- •Статьи для перевода на русский язык
- •Dating and Family Relationships in the Workplace: Should You Have a Policy? (8/11)
- •Summer Increase to irs Standard Mileage Rate (8/11)
- •Fragrance Sinsitivities at Work: Irritant or ada Issue? (8/11)
- •Are Written Policies Contracts? (8/11)
- •Notice Requirements for Policy Changes (8/11)
- •Are Your Exempt Classifications a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen? (7/11)
- •Gross Misconduct and cobra (7/11)
- •Supreme Court Rejects Giant Wal-Mart Class Action Discrimination Suit (7/11)
- •Employers Beware: The nlrb Is Targeting Nonunion Employers (6/11)
- •1099 Reporting Provision Repealed at Last (6/11)
- •New dol Phone App Underscores Importance of Accurate flsa Records (6/11)
- •Employee Medical Files (6/11)
- •It’s Official - Everyone (Almost) is Disabled Now Under New ada Regs (5/11)
- •Moonlighting: How to Deal with Employees’ Second Jobs (4/11)
- •Five Tips to Address Negative Facebook and other Social Media Postings (4/11)
- •Is “Being Unemployed” the Next Protected Class? (4/11)
- •Congress Closer to Passing 1099 Reporting Provision Repeal (4/11)
- •Medical Marijuana in the Workplace (4/11)
- •Guns in the Workplace (4/11)
- •Five Ways the dol Makes It Easier for Employees to Sue You (3/11)
- •Unanimous Supreme Court Broadens Title VII Retaliation Protections (3/11)
- •Can You Make Flexible Work Arrangements "Work" for You? (3/11)
- •Six Keys to Effective Performance Evaluations (2/11)
- •New Regulations on the Executive Agenda: How Will They Affect Your Workplace? (2/11)
- •New Year's Check Up: Do You Have the Right Workplace Posters (1/11)
- •Congress Extends Expiring Tax Cuts; Cuts Payroll Taxes for Employees (1/11)
- •Requiring Medical Certification for All Sick Days (1/11)
- •Irs Delays New w-2 Reporting Requirement (12/10)
- •Gina Final Regulations Finally Issued (12/10)
- •Paying Nonexempt Employees a Fixed Salary (12/10)
- •Reassignment Obligations and the ada (11/10)
- •Per Diem Rates Decline for Business Travel Expenses (11/10)
- •Be Careful Using Unpaid Suspensions to Discipline Exempt Employees (11/10)
- •Health Care Dependent Coverage Regulations Issued (10/10)
- •Health Care 1099 Reporting Rule Will Create New Tax Burden (10/10)
- •Modest Pay Increases Expected for 2011 as Economy Tries to Recover (10/10)
- •Required Leave for Part-Time Pregnant Employee (10/10)
- •Overtime When Paid Time Off Taken During Week (10/10)
- •You're Not Paranoid if Someone Really Is Watching You: Monitoring Employee Use of Social Media (9/10)
- •Tuition Tax Break Set to Expire (9/10)
- •Dol Clarifies Who Can Be Considered Like a Parent Under fmla (9/10)
- •Employee Benefits Remain Stable as Recession Lingers (9/10)
- •Independent Contractor Classification Causes Confusion, Potential Penalties (8/10)
- •New Child Labor Regs Expand "Safe" Jobs for Teens (8/10)
- •Pay for Employee Who Clocks In Early (8/10)
- •Your Harassment Response is Key to Prevent Liability (7/10)
- •Cobra Subsidy Expires - Will it Be Renewed? (7/10)
- •Supreme Court Allows Search of Public Employee's Text Messages (7/10)
- •Wage Overpayments (7/10)
- •Disclosing Status of Employee with Medical Problem (7/10)
- •Twelve Steps to Effective Workplace Searches (6/10)
- •New Laws Give Employers Hiring Incentive (6/10)
- •Ftc Requires Employees to Disclose Relationship on Blogs, Social Media (6/10)
- •How to Deal with an Employee with a Drinking Problem (6/10)
- •Voluntary Unpaid Vacation (6/10)
- •Can Anything Be Done to Stop the Avalanche of Wage and Hour Litigation? a Few Class Action Avoidance Options (5/10)
- •New Health Care Act Requires Breaks for Nursing Mothers (5/10)
- •Flsa Investigations: What to Expect When the dol Pays a Visit (5/10)
- •Job Demotion Because of Absenteeism (5/10)
- •Consider Religious Accommodations to Improve Employee Relations (4/10)
- •Cobra Subsidy Extended Only Through March; More to Come? (4/10)
- •Know Your Obligations Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (fcra) (4/10)
- •Is it Time to Revisit Your Distracted Driving Policy (3/10)
- •Make Better Promotion Decisions (3/10)
- •Irs and Obama Administration Target Independent Contractors (3/10)
- •Summer Increase to irs Standard Mileage Rate (8/11)
Статьи для перевода на русский язык
МАГИСТРАТУРА: УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ПЕРСОНАЛОМ
Магистранты, ваша задача перевести 50 000 знаков в течение года, т.е. по 25 000 в семестр.
Выберите интересующие вас статьи по проблеме исследования так, чтобы они были строго индивидуальны.
Посчитайте количество знаков с пробелами в тексте, пользуясь опцией «Число слов» (вторая в левом нижнем углу страницы). Для этого выделите нужный текст, затем левой клавишей мыши нажмите на «Число слов» – появится окно с подсчетом знаков.
