Public Personnel Management

· Required

· Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations: A strategic approach. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

· Part 1: Human Resources Management in Context

· Chapter 3: Federal Equal Opportunity Laws and Other Employee Protections

View:

· Required

· Web sites:

· U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2014). EEOC Web page (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov.

· Department of Labor. (2008). Your rights under USERRA (Links to an external site.) [PDF file size 438 KB]. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/USERRA_Federal.pdf.

 

Respond to the below peers postings with responses to their post and it must a minimum of 250 words per peer response.

M2D1:

A Muslim Woman’s Right to Wear a Head Scarf at Work

Please read the case study on page 107 in Pynes’s book entitled “A Muslim Woman’s Right to Wear a Head Scarf at Work.”

 

Peer One:

 

Regarding the case of Kimberlie Webb and her request to wear khimar, several factors likely influenced the city’s decision and the court. First, this issue started in 2003, eight years after Webb began working for the police department (Pynes, 2013). While people have the right to shift their religious views and level of devoutness, she was well aware of its policy on uniform appearance. Additionally, 2003 was during the height of the War on Terror, and the attack on the World Trade Center was only new in the public’s mind. With this came an increased skepticism on Muslim Americans and likely influenced the case’s decisions to protect the officer and prevent public distrust. Regardless, the police force had no exceptions for religious or secular deviations from their uniformed appearance (Pynes, 2013).

Additionally, when police officers or military members are in uniform, they do not represent their personal views or beliefs, but rather their agency. This is done to give the public the perception and assurance that the force is acting in the public’s interest versus some officer’s personally vested interest. As such, I believe that the court’s decision and the city was fair, especially considering that they found no measures of retaliation taken against the officer (Pynes, 2013). What Webb should have done is appealed this change to whatever necessary oversight and had the policy amended before breaking the rules.

If Webb was not in a public-facing role, I do not believe this would have been dealt with the same way. Police support positions generally do not have uniforms but rather professional dress code. I believe this would have been an easier exception to policy to allow Webb to wear her religious head garment. As I noted earlier, this was 2003, and even devout Muslim members were wary of wearing their religious items. She likely may have received pushback due to heightened concerns at the time and possibly would have a greater case of discrimination. Regardless, as long as the khimar met dress code standards such as neutral color, I don’t see why a non-public facing non-uniform employee could not wear such an item today.

I believe that there should be policies in place regarding wearing religious dress and symbols at work. It is difficult for an employee to refute unstated rules when it comes to discrimination. If rules are applied equitably, such as zero allowance of any religious affiliation items, the employees are not discriminated against. However, if an agency allowed certain religions to be represented and not others, this would be unfair and discriminatory under any circumstance. The rules in place should depend on the nature of the role. A public-facing, uniformed position should appear apolitical and religiously neutral.

Meanwhile, positions that have limited to no public interaction should have looser standards but otherwise are compatible with the organization’s dress code. Finally, positions that are around heavy machinery or otherwise pose a health or safety issue for the employee or those around them should not be allowed to wear the religious item. I believe it is prudent of the organization to justify whatever the position they take for each job type and include this logic in their policies.

References

Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations: A strategic approach. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

 

 

Peer Two:

 

· Do you agree with the city’s and the judge’s position? State your reasons.

Referring to the case listed in Pynes, 2013 on page 107, I do agree with the judge’s position, and I agree that it could cause undue hardship on the organization. Besides the fact that I think it would be nice to see representation in police officers, I agree with the reasoning for staying neutral to religion. In general, neutrality protects officers, and uniformity allows the department to appear as a united front. If officers were too individualized, it might lead to uninvited biases from citizens.

· If Webb was not a sworn police officer, do you think there would be a problem accommodating her wearing of the khimar?

In my opinion, I do not think this would be a problem if she was in dispatch and not a visual representation of the department. In general, I cannot imagine there are too many jobs that would have undue hardship from Webb wearing her khimar. I think the role that she plays in an organization would depend on the likelihood of future problems.

· Should organizations have policies in place in regard to the wearing of religious dress or symbols? If so, what should they be?

I think that when considering this question, we should think of the organizations on an individual basis. I think that all organizations should have to consider religious dress or symbols, and if they cannot be accommodating, they need a specific policy explaining why representation would cause undue harm on the organization.

 

Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations: A strategic approach. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

 

Peer Three:

 

· Do you agree with the city’s and the judge’s position? State your reasons.

