Review of Movie 'Inside Job' Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Of 'Inside Job' - Movie Review Example Loan companies and banks became more free to gamble with the money of the depositors, borrow much more money and to offer the investors highly complex financial structures. They offered financial instruments which had streams of income from different bundled up debts this included the high interest home loans that the high risk borrowers were offered. Theses sub-prime markets offered abnormally high returns. A legal analysis of the film documents the fraud perpetrated by investment banks and their role in causing the 2008 global financial meltdown (Ferguson). Fraud refers to a false representation of a factual matter whether by conduct or words, by misleading or false allegations or by hiding of what should have been revealed. Fraud is prevalent in the buying or selling of intangible property such as stocks, copyrights, and bonds. Fraud is proved though five stages; a falsified statement of a material fact. Secondly, the knowledge on the defendants part that the statement is untrue. Third, intent on the defendant’s part to deceive the victim. Fourth, the victim’s justifiable reliance on the falsified statement and the final stage is injury to the victim. The film ‘inside job’ reveals instances of Fraud as discussed in the paragraph below. The film ‘inside job’ reveals that Goldman Sachs, an investment company, was guilty of fraud. The company recommended their customers to go for the Timberwolf mortgages claiming that they were backed with securities. They highly recommended the customers to take the deal yet they aware of the loopholes. They secretly discussed that Timberwolf was a lame deal but this was after they sold the securities to them. When selling the securities they lied about the expected performances and the securities and failed to disclose and provide accurate and timely information about the real value of the said securities. The company was betting against

Toyota Motor Corporation Essay Example for Free

Toyota Motor Corporation Essay In a business organization, the organization is composed of systems that concentrate on overall efficiency. A systems approach is essential whenever something is being designed, redesigned, implemented, improved, or otherwise changed. It is important to take into account the impact on all parts of the system. Consider owning and operating an automobile. It has many parts and systems that can malfunction; some of these are critical. The automobile would not function or would be dangerous to operate without them. The Toyota Company seemed to have missed the importance of the impact on all parts a system as they came under scrutiny with the largest recall of vehicles in the United States in 2009-2010. These recalls were triggered by a car collision in August 2009 that took the lives of four people. This assignment will look at what barriers caused the systems to fail within the Toyota Company that subsequently changed the attitudes of their consumers and their trust towards Toyota. Toyota Motor Corporation The Toyota Motor Corporation was established in 1933 as a division of Toyoda Automatic Loom Works under the direction of Kiichiro Toyoda. In 1934, the company produced its first Type A engine at the encouragement of the Japanese government, and two years later the company produced its first passenger car, the Toyota AA and in 1937 was established as an independent company. In 1957 Toyota established its first sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary in the U.S., called Toyota Motor Sales Inc. In 1982, Toyota Motor Corporation formed a joint venture with General Motors, called New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. and began production in the U.S. in 1988 establishing new brands for this market. In 2009, Toyota employed more than 8,900 people and supervised 14 regional offices throughout the 50 states. Toyota produced 5.2 million cars in 58 production sites in 2000, and by 2009 they had the capacity to produce 10 million cars and had added 17 production sites. Toyota had added the capacity of a Chrysler-sized company. (Greto et al., 2010). In January 2010, Toyota suspended sales of eight recalled vehicle models to fix accelerator pedals with mechanical problems that could cause them to become stuck. In December 2012, Toyota announced an agreement worth more than $1,000 million to settle a lawsuit involving unintended acceleration in some of its vehicles (Slobe, 2010) Existing Processes According to Greto et al.