Перевод сдается в отдельной папке, в которой распечатаны в формате А-4 шрифт 14 Arial или Times New Roman:
Текст оригинала
Ваш перевод
Словник на 600 слов и выражений
CD-ROM с текстами оригинала, переводом и словником.
ИСТОЧНИК: ЭЛЕКТРОННЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ PERSONNEL POLICY, INC
http://pps.infosolutions.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=pps:view
Раздел: HR MATTERS NEWSLETTERS
Dating and Family Relationships in the Workplace: Should You Have a Policy? (8/11)
Conflicts can and do occur when employees date each other or work with family members. But, policies that ban these relationships can be difficult to enforce and may result in legal claims. So, your best bet is to focus on the underlying performance issues, not the social or family ties.
Are you concerned about the potential conflicts that can occur when employees date or marry, or when family members work together? In the past, employers concerned about these tensions often imposed rules prohibiting the hiring or retention of an employee’s relatives (referred to as nepotism policies) or dating among coworkers (referred to as anti-fraternization policies). Some employers even viewed anti-fraternization policies as a way to reduce the sexual harassment complaints that can arise when consensual romantic relationships sour. However, these policies are controversial, difficult to enforce, and can generate potential legal claims. Many employers, therefore, prefer to permit the hiring of relatives and allow employee dating, except when clear-cut conflicts or performance problems appear likely. Legal, Practical Problems Outweigh Perceived Benefits Certainly, rules prohibiting nepotism and fraternization may prevent some of the more obvious difficulties that can result from close personal relationships between coworkers. Common problems include favoritism, personal squabbles impacting work time, and problems scheduling vacations and shift work for married employees. These restrictive rules also may help reduce the chances of employees improperly sharing confidential information about your business. Even so, you must weigh the possible benefits of these policies against the legal and practical difficulties of enforcing them. Policies prohibiting employment of spouses and relatives and coworker dating are controversial since they attempt to regulate an employee’s personal relationships. Although courts generally uphold the employer’s right to institute them as long as they are implemented consistently, state laws prohibiting marital status discrimination can restrict their application. Courts that have upheld these rules include Ellis v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 523 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2008), where the court questioned the wisdom of the UPS anti-nepotism policy, which forbade managers from dating hourly employees, but it nonetheless found no violation of Title VII when a black manager was terminated after marrying a white hourly employee. The court determined that there was no evidence that UPS applied the policy disproportionately against employees who were in interracial relationships. Similarly, in Adamson v. Multi Cmty. Diversified Servs., 514 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2008), the court found no discriminatory pattern in the employer’s application of its nepotism policy that limits employment of relatives if they will be supervised by a close relative when it fired the CEO husband and his wife and daughter, whom he hired and directly supervised. Furthermore the court unequivocally stated that “familial status” is not protected by Title VII. But, these policies also can subject you to sex discrimination claims, under the theory that the rule has a disparate impact on females, particularly if they are the ones normally terminated because of the relationship. For example, in EEOC v. Rath Packing Co., 787 F.2d 318 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 910 (1986), the court determined that the employer failed to establish a business necessity for the no-spouse rule that disproportionately excluded female applicants since it could not show that the problems it experienced in employing spouses (such as poor worker morale) had any demonstrable effect on safety or efficiency. Further, a number of states specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status under their fair employment practice laws. Whether a no-spouse rule violates a state marital status discrimination law depends on the wording of the statute and court interpretations of the state law. For example, some states (including Colorado and Wisconsin) only allow employers to discharge or refuse to hire a spouse if one spouse would directly supervise, audit, or receive money handled by the other spouse. Other states (including Kansas and Hawaii) specifically prohibit an employer from terminating or refusing to hire an employee as a result of marriage to another employee. Besides the legal pitfalls, you also should consider several practical problems associated with these policies. For example, you will find it very difficult to enforce any rules that apply to off-duty conduct. In addition, employees often resent the rules as an invasion of their privacy. Furthermore, these rules can exclude precious talent. Organizations in remote areas or communities dominated by a single employer often struggle to attract qualified workers. These employers cannot afford to limit the available labor pool with prohibitions that exclude the employment of spouses, dating couples, or related individuals. Perhaps worse yet, you stand to lose a significant investment in recruiting, hiring, and training when an employee who meets and marries a coworker is later forced to resign under a nepotism rule. And, as a final practical consideration, recent surveys show that dating in the workplace is common. A 2010 survey conducted by Monster Worldwide Inc. for Spherion indicated that 36% of surveyed adults had engaged in a romantic relationship in the workplace, and 12% had married their coworkers. So if you have not had to confront the issue yet, it likely is just a matter of time before you do. Focus on the Conflicts and Not the Relationship What, then, can you do to address the problems these policies are meant to prevent but still avoid the practical and legal pitfalls often associated with these relationships? Instead of refusing to hire or retain an employee’s relatives or prohibiting employee dating, focus on the specific conduct that disrupts your workplace, like favoritism, irregular attendance (extended lunches or shortened workdays), and inappropriate behavior. You probably already address most of these matters with your existing policies and work rules on issues like breaks, attendance, and workplace behavior. In addition, to further minimize the potential for problems, consider adopting limited restrictions prohibiting supervisory relationships between related or dating employees and any actual conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts, that may result from these relationships. (You will find model policy language addressing these types of conflicts in HIRING, Chapter 202, Comments (7) and (8).) As a final note, you should shift your focus from your employees’ personal relationships to actual objectionable workplace behavior. Then, you can address legitimate performance problems without acting like an unreasonable and intrusive “Big Brother.”