I agree with the cities and the judge’s position on wearing of religious outfit at the workplace. Wearing religious outfit is a violation of directive 78 which state that there should be religious neutrality and also promote the need for neutrality (Pynes, 2013). Wearing religious outfit also violate the uniform regulation of the department. one should present himself as a neutral officer of the state to the public. They should wear an outfit that shows they are ready to enforce the law fairly without regarding the religion of the suspect or the victim. Hence wearing a religious outfit will bring about fear of biases in the police department.

 

· If Webb was not a sworn police officer, do you think there would be a problem accommodating her wearing of the khimar?

There would be no problem with her wearing a khimar. Wearing a Khimar visibly expresses faith, modesty, and piety among the Muslims. Many Muslims believe that women must cover their hair. If one tells them to remove they will feel threatened and violated. Title vii do not permit employers to discharge an employee because of their religion (Sutevski, 2020). Employers are required to accommodate the religion of the employees and their requirements. unless accommodation of this religion would cause undue hardship on the employer business or other employees

 

· Should organizations have policies in place in regard to the wearing of religious dress or symbols? If so, what should they be?

Yes. Some of these policies include identity policy, safety policy, and policy on business public image. Wearing some religious outfits such as hijabs while operating machinery can cause an accident as these loose clothing may be entangled into the machinery. Some religions require on to cover their face leaving only the eyes. These can cause a breach of identity. Some organization requires uniformity of all the employees.

Reference

Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations: A strategic approach. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

 

 

Respond to the below peers postings with responses to their post and it must a minimum of 250 words per peer response.

 

M2D2:

 

Peer One:

 

I feel that a particularly effective equal opportunity program was establishing the Command Managed Equal Opportunity (CMEO) program. This was effective as it established a central entity that dealt with all related training, reporting, and management of equal opportunity and sexual harassment complaints and instances (United States Navy [USN], 2019). This ensured each command had a designated person that everyone could contact to deal with any instance that they believed might even remotely meet discrimination criteria and seek guidance and action if deemed relevant (USN, 2019). While it is unlikely that this made people less discriminatory, it established a more reliable and impartial authority to deal with these matters. It allows sailors to pursue protection and action against individuals they felt acted incorrectly, even if they are in a position of power over them. As the CMEO reports directly to the commanding officer, any issue will not be disregarded due to rank or other biases.

Additionally, the Navy in 2017 made this position a primary duty that a qualified service member would receive s for, establishing it as a primary duty rather than a collateral duty (USN, 2019). This program enhancement further solidifies the program as a reliable and universal source of protection for any sailor, regardless of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity), national origin, or sexual orientation (USN, 2019). Obviously, the effectiveness of this program is determined by the individuals assigned to these roles. However, as this program is now long-established, sailors are assured avenues to pursue any wrongdoing.

There have been a few policies that the Navy and the Department of Defense has held that have fallen short of expectations. However, the worst that I have witnessed and seems the most obvious was Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. For those who are unaware of this policy, it established a policy that made it unlawful to harass or interrogate individuals who were not outed or not suspected as LGBTQ. This was ineffective as it still represented a form of discrimination. If the service member is outed or openly LGBTQ, they could then be harassed, interrogated, and removed from service (Feder, 2013). This was because the armed forces determined that those who appeared to engage in LGBTQ activities were taking unacceptable risks that hurt unit cohesion, morale, and discipline (Feder, 2013). This policy was in place when I first joined the Navy. I did see people removed from service as a result of their sexual orientation. It was a waste. They were all otherwise qualified to serve, and no one in leadership seemed to care in any way. Some sailors would use this as an unfortunate opportunity to report sailors of LGBTQ activities, whether or not it was true, to get them kicked out. This created a toxic environment, especially for newer members, where they distrusted their fellow sailors. When this policy was repealed, a few months after I joined, servicemembers were slow to come out as the fear of retaliation was still present. Fortunately, new service members who come in do not have that same fear that older servicemembers still may have ingrained.

Referencess

Feder, J. (2013, August 6). “Don’t ask, don’t tell”: A legal analysis (CRS Report No. R40795). Retrieved https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40795.pdf

United States Navy (2019). Command managed equal opportunity (CMEO) manager. Retrieved from

https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/21st_Century_Sailor/equal_opportunity/Pages/CMEOs.aspx

 

 

Peer Two:

 

What was the most successful policy or training program? What made it successful?

Most employment requires additional training once they are hired and typically everyone regardless of their position attends the same week long training.  After training they are pushed into their respective workstations and expected to succeed. That same concept for the most part works the same way in the military. We go to Basic Training and then attend Technical School for OJT, upon completion we are sent to our base and expected to know they job.