(2010) the Toyota company incorporated a philosophy known as the Toyota Way. This set of principles was to bring about approaches that called for continuous improvement, which encouraged teamwork, respect, and value for people. The Toyota Way was to encourage employees to strive for perfection. Another key process to mention is the Toyota Production System (TPS). It was designed to remove all unnecessary waste from the production and manufacturing process. More than just waste avoidance, it aimed to eliminate any excess interruption, misalignment, unnecessary work, or redundancies in the production process that add no value to customers. Specifically, TPS addressed seven kinds of waste: overproduction, operator motion, waiting, conveyance, self-processing, inventory, and correction (rework and scrap). Through TPS, Toyota had been able to significantly reduce lead-time and production costs (p 4). Importance to Toyota These processes both posed of great importance to the Toyota Company because when you value and respect your employees and external constituents it brings about a level of trust and cohesiveness in the work place and your company gains loyalty from the customers. When everyone is operating as a team, any challenges that exist are met with courage and this creates a level of motivation within the company to bring about improvement. In regards to the having a production system that will bring to the forefront at the onset any issues, it eliminates wasted time, production costs, and manpower. It builds a foundation to where employees are reliable where they embrace the philosophy of quality at the start. It also creates a learning environment where leaders who carefully understand the philosophy, will teach it to others. This grows the company and builds it up for success. Scope: Breadth of its reach The scope of its reach can be throughout the global market. Not only within the automobile industry but because Toyota diversified into several nonautomotive businesses, it can also affect industries in aerospace, higher education, robotics, finance, and agricultural biotechnology (Greto et al., 2010). Parties involved: customers as well as internal and external suppliers. When there is a breakdown in these processes, it impacts the employees and all external stakeholders. For example, when a breakdown occurred in the lines of communication between the Japan and U.S. offices, in responding to the issues with the faulty accelerators, not only was customers affected, stockholders were affected. When the reputation of a company is tarnished, it affects the stockholders and they stand to lose money they invested in the company. Supply vendors are also affected when these processes breakdown because they lose business as well. Competitors can also be positively affected by this. They gain the customers who choose to no longer do business with Toyota. Priority: the timeliness or urgency. Timeliness is important to any business as this attributes to the quality of service a company provides customers, to employee concerns, matters concerning supply vendors and stock holders to name a few. Toyota did not readily address the concerns of their customers initially until it became more in the public eye. This takes away from the value of the company and it certainly affected customer loyalty and satisfaction to say the least. The company stock value went down and it suffered millions of dollars in lost. Timeliness is certainly a priority for any business. Overall impact or benefits of improvement to Toyota The overall impact for Toyota led to someone dying while driving a faulty vehicle therefore all the millions of dollars they were fined still does not make up for the loss of a person’s life. This goes down in Toyota’s history book as it cost them their reputation. The benefit is that can take place is to push management to take a look at their overall company operations and break down the areas that need improvements; identify additional defects and restructure their operational systems. If changes are to occur, Toyota has the opportunity to make changes, manufacture more innovative vehicles, and create initiatives that involves the communities they do business with as a way to build trust and their reputation. Cost to Toyota if the process is not improved The cost to Toyota if these processes are not improved could mean failure with a loss of market. The business can go bankrupt; offices close down, excessive inventory, stock price decreases, and employee layoffs that add to the unemployment rate.

