Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- CONTENTS -- Introduction -- ANALYSIS -- 1 What are the Questions? -- 2 The Age of Growth -- 3 Stagflation -- 4 Thinking about Thinking -- 5 Accumulation and Exploitation: An Analysis in the Tradition of Marx, Sraffa and Kalecki -- 6 Keynes and Ricardo -- 7 Time in Economic Theory -- CONTROVERSY -- 8 The Disintegration of Economics -- 9 Survey: 1950s -- 10 Survey: 1960s -- 11 Debate: 1970s -- 12 Retrospect: 1980 -- 13 Misunderstandings in the Theory of Production -- TRIBUTES -- 14 Joseph Schumpeter: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

This textbook acquaints readers with the major federal statutes and regulations that control management and employment practices in the American workplace. The material is presented from the perspective that the human resource professional is the employer's representative and is, therefore, responsible for protecting the employer's interests and reducing the employer's exposure to litigation through monitoring activities and viable employee policies. The book is designed as a tool for today's business and management professionals, and unlike some other texts in the field, maintains a pro-busin.

On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a five to four decision, substantially altered the nature of state imposed affirmative action permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it held that diversity could serve as a compelling government interest, thus justifying public sector preferential programs. Though this ruling pertained specifically to race-based preferential university admissions, it is likely to have wide ranging implications for all public sector affirmative action programs. One implication may include making it easier to justify state initiated affirmative action by diminishing the requirement to demonstrate the remedial motive behind such action. This article discusses the impact that the Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger decisions are likely to have on preferential admissions policies in public higher education.

This article examines the post-tenure review (PTR) policies in American institutions of higher education as a means of identifying and documenting faculty performance deficiencies from a legalistic perspective. In addressing this issue, a brief review of PTR policies and their history, as well as some of the misconceptions of the protection provided by tenured status, is provided. The main focus of the article is placed upon the just-cause termination of tenured faculty members, paying particular attention to the due process protections afforded such faculty. In conclusion, we examine the organizational costs of failing to dispel the myths that tenured faculty are 'termination-proof and invulnerable to any disciplinary sanctions.

This article presents the results of a survey questionnaire developed to ascertain which of three constituent groups (Superiors, Peers, and Subordinates) in the workplace has the greatest influence on rater compliance with employee performance appraisal guidelines. The research found that superiors had the greatest influence on rater compliance with rating procedures.

Since the mid-1980s, affirmative action plans (AAPs) have come under ever increasing criticism. Many detractors argue that AAPs serve no purpose other than to veil thinly reverse discrimination against whites. In the twenty-five years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critics contend that substantial progress has been made in the area of equal opportunities for women and minorities and that affirmative action plans now have outlived their usefulness. Additionally, it is argued that affirmative action has created an employment spoils system in which people who actually never have experienced discrimination are reaping benefits at the expense of white males.1 This shift in public opinion was sufficiently strong in 1985 to encourage then Attorney General Edwin Meese to call for an amended Executive Order which would eliminate the "quota system," referring to AAPs.2 President Reagan, however, did not amend the Executive Order and affirmative action remained throughout his administration and into the next.

In 1995 a series of federal court decisions called into question the efficacy of race-based preferential treatment programs initiated by two leading public universities.1 Both decisions occurred at a time when government-imposed, race-conscious remedial measures are being increasingly challenged on the grounds that they either violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964,2 or breach the guarantee of equal protection under the laws provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. Most recently, a federally mandated race-based preference was successfully challenged on the grounds that it violated an "implied" equal protection clause in the Fifth Amendment.3 As a further indication of this shift away from state supported racial preferences, legislation is pending in Congress4 that, if enacted, would make the consideration of any individual's race, color, national origin or gender in regard to selection or eligibility for any federal program unlawful.