February 4, 2005
FOUR FOR FRIDAY
Q1: Ten years from now, how do you think new or emerging technologies will impact the job you have today?
Q2: The University of Colorado-Boulder is considering whether to dismiss a tenured member of the faculty for remarks made three years ago in a post-9/11 essay in which he likened the people who died in the World Trade Center attacks to Nazi war criminals. From The Boulder Daily Camera's editorial page: "True to form, [Ward] Churchill is unrepentant, refusing to apologize for comparing stockbrokers to genocidal maniacs, refusing even to admit one clear aim of his rant: to suggest that capitalist cogs in the twin towers got what was justifiably coming to them. When his remarks finally detonated a statewide explosion of outrage, Churchill remained as internally inconsistent as ever: He claimed to "mourn the victims" of the Sept. 11 attacks even as he once again likened "technocrats of empire" to Nazi murderers." Based on the information before you, do you think Professor Churchill should be dismissed from his teaching position at the University?
Q3: Weyco, a Michigan-based health benefits administration company, grabbed national headlines this week after it started firing employees who refused to take a smoking test. According to various media reports, seven employees have left the company rather than be tested for smoking tobacco, and the company now says that it will not hire anyone who smokes. Do you think employers should be allowed to fire people who smoke outside of the workplace, or not hire those who do?
Q4: Which team will you root for in this weekend's Super Bowl? If you could care less about the game, will you at least tune in to watch the commercials? If not, what do you plan on doing while the game's being played?
Posted by Mikal at February 4, 2005 7:15 AM
| TrackBack
1. Absolutely. Being in a lab, innovation is a necessity.
2. His remarks are way out of line, but then again, aren't other professors also controversial for other reasons? I do not think people should be dismissed solely due to their opinions and politics even if it makes most people mad and uncomfortable. A school's job is education, not to monitor political opinions. But if the university is more concerned about its own reputation...
3. I am not sure. Personal habits are quite different than personal opinions, but if productivity is not changed whether or not the person smokes, than there isn't any reason to fire him. But if the company is more worried about its image rather than ability to work--than I suppose they have a right to change their hiring policies.
4. I will be either studying or reading.
1. As background, I currently supervise a call center. I believe that VOIP will greatly enhance the information available to supervisors & employees, going forward. The continued integration of email/chat/telephony/customer databases are making CRM packages ever more powerful and robust. The tools will streamline metrics gathering, and will be used to hold agents and managers accountable.
2. Ok, this is where I sound like an asshole, but hang me for being a free speech advocate in a free country - PS: I think that Bush's creation of "free speech zones" during his travels is one of the greatest stikes against free speech in our nation's history.
The professor made a comment that expresses the wide area of gray in the 11 Sept. disaster. I, as many, morn the passing of the victims. However, we all played a hand in making the bed we currently cower in. Voters (I was too young at the time) played a role in continuing to elect Presidents that had a foreign policies that included arming, funding, and training the very people that tore down the towers of the World Trade Center in New York, struck the Pentagon and finally failed in a field in PA. The professor, although poorly, is simply trying to express that Americans created those hotbeds of terror, and now we have to live with the aftermath. We elected people that created that problem, continued to elect them, and now we have to deal with the repricussions. If you are not willing to admit that our foreign policies had a great deal to do with the creation of Osama bin Laden as a credible force, then you need to open your eyes to the impact of the United States of America on the rest of our planet and you need to think about that the next time you walk into a polling booth.
3. More power to them on discriminating against smokers DURING the hiring process. In the long term, they will get employees that don't run away 5+ times during the work day for an life stealing drag from a cancer stick. Additionally, they can serve to lower their insurance premiums and pass that cost saving along to increased wages for employees. As for those folks that currently are employeed,and happen to be smokers, the company should leave them alone or offer support for those individuals to quit smoking. I feel that firing your workforce because they smoke is a bad idea.
4. Go EAGLES!!!! I hate the Patriots. The only reason they won in the first place is because the nation needed a patriotic figure head after 9/11. OK so that's a non-sensical conspiracy theory, but I hate the Pats, always have, and likely always will. I'm not typically a fan of the Eagles, but I hope to see some showboating on Terrel Owens' part. I feel that he brings a great energy to football - placing the ball on the Dallas star, signing a ball with a Sharpie hidden in his sock and handing the ball to his financial consultant, and the list goes on. Go EAGLES!!!