In speaking with some of the airman I oversee a lot of them shared that they would like to have more hands-on-training prior to being placed in their respective workstations. This promoted me to go to leadership and provide the feedback that airman had been sharing with me. I was then basically told “okay make it happen”. Not knowing how or what I was going to do, I started thinking about how I felt those 18yrs ago when I first joined. My conclusion was, I felt the same way, the process hadn’t changed, I went to Basic and Tech School, came back and was expected to knowledgeable and proficient in my job.

After reviewing the budget and doing a lot asking for extra funds, lol, I implemented the “Seasoning Training Program. This program allowed incoming airman who had the time and wanted the extra training to be placed on “Active Duty Orders” for 6 months. During this time, I partnered with our 4th FSS and other Active Duty Locations and had those airman work with them. This allowed them time to again confidence in their jobs, network with other military members and most importantly prepared them for next steps in their military career.

We started doing this training program in 2007 and I am happy to say that although I do not oversee this requirement anymore, the training is still being offered and our airman are coming to us more prepared.

 

What was the least successful policy or training program? What could have been done to improve it?

I previously worked for worked for a college that implemented a training program called “Consultative Approach”. This training program that was geared towards guiding the conversation staff had with current and potential students and get them enrolled in classes. Part of the hiring process for new staff on-boarding required all new hires to be quizzed on this approach and do a role play over the phone with one of the Success Coaches. If the On-boarding Training Team did not feel the staff did well then, those new hires would be required to get re-certified within 30 days of their employment.

I knew from the beginning that this was a horrible training program and policy and was honestly one of the reasons I left the college several years ago. They stopped being in the business of truly helping students and focused more on how my students were being enrolled. The first issue I saw with this the training program was having a list of around 20 questions that advisors were mandated and told they would need to ask a student when they called. So, if a student called and asked a question about financial aid, the advisor would have to ask all these questions that had nothing to do with what the student asked. Also, staff began to sound like robots and salesman and students began to get frustrated having to answer all these extra unnecessary questions.

My last issue with this training was that you had people training that was not in HigherEd and didn’t have experience with advising students. One of the trainers came from banking, you can can’t use a banking approach when working adult students. I made the decision that at my site I would not require my staff to ask all those questions. People time is valuable, and focus should be on getting the students’ needs met and questions answered in a timely manner. I didn’t want students to fell pressured or unheard and in my opinion that is what the “Consultative Approach” did.

Shortly after I left the college one of my former staff told me that a lot of students began complaining and that HR decided to reverse this certification and not make it a requirement.

 

Reference

Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations: A strategic approach. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

 

Peer Three:

 

· What was the most successful policy or training program? What made it successful?

· What was the least successful policy or training program? What could have been done to improve it?

The most successful policy in the organization I worked for was gender policy. For instance, the organization was promoting a better work-life balance for both genders. This included the training programs which were not discriminative. Besides, the mentorship programs were done to everyone in the organization irrespective of their gender. The organization promoted fair behavior in the workplace that saw to it, there was no sexual harassment. In this case, the organization laid down strict policies against harassment offenses. There was transparency in the payment of all the employees. The organization ensured there was equity and was against favoritism. During hiring, the organization ensured that it created an inclusive gender-diverse workplace. Additionally, the interview panel was diversified. The leadership roles were not gender-based but it was for deserving candidates with the right attributes. Furthermore, everyone’s opinion counted in policymaking. In this case, gender was not an issue.

On the other hand, the least policy was the sexual orientation policy.  Most of the employees remained in the closet in terms of their gender orientation. The organization was not sure about how to handle employees with different sexual orientations. Besides, if managers know the hidden sexual orientation of employees it may make their career difficult. To improve this, the organization could have created an open environment whereby everyone was free to put forward their sexual orientation. Another thing that made the policy unsuccessful was the absence of rules and regulations to protect minorities from sexual orientation issues in the workplace. To improve this the organization should consider the sexual minorities y formulating policies and rules that make them inclusive.

Reference

Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations: A strategic approach. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

Sutevski, D. (2020). 5 Strategies to Improve Your Business Knowledge Fast. Retrieved 2     September 2020, from https://www.entrepreneurshipinabox.com/11805/5-strategies-         improve-knowledge-business/

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your paper today and save 30% with the discount code HAPPY

X
Open chat
1
You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp! Via + 1 323 412 5597

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code HAPPY