Dynamics of Modernity: Berman Canclini

Dynamics of Modernity: Berman Canclini Compare and contrast Marshall Bermans and Nestor Garcia Canclinis account of the dynamics of Modernity To be modern is to live a life of paradox and contradiction. It is to be overpowered by the immense bureaucratic organizations that have the power to control and often to destroy all communities, values, lives; and yet to be undeterred in our determination to face these forces, to fight to change their world and make it our own. (Berman:1983:13-14) Modernity has long been hailed as one of the most powerful forces to have emerged in the world, with the capacity, according to Marx, to move mountains, and to ensure that all that is solid melts into air. Within the statement by Berman that begins this essay, we can see one of the dynamics that has created this impression. Modernity, despite its deeper roots, begins to be talked about by a series of thinkers who combine a high degree of abstraction with a imperative to act. Thus Marx argues for huge motors of historical telos that exist outside of our will, and at the same time argues for an immanent need to change historical conditions. This relationship between abstraction and concreteness is perhaps the most fundamental dynamic of modernity. It gives rise to the planned economies of communism, and the controlled biopower of modern states that Foucault (1998) talks about, which attempt to rule over the function of life itself. At the same time is gives rise to what Badiou (2005:12 ) calls the passion for the real; the search for an authentic existence in the absence of the certainties with which previous epochs lived. What is crucial about these two movements is the way in which they inflect each other. The idea of authentic will becomes possible only with the collapse of grand narratives and the rise of administered life, and the administered life then uses the same notion of self-fulfilment within consumerism to further be able to administer biopower. It is this covalence that is fundamental to modernity, and which this essay will argue is entirely misunderstood by Berman. One of the reasons for this is that, as Braudel (1995:14) notes, â€Å"each civilisation tends to overestimate its own objectivity.† Likewise, each age tends to see itself as more unique than the last. However, this is particularly a problem with the period called modernity because during this period it was thought reason could break with the past, and a utopia of the state was possible. We can see this legacy in both the Communist economies and in the artistic movements such as Marinettis futurism, which had as its mot to: â€Å"make it new.† It is precisely this trap that Berman falls into: confusing the ideas of modernity with the effects of modernisation. In fact, Bermans fetishished notions of will and authenticity, played out in the ahistorical telos of his modernist planar development, resemble nothing as much as a 19c treatise on the movement of history. Perhaps part of the reason for this is the combination of Bermans European sources with his background in the strong individualist tradition of American pragmatism, as we can see in his first book (1970). Canclini stands just south of Berman, but from the perspective of Mexico, modernity is a not a finished project to be talked about nostalgically in the way Berman does. Because this project is unfinished, Canclini is much better placed to understand the complex and intertwined relationship between what is constructed as tradition and what is constructed as modernity. His notion of hybridity, placed in the context of a heavy reliance on Gramscis theory of hegemony, allows one to understand that supreme category of modernity: tradition. For instance, Canclini notes (1995a:53) that there is no clear line between popular and hegemonic culture, because (ibid:75) peasant culture is necessary for capitalism as a symbol of national identity and because (ibid:83) it offers the construction o f a hegemony through the management of cultural fragmentation.† Thus modernity can be seen here as a hybrid form whereby old identities are mobilised rather than changed and uprooted. Canclini understands that modernity, if it means anything, means a change in underlying structure rather than the type of cultural universalism which lies as the undertone of the work of Berman. This essay will consider how Berman sets up the dynamics of modernity within this ahistorical schema, and argue, as previously alluded to, that he misses the important aspects of the relation. It will also be argued that Canclini, within his much more modest project, understands the underlying dynamics of the abstract and the concrete to a far greater degree. Perhaps Bermans problems begin with his tripartite division of modernity into modernity, modernisation and the modern, without every looking at how these categories are mutually constitutive of each other. Modernity, Berman explains is (1983:15): â€Å"a mode of vital experience – experience of space and time, of the self and others, of lifes possibilities and perils.