Hey there MixMasterMatt, those "Free Speech Zones" were used at the Democratic National Convention.
Love the blame America first mentality. Forget the fact that our foreign policy shouldn't have any undesired effect on other countries. If it does, it's the fault of THAT country for allowing it to happen. They have borders - they don't have to deal with us if they don't want to.
1. Not sure what some of the emerging technologies are, but I'm sure they will have some impact.
2. I don't think he's right to say that the stockbrokers got what was coming to them. Just because he doesn't like what they stand for, doesn't mean they deserve to meet their demise the way they did. He doesn' seem very sympathetic. Why would any university want someone teaching there with that attitude? On the other hand, there's freedom of speech.
3. I don't think anyone should be hired or fired based on the fact that they are smokers. That's just wrong. If someone chooses to smoke, that is up to them. Most buildings don't let anyone smoke inside anyway, so it wouldn't be a problem to those who don't smoke. But if it has to do with insurance issues, they still shouldn't invade an employees personal business. That's like saying, if you're a diabetic or have other medical issues, you need to be tested and hired or fired based on that. It's wrong in so many ways.
4. I never watch the Super Bowl. While it's on I'll probably be doing what I do every other Sunday...shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry. I'm not a football fan at all. But, I hope those who are fans, enjoy the game.
1. Considering I teach technology in a k-8 school, I would say there will be a major impact. Already textbooks are disappearing. Many of the support information is online. We might actually catch up with Apple's vision they used to show educators about 10 years ago.
2. I think the university should question their own ability to pick people with logical thinking skills. This professor sounds like he is very erratic. Judging from what he said, I would hope his students could decide for themselves whether or not to believe him and choose for themselves whether or not to take one of his classes. Now, if his skills in the classroom are questionable, I think one should seriously consider revoking tenure of an educator that is not effectively communicating his/her topic in the classroom.
3. I do not love smokers. I hate to see people smoking in cars, in restaurants or outside of buildings zoned non-smoking. That aside, I do not believe in not hiring someone because they are a smoker unless it should in some way endanger those around them. This doesn't appear to be one of those situations.
4. Superbowl? I am sure I am doing something else. Reading? Enjoying a nice book with a cuppa... sounds good to me.
1.Hopefully emerging technology CAN get me a job! lol
2.Bah, they shouldn't dismiss him, he's just saying what some have always though-hes got a right to an opinion. What is his teaching position anyways at that university?
3.Why the hell should a company care if their employs smoke or not. If it was a drug test I to would simply walk out there. Its not like they're smoking in the office or workroom. If you can't find respect for smokers, try quiting something like sugar and see how far you can go without it.
4.Ah, the Superbowl, I'm not gonna really root for any of the teams. But I have a slight hunch the Patriots will win, so I may as well root for the winning(or soon to win) team. I don't like them, but I prefer them more over the Eagles. I already heard of a Supernowl Commercial that sounded funny but to bad it won't be airing, it pokes fun at the Justin and Janet incident that happened last superbowl.
Mine is up but I can't leave the link because it's got an x in it and the comment section won't accept it! :0( Our website has the word twhgrafx in it cuz my hubby is in graphic arts
1. no idea ... I guess the digital or virtual presence may replace actual presence in some cases makeing things easier -- world wide communication is rapidly becoming trivial in cost.
2. no he should not be fired for his opinions. If he is generally an idiot he should be fired for being an idiot. Is he a good teacher or not? Does he make kids think? I don't have enough just on that to fire him.
3. Absolutely, they stink, they are always stepping out and hanging out just outside the smoke free buildings tossing butts on the ground. They have excessive absenteeism and incur health expenses at a greater than typical rate because of an entirely voluntary action. So long as they are afforded the opportunity to stop, I think people are free to hire and fire at will.
4. Probably. Having seen the godaddy rejected commercial thus far, I don't expect much from the commercials this year. But at least I won't have to tolerate Janet at halftime while I am getting my refreshments. Of course I won't be there that long unless it is close.
