Reflection Paper
The concepts learnt from this week’s materials
1. The growth of US Government
I have learned that the US government has grown to the level where it can influence the lives of all people. The government can enact laws and regulations that directly impacts on the lives of the citizens. Despite the growth in the government, citizens are still divided into two groups. One group supports most of the actions of the government while the other disagrees with most of the undertakings of the government. This division materialized in 2013 when there was a total shutdown of the government due to highly divergent views. There are various factors that have contributed to the growth of government. They include; physical expansion of the US as well as the growth of the population.
2. Federalism
The government structure is based on this principle. This principle allows various units to share power. The citizens of United States are subjected to city laws, county laws, state laws and government laws. The power in the United States has been divided between the federal government and the non-federal government. This mode of governance was framed in the constitution after noticing that the state had too much power. The Constitution of the United States gives broad powers to the federal government but not to the state governments. However, the constitution emphasizes what the states can’t do.
3. Policy making process influencers
The government: The government can sponsor bills to parliament to be debated and adopted. The government can also develop executive laws and regulations to help govern the country. There are so many regulations and regulation bodies that have been created by the federal government.
The public: The opinion of the public is always required in the process of policy making. The public can participate in the discussions surrounding policies being developed. The input of the public is often considered when developing policies. There are instances where the policies being made must go through a referendum.
Interest groups: These may include the specific people who the policy will affect. The interested parties may also be private companies, non-governmental organizations, professionals (like doctors, teachers, nurses, etc.), civil rights groups, religious groups, and special needs groups among others.
4. Lobbying
Lobbying is also another concept that was covered. This entails promotion of policy agenda. The concerned stakeholders are brought on board to support certain policies. For instance, the health care practitioners can be lobbied to propose various policies that can be used to develop or improve healthcare conditions. Lobbying entails hiring qualified professionals to argue specific clauses in decision-making forums like the Congress. This technique is usually controversial and has often been challenged by citizens. Lobbying is present in all levels of government of United States. When correctly executed, it can have positive influence on the policy-making process.
The most important concept introduced, and why
Federalism was the most important concept introduced. All the other concepts revolve around federalism concept. For instance, it is through federalism principle that different parties have been empowered to contribute to the policy-making process. It is through power sharing that the public as well as interested parties get involved in the policy-making process. Another reason is that the growth of the government of the United States can be associated with the principle of federalism. These are just a few other concepts that stem out of the main concept of federalism.
How the legal concept/principle affect the organizational leadership environment?
Just like in the governance of the country, the principle of federalism has influenced how the leaderships of various organizations are structured. In most organizations, the leadership I divided into different classes. Just like in federalism where there is the top federal government, other organizations are also lead by top management. Most organizations have been departmentalized. For instance, in business organizations, the overall head may be the CEO, but there are other departmental heads like the Marketing Executive, the Chief Financial officer, human resource manager, and administration among others.
Was there a topic discussed that you did not understand?
The topics were comprehensively covered and I have no issue with any of them. Additionally, the notes given assisted in improving my understanding of the topics covered last week.
Week 2 ORG578 Discussion Board
-
Heidi Wilson against Citicorp service center
Heidi got promoted to the level of manager at Citicorp service center in 2009, but she did not get any bonuses or a pay rise, she got upset because it was evident that her male predecessor was making more than she did. Heidi was bypassed for a premium and pay increase in 2011 for the second time, so she requested for a market analysis in the company, but her supervisor refused to authorize it. Heidi later was fired in March 2011 without severance pay, and she decided to file a lawsuit against the enterprise.
The court concluded that the evaluations made by Heidi’s supervisor were too subjective. Citicorp also used the weak economy as justification for paying Heidi less than her male counterparts pay. The court later ruled for Heidi, and the decision sent a crucial message to other large organizations and employers that the law is clear on gender equality in workplaces. People should note that there is a law against discrimination, the Equal pay act of 1963, but there is still discrimination against female executive in most institutions (Richardson, 2000).
-
Samantha Elauf against Abercrombie & Fitch
Recently, the United States Supreme Court revived a lawsuit on discrimination filed by Samantha against Abercrombie, a company that had declined to hire Samantha because she wore a headscarf. The company managers claimed that they could not hire Samantha since her attire clashed with the organization’s official dress code, described as classic East Coast collegiate style.
The organization had at least, suspected that the applicant was a Muslim and that maybe he wore a head scarf for religious reasons. The organization’s decision to decline her application, as Justice Scalia said, was driven by the hiring manager’s desire to avoid accommodation her religious practice, the judge said that that was enough reason for Samantha to sue the company under a federal employment discrimination rule. A jury had earlier awarded Samantha 20000 dollars, but the appeal court overturned the award claiming the Samantha should have first informed the company that she wore head scarf before applying for the post (Kraft & Furlong, 2012).
The court ruled for Samantha, a decision that got applauded by groups that represent religious minorities in the United States. The group leaders said that the ruling would assist a lot in protecting the minority religions against discrimination in workplaces and other social settings. The decision also affirmed the fundamental right of all Americans to practice their faith freely without the fear of getting denied major career opportunities. After the trial, Samantha said that her experience with Abercrombie made her feel inferior in the society because the company disrespected her religious beliefs. The complainant added that she was born in American just like any other person of a different faith; therefore she expected to be treated just like anyone else.
- There was no religious principle in the case because all the decisions got cited from the United States law regarding equal pay and religious discrimination. Equal pay for equal work is one of the most important principles learned from the lesson. When two people of different races or sex perform duties that are equally difficult, they deserve the same amount of compensation because it is their work that matters, not their condition. The principle grounded in the European Union law.
References
Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2012). Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives. Sage.
Richardson, J. (2000). Government, interest groups and policy change. Political Studies, 48(5), 1006-1025.