† Bermans book is more of an evocation than a scholarly argument, but nonetheless is seems pertinent to insist on some evidence for such a claim: did other ages not experience space and time? The problem here is not simply that Bermans generalisations do not tell us anything about modernity, but that they conceal the real dynamics of the process. For instance, Berman often insists on the sense of newness, of authentic experience, within modernity. Yet understood as what Berman construes it to be, the sense of the new is not an experience particular to modernity at all. What is important here about the dynam ics of modernity is the way in which the experience of the new, what Berman calls modernity, is an essential part of the process of modernisation. This has been argued well by one of Bermans claimed inspirations, Walter Benjamin, whose Arcades Project (2002) traces the way in which a sense of wonder was used to create the consumer sensibility. This is also laid out in the work of Canclini, who chronicles the powerful political effect created by constructing modernity as something to come – around which one can mobilise people towards new identities and on new political projects. However, this is a discursive effect, rather than a fundamentally new ontological possibility for the modern subject, and Berman asserts the latter as a property of the former without giving a single argument. Instead, Berman (1983:15) gives us evocation and adjective, one strung after the other. The underlying dynamic of modernity for him is: â€Å"modernity is a paradoxical unity, a unity of disunity: it pours us all into a maelstrom of perpetual disintegration, of struggle and contradiction, of ambiguity and anguish.† Underlying all this purple prose is Marxs statement, that inspires the books title, that all that is solid melts into air. Yet what Marx is talking about is the ability of capital to undermine use-value and create a world of people alienated from their labour and extracted of surplus value. Now one can take issue with Marxs account, (as Baudrillard (1983) most usefully does by pointing out that use-value is also a fetishisation, this time of authenticity, and that the original alienation occurs with the construction of value) but what he draws attention to is the way people see the imaginaries of capitalism as real: capital is perceived by people in Marx as somethin g actually existing, rather than a maelstrom of perpetual disintegration. Here, Berman fails to give proper account of why he diverges from Marx. What can we salvage from Bermans account of the dynamics of modernity? It is true to say that the political subject in modernity was thought of as massively flexible and capable of continual reinvention. Though it must be added that this notion has much broader historical roots that Berman gives credit for: one can already see it in Machiavellis (2004) notion that people are capable of masking their intentions and this constitutes the basis for politics. However, this continual possibility for reinvention led to some of the most firm sets of continuities the world has seen for some time: the idea of class war, the tradition of the French bourgeoisie, and the modern state. Berman writes off in a few lines most of the great thinkers who have analysed this mutually constitutive relationships, Adorno here meriting a line. Canclini, in contrast, is alert to the way the supposed newness of modernity function to preserve power, and in his account of modernity in Mexico draws attention to th e the way newness is made a continuity of ritual and hegemonic power. Berman then separates out modernization as the social process that brings this maelstrom into being. In doing so he outlines some clear divisions between the phases of modernity. These phases resemble nothing so much as the clear evolutionary steps of early modern thinkers like Morgan. In doing so he makes a mockery of the patient work of people like Arrighi (1994), who have worked to uncover all the continuities that exist between different periods. Furthermore, his account is not even internally consistent. There is insufficient clarity in his work as to the difference between the 19C and 20C: Pushkin and Biely are made manifestations of the same movement, despite the widely different impulses that inform their work. What Canclinis work manages to do very well is to understand the way in which modernity, more than any other epoch (for it is the epoch of men who make history themselves without reliance on religious narratives) is complicit in its own construction of history. He trac es the way in which history is used as a political tool, and that the function of the type of planar divisions Berman uses is to extract a continuity from a succession. Which is to say that such divisions function as a political