1. I think it is hard to tell what the next invention will be that has an impact on our jobs and lives. Very few saw what impact the Xerox machine, fax or e-mail would have on our lives. I remember back in the seventies in a management course we were talking about the same topic and I mentioned the fax machine. That when ever you talked to a client it was always, ěFax it to me.î and now itís e-mail it along with some photos.
But if I had to gaze into my crystal ball it might be optical computers, OLEDís ( Organic LEDís ) or in-vitro replacement organs where they can grow a replacement kidney in a petre dish.
2. I am a Libreal. And I think that if you can not have free speech on a college campus where the whole idea is to have a free intercourse of ideas then we have lost the true meaning of a college education. Whether itís Professors Churchill or the President of Harvard they should be able to voice their opinions and have an open debate. The only limits I would place on the free speech is one that promotes violence.
3. It is his company and he should be able to run it as he wants. However, I also remember a time when insurance was based on the average medical cost and now it seems to be micro managed and I think that is wrong. A lot of our so called bad habits are not habits but addictions; a friend has been trying to stop smoking for years. She knows it bad but how ever hard she tries to stop, she always ends up back on the cigarette. For me I am about thirty pounds over weight and no matter how much I exercise or diet do, when I end up stressed out at work I head for the vending machines
Where will the insurance companies stop, if you have a hereditary disease will they raise your rates?
Will they require everyone to give DNA samples in order to get health insurance?
4. Whoís playing? Just kidding. Even though Iím from Connecticut, I will not root for the New England Traitors. I have not gotten over what they did to the state, in saying that they wanted to move to Connecticut, it cost the state over $16 million before they pulled out. You say what wrong with that all the teams play that game, well I think that they played their little game to far. They went and signed contracts, engineering work was done, emanate domain procedures were started and then they pulled out of the contracts. Even though the state got back some of the money spent, it still cost the state money which affected my taxes.
Q1. I am an acquisitions editor for a book publisher. In very broad terms, my job entails coming up with ideas for new books, writing proposals to support my ideas, finding authors to write books, negotiating author contracts, and supporting authors throughout the writing and promotion process. I cannot think of any advances in technology which would significantly impact an AE's job. It's not the type of position which avails itself to "off-peopling," nor is it one which needs much more than a reliable means of researching consumer trends and viable author candidates (both of which are done right now with relative ease).
Q2. Based on the information available, no, I do not think Ward Churchill should be dismissed from the University of Colorado-Boulder. Professor Churchill, just like each and every student at the University of Colorado-Boulder, is entitled to his opinion and the right to share it in any legal manner that he so chooses.
Q3. While I personally am opposed to smoking (both for environmental and health-related reasons), I do not feel that employers should have the right to fire or not hire people based on their smoking habits outside of the workplace. This is too slippery of a slope. What's next, employers who will not hire people because their BMI indicates that they're obese or underweight. Give me a break!
Q4: Personally, I could care less who wins the game, and with advertisers pulling commercials (or having them rejected by Fox) because of supposed family-friendly-related concerns, I could care less about the commercials, as well. I'm more excited about the pizza I'm going to inhale during the game. Mmmm...Pizza.
1. I work as a secretary in a hospital, so the only emerging techs that I think might impact my job are speech-to-text (medical trancription is part of the job) and possibly VOIP.
2. They should only fire him if he is a bad teacher. Being an idiot, or having an unpopular opinion doesn't make someone a bad teacher. If he teaches his classes well and his students appreciate what is being taught, then keep him.
3. They shouldn't fire someone for being a smoker. Smoking is perfectly legal, despite being bad for the health. I'm a smoker and work in a hospital. Some of the repiratory technicians (who should know better) also smoke. They call it a respiratory treatment. I am not always sneaking away for a smoke. I only go down when I am on break or on lunch, which comes to three cigarettes while at work. Also, there are somedays when I won't smoke at all during work - too busy...lucky if I get a full lunch. As far as the excessive absenteeism goes, I have well over 300 hours of sick time accrued. I average about one sick day a year. I am there more often than the supervisors. I don't buy those arguments.
4. Go Pats!!! (born in Massachusetts)
This is a retort to Yo. Yo, I think that you have been misled by the media. Just because a Free Speech Zones was used for the Democratic National Convention doesn't make it right, not by any stretch of the imagination. Every inch of public space should be open to free speech. That's why countless countrymen/women have died to make this country what it is today, only to have the tyrannical turn of 'free speech zones.'
