Introduction
There are quite many exempts from the Occupational Safety and Health Act as the management is often free from many provisions of the act due to the peculiarities of the industry companies operate in. Thus, employees working in offices often neglect various regulations related to health and safety. Managers also pay little attention to these issues when it comes to working places that are not associated with health hazards.
Nonetheless, many injuries occur in such safe areas. For example, novice employees may be unaware of the peculiarities of using some devices and tools effectively. One of the illustrations of insufficient mentoring can such an occasion as a coffee break. I have been a witness of several situations when employees got insignificant burns as they could not use the coffee machine properly as no one told them about a peculiarity of this common office appliance. This simple and quite widespread case shows that proper mentoring and training are essential. It is a manger’s (or mentor’s) responsibility to explain everything to newcomers so that they could avoid any injuries and traumas.
In light of the recent events concerning the terroristic attack in some European countries, it is but natural to include safety measures associated with terroristic attacks and other incidents in safety training. The need to focus on safety is specifically urgent for companies involved in such areas as entertainment (cinemas, amusement parks, and so on), restaurants and cafes, the hospitality industry, and so on.
Managers should develop a sound plan concerning the way employees should behave in the case of certain events. It is vital to provide the necessary training to employees. Therefore, companies should hire trainers or HR managers who can provide training as these professionals will develop up-to-date training programs that will help them make employees ready for the challenges that might occur.
Federal Civil Service Legislation
One of the most common prohibited personnel practices under Federal Civil Service Legislation is associated with gender bias. Managers should not discriminate against (or for) any applicant or employee. However, HR professionals, as well as managers, tend to be biased. For instance, some may think that some professions are appropriate for females while others are suitable for men exclusively.
Thus, therapists and HR professionals are mainly females while such positions as detectives or heads of departments are often occupied by men. Many people still believe that females are too emotional and can hardly manage complex tasks especially when it comes to leading positions. At the same time, men are thought to lack empathy, compassion, and other qualities that are important for working with people. Clearly, this prejudice often undermines the development of companies as many employees have to remain in the wrong place.
Importantly, occupational socialization hinders positive changes in HR practices associated with affirmative actions as quite biased views are spreading. I know several managers who still think that there are professions for men and women, which affects their decisions. The private sector can be especially gender-segregated as business owners are free to make their decisions with little attention to affirmative action initiatives.
They tend to hire people of a specific gender when it comes to certain positions. They also try to follow affirmative action regulations through hiring more women but at the same time excluding them from certain areas. Thus, the quotas are followed, but there is still certain discrimination. Interestingly, the educational sphere is also gender-biased, so-to-speak. Science teachers are often males. I know a person who had difficulties receiving a job in colleges, which can be due to the fact that she was a female as her credentials were quite remarkable.
Human Service Models and Supervision
The human service model of employees’ supervision presupposes a great deal of autonomy for employees as well as significant attention to their goals. However, when it comes to criminal agency organizations, these characteristic features of supervision make it difficult and even impossible to implement. Such peculiarities of criminal agency organizations as multiple goals and complex structures are major barriers to the successful implementation of the supervision model mentioned. More importantly, serious legal issues may arise if the model is utilized.
Corruption is one of the most common concerns associated with the work of criminal agency organizations. People fear that significant autonomy and limited supervision can entice employees into unlawful activities. The supervision model presupposes employees’ commitment to organizational goals. However, funding can seem insufficient for many, and some employees may strive for gaining some benefits, which will negatively affect the system as well as the development of society.
Furthermore, all criminal agency organizations often have multiple goals that are sometimes even difficult to define. Thus, maintaining order can be defined and understood differently. Employees may have different views on the matter and have different approaches to achieving goals. This is where regulations and standards, as well as supervision, come into play.
Police brutality can be regarded as another example of possible outcomes of the implementation of the human service model of supervision. Police officers have to comply with various regulations and receive certain supervision. However, there are still cases of police brutality. It occurs due to different goals and ethical values of employees as they often think that harsh methods are justified as the order is the priority. Clearly, the lack of supervision and a considerable degree of autonomy may lead to an increase in police brutality.
The Federal Hatch Act
The basic provisions of the Federal Hatch act imply the prohibition imposed on almost all employees of the executive branch (only the President and some other executives are excluded) who cannot be involved in any political activity. They cannot overtly support political candidates, and they cannot take an active part in political campaigns. When it comes to criminal justice employees, this prohibition is justified and even necessary.
Clearly, criminal justice employees have certain (sometimes significant) authority among people living in a community. Their political views can affect the way people may vote. Apart from an authority, these employees often have certain power and control over other individuals.
Thus, criminal justice employees may make people vote for a particular candidate or political power in return for some assistance in legal issues. Therefore, two major problems occur. On the one hand, a political force receives unfair support, which may affect the development of the community and even the entire country. On the other hand, a specific type of corruption will flourish. Individuals will understand that some laws or regulations can be violated, which can have detrimental effects on the whole system in the long run.
For example, an employee of a criminal justice organization can ask relatives of convicts to vote for a particular political force or politician in exchange for ensuring appropriate conditions for their close one. At the same time, the political force or politician could be obliged to impose particular regulations that would favor some criminal justice entities. Clearly, this act is rather controversial as it restricts certain people’s rights, but the outcomes of these individuals’ participation in political activities can be negative, and employees of criminal justice organizations should not have any opportunity to shape political agendas.
First Amendment
The case of Pool is interesting in terms of many respects. Her claims concerning the First Amendment provisions and her right to free speech are of particular interest. Pool expressed her opinion concerning her boss, which can be regarded as her right. Clearly, individuals are free to express their opinion. This is often encouraged as others can feel more confident based on other people’s experiences. Nonetheless, Pool is an employee of a criminal justice organization, which makes her an official person who has a certain authority.
Therefore, her opinion and views can potentially affect other people’s choices. This is a serious legal issue to focus on as, on the one hand, a person’s basic right is limited. On the other hand, this individual has a certain authority, and people may make political decisions shaped by this individual’s opinion rather than their own experience, ideas, will. The employee of a criminal justice organization is often trusted in the community, and every word can have various implications.
Therefore, certain exceptions to some of the protections of the First Amendment are justified. Individuals who have greater authority or power in the community should understand the responsibility they have. They should understand that each word can affect the development of their community. In some cases, these effects can be rather negative. The case of Pool shows that free speech is a tricky issue that can be associated with numerous legal issues. The First Amendment is one of the pillars of US democracy, but employees of criminal justice organizations, as well as people who have some power and authority, should be responsible. Some regulations can help these individuals remember the outcomes of the words and actions.