Search results

Objective: Our goal was to briefly describe how macroergonomics was developed to fill a void in human factors and ergonomics. Background: A study commissioned by the Human Factors Society in 1978 resulted in the formalization of a new subdiscipline of human factors, called organizational design and management, which eventually was coined macroergonomics.Method: Differentiators of macroergonomics are presented along with methods adapted from other domains as well as unique methods. Results: Based on laboratory and field studies conducted at multiple universities, government facilities, and industries, work system factors can be manipulated in the laboratory and studied in the field successfully. Also, case studies in academia, industry, and government demonstrate 60% to 90% performance impact and positive qualitative changes such as culture change. Conclusion: Macroergonomics offers a perspective as well as methods and tools for more successful human factors and ergonomics design, development, intervention, and implementation. Application: Human factors engineers or psychologists and ergonomists can use the perspective of macroergonomics to achieve better results or can expand their involvement of macroergonomics through the use of methods and tools.

This paper describes a comparative survey study involving a sample of 437 organization members. A major implication drawn from the findings is that the common assumption that the organic-adaptive type of organization is more "humanistic" for more people in America today than a moderate bureaucratic-mechanistic type may not be valid.

"Blowing the whistle" has never been an easy decision whether an employee is from the private sector or the public sector. Laws to protect employees from the private sector had been long established while whistleblowers from the public sector may have been scrutinized. After the media aired many high profile cases in which federal whistleblowers go through a series of retaliations by their supervisors, laws have been introduced to protect government whistleblowers as well. Although these laws have significantly given courage to whistleblowers, it is not without its flaws. There are still agencies that ignore these laws or find ways around these laws in order to cover up some of their own mistakes. The government must continue to find ways to encourage more people to step up and expose wrongdoings for the good of society.

The workers' compensation system in California has had a long history of polemic and change. California businesses, lawmakers and political organizations have been intent on creating a system that provides the injured workers of California with comfort and support in the event of an injury and control costs for employers. However, all the reforms and efforts resulted in the creation of a complex, expensive and inefficient system. In the last couple of years, the workers' compensation system in California has become the most expensive system in the nation. Reforming the system has become the most important issue in lawmakers' agendas. On April 19, 2004, a new reform was introduced. SB 899 has brought about changes to all the benefits offered under the system. This reform (SB 899) is a strong effort to bring down the skyrocketing costs of the system and revitalize the business environment in California.

Age discrimination is common and occurs in all types of industries, fields, and professions all across the world. The common misperceptions about "older workers" include hard‐to‐break habits, technological ignorance, and lack of energy and flexibility. Such attitudes, expectations, and perceptions of older workers should not exist in our professional community. Whether old or young, all people should be treated with respect and dignity. The purpose of this article is to understand the reasons behind age discrimination and ways to prevent it from occurring in the workplace. Removing age discrimination in the workplace lies in the hands of all organisations. First, they need to demolish the myths of age and realise its strengths, such as reliability, mature judgement, lack of impulsivity, timeliness, strong work ethics, and experience. Second, upper management should educate its chain of managers and supervisors about the effects discrimination has on the company's financial situation as well as its reputation. The government plays a major role in enforcing the laws regarding age discrimination and punishing those who are unlawful.

During the past few years there has been an increase in the number of claims filed at the EEOC. There has also been an increase in the number of discrimination suits based on national origin, religion, and age bias. Recent settlements against Ford Motor Company and Johnson Higgins also show that the monetary threat to employers is on the rise. This increase in claims and settlements coincides with changes that have been made to the legislation and guidelines that the EEOC follow. In 2003, the EEOC added new and additional guidelines on national origin discrimination. It is increasingly important that managers review and understand EEOC guidelines about discrimination. With a thorough understanding managers can limit, mediate, and possibly prevent discrimination claims within their organisation.

Despite laws like the Civil Rights Acts and the Americans with Disabilities Act, customers in restaurants are still faced with an inordinate amount of discrimination. The most prevalent forms of discrimination are race and disability based. Large restaurant chains such as the Waffle House and Cracker Barrel have learned nothing from the landmark Denny's discrimination case as they face potentially larger class action suits today. Despite the bad news, there have been significant developments toward limiting restaurant discrimination. They are the industry wide impact of Denny's diversity training programme and a recent court decision strengthening the ADA. The only true ways to limit and eradicate discrimination from restaurants is to continue educating our children about diversity, insist on expanding corporate diversity programmes, and increasing penalties on those organisations that do discriminate.

The legal and political roots of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) owe themselves to the civil rights era of the 1960s, which passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. From the 1970s to the 1990s, activism among the disabled became increasingly visible. In 1986, congress passed the Air Carriers Act, which addressed the rights of the disabled when using air transportation. Later in 1988, the Civil Rights Restoration Act was passed along with the Fair Housing Amendments Act (Historical, 2003).

The year is 1985. A man applies for a teaching position at the local high school. Despite his stellar educational credentials and his being the best qualified candidate for the position, he is denied the job. The reason is because he has no legs and is confined to a wheelchair. The high school is very old and is not wheelchair accessible. There are no elevators, and even if the disabled man were assigned to a classroom on the first floor, there are a series of steps to climb to enter each building on campus, and the doorways to the classrooms are too narrow for a wheelchair to fit through. These are just a few of the myriad physical obstacles on campus that would prevent him from doing his job. The school officials regretfully send him on his way.

This article provides guidance to employers and managers regarding their obligations under the California State Labour Code. Federal labour laws will be discussed as these two bodies of law are closely related in some areas as the state code has flowed from federal legislation. The state labour code imposes requirements on hiring and firing, employee benefits and wages, collective bargaining and worker health and safety. The article confines itself to the statutory scheme of the state labour code and how it is interpreted by courts and scholars. Case law imposes additional requirements upon the employer‐employee relationship in California but this is outside the scope of this article. The source of most of the information contained herein has come from the code itself as supplemented by cases and scholarly commentary. The article will only deal with California law and therefore may be inapplicable to other states.