I'm neither a Dem or Rep. In fact, I don't like either. I think that Dems are whiny little bitches...which is why they keep screwing up their party and losing elections. I think that Reps are generally self-righteous pricks that hard time doing as they say. So, thanks for trying to paint me as a pinko, whiny liberal, but that's just not accurate.
As for our foreign policy, I wish like hell that our government had clean hands in the affairs of Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, we are responsible for his training, a porition of his funding, and we armed both Osama AND Saddam Hussien. So, trying to gloss over the fact that we had a hand in creating that painful day during which 3,000 US citizens lost their lives is just more right-wing, unpatriotic, propoganda. I'm going to be made out to come across as some nutjob, but the truth of the matter is that we have to look in the mirror. We do bad things, and those fruits have come to bare.
It is time for our country to start picking virtuous paths. We should strip funding from Missle Defense and feed starving nations. By giving peacefully, we shall receive peacefully. The message of Bush's State of the Union speech was one of reaching out to the world with friendly hands, but that's hard to buy when we squander money killing people.
On the flip side, we do plenty of good in the world. We were one of the first nations to lend support for tsunami effected nations, recently. However, we can't ignore that there are countless pork projects at home that are self-serving to a handful of politicians, that could be easily redirected to heal the wounds of troubled nations. Thus, we provide a model of a nation that makes others rise up and follow our lead.
A1) Who the heck can predict that...? Ten years ago we were staring down the barrell of the Internet abyss...and look at where we are today. The total pervasiveness of the Internet is beyond compare.
A2: I've been steaming on this issue all weekend, and have arrived at a personal conclusion. While the comparisons Churchill made in his story were a huge stretch of the imagination, it is no less, his opinion. Academia is not directed by a container of "public approval", even when it's a state-owned University. Joe Scarborough on MSNBC said the other night that "we need to take back our public universities", and that "tax-payers should not be paying for this...it's subsibized speech." I take great offense to Scarborough's statements, because conservatives want to do everything to silence free speech that they find offensive, even in academics. This is not a single-instance problem...it's becoming more pervasive as conservatives view "acceptable, free-speech" as something that can only be regulated by a committee. Obvisouly, Churchill was attempting to provide a critique of American policy. If people are unable to see that for what it's worth, then they need a lesson in democracy. If we are unable to critique American policy (past and present), then we'd be better off living in a vacuum. What about those who have, over the yeas, justified American war crimes and in fact sometimes celebrated them? I find that offensive, but you don't see University regents and congressional committees silencing or firing them. A distinction is not being made between acticulated and expressed political opinions and racial comments made in a classroom. Professor Churchill didn't walk into his classroom and make these statements. This certainly doesn't encourage anymore terrorism against the US than does our own past foreign policies and current transgressions with the war's we have fought in the Middle east. I believe one can not support the oppressive empire of US policy and still consider themselves American...by living the values that instill freedom.
If you recall, right before the presidential elections were held, a University in Florida denied the author Terry Tempest Williams the opportunity to address the University because of a critique she wrote about the government, and it was not half as opinionated as Churchill's. But, because of the bastion of power (Bush family, governor Bush of Florida), she was not allowed to be paid by public funds (according to the board of regents). However, the forum she was to speak in was part of a series of speakers invited by the freshman forum. Hmmm, once again, public funds being steered where only the elite in power feel is subjectively appropriate. What is I didn't want public funds supporting the position of pro-life, or the death-penalty, or even supporting the position of the Bush administration on its current foreign policy? I'm a tax-payer! But, I don't have say...!
A3) Ugh...once again...just stop selling cigarettes or tax them 300%. Really, I can't support Weyco in their decision, even though I don't like cigarette smoke. If they decide to fire employees who smoke...then they need to fire everyone who engages in "lawful" habits (whether they contain drugs that cause addiction or not). More money is spent on health care of those who consume unhealthy food, such as fast-food and don't exercise enough every year. If an employer is going to test potential smokers...than test for everything else. It's discrimination of a single group. We can't fire someone for being an alcoholic, unless it's adversely affecting job performance, but they must be allowed to get help first.
A4) Didn't watch it...never do. Went for a long run and then to the hot-tub.
Post a Comment:
|
