offense committed.” Additionally, the employer introduced into evidence the labor agreement, which defined just cause termination as follows:
“Just cause shall serve as the basis for disciplinary action and includes, but is not limited to: dishonesty, inefficiency, unprofessional conduct, failure to report absences, falsification of records, violation of company policy, destruction of property, or possession or being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.”
Stansky was hired as a systems technician on November 20, 2003, a position “he held until his termination on October 25, 2017. According to the testimony of Huang, Phoenix Semiconductor strived to maintain a positive and cordial work environment among its employees. Fighting on the job was strictly prohibited. Stansky’s performance evaluation showed him to be an average employee, although he had received several disciplinary warnings for poor attendance and one 3-day suspension for a “systems control error.” Stansky was generally liked by his coworkers, and several testified on his behalf at the arbitration hearing.
The termination of Stansky concerned an altercation between himself and Gary Lindekin, another systems technician. According to witnesses to the incident, both Stansky and Lindekin became visibly upset over the correct way to calibrate a sensitive piece of production equipment. The argument—one witness called it no more than a heated disagreement— lasted approximately 3 minutes and concluded when Stansky was seen forcefully placing his hand on Lindekin’s shoulder. Lindekin took extreme exception to Stansky’s behavior and immediately reported the incident to management. After interviews with both Stansky and Lindekin and those who observed the incident, Huang, Samantha Lowry, the employee’s immediate supervisor, and Grant Ginn, department manager, decided that Stansky should be terminated for unprofessional conduct and violation of company policy.
Question:
1. Which arguments should be given more weight: those based on company policy, the employee handbook, and the labor agreement or mitigating factors given by the grievant and his witnesses? Explain.
2. How might unprofessional conduct be defined? Explain.
3. If you were the arbitrator, how would you rule in this case? Explain fully the reasons for your decision.
Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 50
Use the following coupon code :
NURSING10