tool to extract a notion of destiny and objective inevitability from a history which is contingent and uncertain. Bermans one-sided and simplistic reading of modernity reaches its apex in his account of the American city. His account is a one sided view of power, as if Le Corbusier had artfully created American cities and all the modern man needed to do was stand up against this bloody tyrant. Canclini (1995b: 743-755) charts the way in which the modern man is complicit in the spaces that he builds, and that the solution is to problems of alienation that occur in such spaces is not some type of revolt by a careful reworking of the practices and delimitations of space that occur in the city. It is working through the very dynamics of modernity that one resolves its problems, and to do so requires an understanding of their complex inter-relation. Such an understanding is accurately posed by Jameson (1992:335) in his understanding of how it was the very construction of space in Los Angeles that led to the possibility of that constructions overthrowing. Furthermore, Berman misunderstands how contest ed Le Corbusier is in architectural theory. He fails to see the varying currents that inform modernity and that produced a diverse and heterogeneous formation of space, even within Le Corbusiers own school (Rabinow: 1991). Theoretically, he also fails to see what De Certeau (2002:19) has persuasively argued for, which is that it was the very relationship of time and space in modernity that leads states to forget the possibility of space. He argues that the spatial organisation laid out by the modern state was predicated on a notion of time as mode of organisation (e.g. wage labour) and a possibility of reinvention which necessarily allowed the particularities of space (as somewhere one has a proper place and a tradition that cannot be reinvented) to left to the people. Thus the conditions for contesting the state in modernity emerges from the intertwining of the micro and macro processes. These complex processes are ignored by Berman, because he is looking for a will-to-power to set against what he sees as the large bureaucratic structures of modernity. This is why he is so against Foucault, who attempts to set out the co-relation between these things. In attempting to find human creativity outside of any sort of system (though without offering any kind of rigorous account of how that might be achieved) he gives to much credit to bureaucratic systems. Canclini, in understanding how the four divisions of modernity he sets out (the rationalising, renovating, emancipatory and democratising projects) are frequently in conflict and lead to a conflicting and contested legacy, is in a much better position to understand. Ultimately, Bermans work seems as if it was written with a long nostalgia to badly understood 19C authors. He uses a notion of freedom as fetishised will (where he deploys what one could reasonably call a notion at all) without understanding that the development of modernity has destroyed this very category. As Zizek (1999:389) artfully pointed out it is the search for the real, for fetishised will, that, when not placed in a grand narrative, ends up in indulging in its simulacrum; the real emptied of risk. Likewise, it is the bureaucratic form of government that has led to the globalisation and decentralisation of its own form. These processes are ignored by Berman, who sees modernity as a universalism, even if a contradictory one, issuing like a new beacon of hope from a centre in Europe. Canclini understands modernity as a hybrid formation that cannot be tied to Europe, and has begun to chart the complex ways that modernity brings to bear on itself, and construct it own legacy. Bibliography Arrighi, G. 1994: The Long Twentieth Century. London: Verso. Badiou, A. 2005: La Sià ¨cle. Paris: Seuil. Baudrillard, J. 1983: For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. London: Telos. Benjamin, W. 2002: The Arcades Project. Harvard: HUP. Berman, M. 1983: All that is Solid Melts into Air: Experiences of Modernity. London: Verso. Berman, M. 1970: The Politics of Authenticity: Radical Individualism and the Emergence of Modern Society. New York: MacMillan. Braudel, F. 1995: A History of Civilisations. London: Penguin. Canclini, N. G. 1995a: Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Canclini, N. 1995B: Mexico: Cultural Globalization in a disintegrating city. American Ethnologist. Vol. 22, No. 4: pp. 743-755. de Certeau, M. 2002: The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: UCP. Foucault, M. 1998: The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin. Jameson, F. 1992: Postmodernism: Or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso. Machiavelli, N. 2004: The Prince. Oxford: OUP. Rabinow, P. 1991: French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. Mass: MIT. Zizek, S. 1999: The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London: Verso.

Drug Enforcement :: essays research papers fc

What we Prohibit We Cannot Control: Restriction Before Education?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There is a definite problem regarding the laws that enforce drug use in the United States today. Think about this question. Why are some of the most injurious, addictive, and mind altering substances in the world--tobacco and alcohol--legal, while other drugs are illegal that potentially cause no harm and have very little abuse?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The United States has declared 178 substances illegal. These substances are believed to be so dangerous that they are controlled at the highest level for medical use or forbidden outright, even for medical research. Remarkably many of these substances are not physically harmful and have never caused a death. Every year, legal drug use results in about fifteen percent of all hospital admissions, with one hundred thirty six billion dollars in medical costs. It seems odd, then, to make such a big distinction between legal and illegal drugs regarding the law.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A startling fact, Congressman Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, proposed legislation that would impose the death penalty for people caught carrying as little as two ounces of marijuana. He excused his own past marijuana use by explaining that pot smoking â€Å"was a sign that we were alive and in graduate school in that era.† Prison sentences for being caught with a large amount of marijuana are ten years, mandatory minimum, with no parole allowed. A prison sentence for murder six point three years. That is the average served, with parole allowed. The average sentence for a first time, non-violent drug offender is longer than for rape, child molestation, bank robbery, or manslaughter.(Gahlinger 2) This is an appalling statistic. The government is enforcing harsher punishment on a marijuana smoker compared to a murderer!   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The government is filling prisons with drug offenders that will not learn anything while there. Most likely when their term in prison is over they will go back to the same thing that they were doing before they went in to the system. Billions of tax payer dollars are keeping these drug offenders behind bars when a drug treatment program could be helping them to correct current addictive behavior and how to curtail their thoughts and actions to a more positive lifestyle. While the government puts one drug offender away another one is ready to step up to the plate and replace him or her. This is a never ending cycle. â€Å"Why do we not speak of ski abuse or a chain saw problem?

Prom Nights from Hell Chapter Nine

He said, â€Å"Hi.† And she said, â€Å"Ho.† God. GOD. Could she just say one normal thing? Thanks Crazy Mouth. He cocked an eyebrow at her. â€Å"I didn't know you were coming to prom.† â€Å"I-changed my mind at the last minute.† â€Å"You look nice.† â€Å"You too.† Which was an understatement. He looked like a double stack of cinnamon apple pancakes with a side order of bacon and hash browns (extra crispy). Like the best thing Miranda had ever laid eyes on. She felt herself staring at him, then looked away, blushing. There was a moment of silence. Another one. Don't let it go beyond four seconds, she reminded herself. It had to have been one second already; that left three, now two, say something! Say- â€Å"Are you wearing space pants?† Miranda asked him. â€Å"What?† How did it end? Oh, right. She said, â€Å"Because your butt is fine.† He gazed at her in that way he had like he was measuring her for a straitjacket. â€Å"I think-† he started, then stopped and seemed to be having trouble talking. Cleared his throat three times before finally saying, â€Å"I think the line is ‘because your butt is out of this world. â€Å" â€Å"Oh. That makes a lot more sense. I can see that. See, I read it in this book about how to get guys to like you and they said it was a line that never failed but I got interrupted in the middle and the line before it was about china-not the country, the kind you eat off of-and that is where the fine part was but I must have gotten them confused.† He just kept staring at her. She remembered the other advice from the book, â€Å"when in doubt, make an offer,† reached out, grabbed the first thing she could put her hand on, held it up to his chin, and said, â€Å"Nuts?† He looked like he was about to choke. He cleared his throat a few times, took the nuts from her, put the bowl back on the table, stepped toward her so that their noses were almost touching, and said, â€Å"You read a book about this?† Miranda couldn't even hear his heartbeat over the sound of her own. â€Å"Yes, I did. Because clearly I wasn't doing it right. I mean, if you kiss a guy and he pulls away from you and looks at you like your skin just turned to purple slime, clearly you need to spend some time at the self-help section of-â€Å" â€Å"You talk more when you're nervous,† he said, still standing close to her. â€Å"No I don't. That's absurd. I'm just trying to explain to you-â€Å" â€Å"Do I make you nervous?† â€Å"No. I'm not nervous.† â€Å"You're trembling.† â€Å"I'm cold. I'm wearing practically zero clothes.† His glance went to her lips, then back to her eyes. â€Å"I noticed.† Miranda gulped. â€Å"Look, I should-â€Å" He caught her wrist before she could take off. â€Å"That kiss you gave me was the hottest kiss I've ever had. I pulled away because I was afraid I wouldn't be able to stop myself from ripping off your clothes. And that didn't seem like the right way to end a first date. I didn't want you to think that was all I was interested in.† She stared at him. There was silence again, but this time she didn't worry about how long it went on. â€Å"Why didn't you tell me?† she said finally. â€Å"I tried to, but every time I saw you afterward you disappeared. I got the feeling you were avoiding me.† â€Å"I didn't want things to be awkward.† â€Å"Yeah, there was nothing awkward about you hiding behind a plant when I came into the dining hall at lunch on Wednesday.† â€Å"I wasn't hiding. I was, um, breathing. You know, oxygen. From the plant. Very oxygenated, that air is.† Insert head in oven now. â€Å"Of course. I should have thought of that.† â€Å"It's a health thing. Not many people know about it.† Leave until no longer HALF BAKED. â€Å"No, I'm sure they-â€Å" Miranda blurted. â€Å"Did you really mean that? About liking it when I kissed you?† â€Å"I really did. A lot.† Her hands were shaking. She reached up and pulled him toward her. Just as the music went off, the emergency-exit lighting went on and a tinny voice announced over a loudspeaker, â€Å"Please make your way to the nearest exit and leave the building immediately.† She and Will were pushed in different directions by the crowd surging to the door, being guided by four men in full body armor. The message kept repeating, but Miranda wasn't hearing it or Ariel West screaming that someone was going to PAY for RUINING her NIGHT or the person saying that dude, this was the sweetest way to end a prom ever, man, he was so high. She was hearing again the one-two-three cha-cha heartbeat of Deputy Reynolds, slightly muffled by body armor. This was no drill. â€Å"It's us, isn't it?† Sibby said, rushing over to stand next to Miranda. â€Å"That's why those storm-trooper guys are here. For us.† â€Å"Yeah.† â€Å"You were right. I should have stayed hidden. This is my fault. I don't want anyone to get hurt. I'll just turn myself over to these people, and they'll have to let-â€Å" Miranda interrupted her. â€Å"After all that? With only three hours left to go? And you, blend-it-like-butter girl? No way. It's not over. We can totally get out of this.† She tried to sound confident, but she was terrified. Just what do you think you're doing? U-Suck channel demanded. I have no idea. Sibby looked at her, eyes blazing with hope. â€Å"Do you mean it? You have a way out?† Miranda swallowed, took a deep breath, and said to Sibby, â€Å"Follow me.† To herself: Please don't fail.

Impact of Strike in an Organization Essay

The impact of strike to an organization Article by Rajalakshmi Rahul on June 11, 2012 Discuss now (0) Go to comments An organizational strike not only destroys the power of labor at its source while still professing theoretical support for the right to strike, but also causes many other losses. Labor on the other hand in demanding freedom to use the organizational strike is seeking an instrument fundamental to its rising power. The right to strike restricted in any way is the right shorn of some of its power (International Confederation for Free Trade Unions, 1989). The economic losses of the employer cause by a strike are incapable of precise calculation. The loss of profits is only one item in the total losses that an employer may suffer. The employer’s business may be crippled because of the loss of the market connection beyond the period of strike; goodwill may be lost; and the idle machines may get spoilt. Additional expenditure may have to be incurred on protecting the plant and on strike breaking activities (Howell, 2005). Publicity and propaganda are yet other items adding to its costs. Besides the loss of mental peace, respect and status in the community cannot be calculated in terms of money. The adverse affects of a strike on the workers are the loss of wages, and fringe benefits contracting of debts, personal hardships and loss of employment. It is difficult to assess the wage and production losses on account of a strike. Any calculation of wage losses from pay roll gives only a partial picture. In addition the strike may leave the union weakened and divided to the satisfaction of the employer Thus, strikes involve both economic and non economic costs for the employer and if at the extreme of strike he has to concede the demands of the striker’s additional burdens are imposed. However certain other elements which mitigate the losses also form a part of the economic calculation of the cost of a strike. References †¢Howell C (2005), Trade Unions and the State, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. †¢International Confederation for Free Trade Unions (1989), Employment and structural change in Indian industries, Cengage Learning, USA.