Recent orders
Current Events Employees Turnover Rate
Current Events: Employees’ Turnover Rate
According to a research by CareerBuilder, approximately 21 percent of the full-time employees have diverse plans of changing their jobs in 2014. This proves to be the largest percentage of expected turnover in relation to post-recession era. Some of the factors contributing to this massive increase in the percentage turnover rate among employees include job dissatisfaction, work-life balance, and lack of promotion opportunities (Chad, 1). Employees cite lack of value and salary issues as main reasons for their job dissatisfaction. It is essential to illustrate that about 58 percent of the employees are dissatisfied with their jobs while 45 percent of the workers seeking new jobs cite dissatisfaction with advancement opportunities. In addition, 39 percent of the employees note their dissatisfaction with work-life balance hence the need to acquire new employment opportunity. According to Haefner, human resources expert, there is need to offer frequent recognition, merit bonuses, defined career paths, and training programs to illustrate the importance of employees within the organization. Moreover, this trend illustrates the fact that the labour market is warming up thus existence of a healthier economic cycle (Chad, 1).
I think employees’ turnover rate should be one of the essential reasons for an organization to review and re-examine its programs, processes, systems, and structures with the aim of addressing issues affecting employees. Employees are vital factors of production in the current society and economy. Some of the factors that organizations need to eliminate include job dissatisfaction, under-valuing employees, discrimination, and poor working conditions. Employees need to feel important and operate in an appropriate environment to maximize their potential and output for the benefit of the shareholder and stakeholders. This would be an effective approach towards limitation of the looming employees’ turnover rate in 2014.
Work Cited
Chad Brooks, “I Quit, Will be Familiar Refrain in 2014”, Business News Daily. Retrieved from <http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/5745-employee-turnover-expected-to-spike-this-year.html> on 22nd January 2014.
Current Events and U.S. Diplomacy. The importance of foreign policy of a country
Current Events and U.S. Diplomacy
Author
Institution
Introduction
The importance of foreign policy of a country cannot be gainsaid as far as the stability and economic well being of the country is concerned. This is especially considering the interconnectedness of countries, where it has been recognized that countries cannot live in isolation, rather they have to interact and depend on other countries and collaborate with them on varied issues. However, there are varied threats that the United States has come across in its history, which have necessitated a change in its foreign policy, as well as specific spelling of the same (Ferrell, 2006). These are, essentially, presidential doctrines, which reveal the United States attitudes in its approaches and dealings with its political goals, as well as approaches against foreign military and national economic policies (Jeffery, 2000). A large number of presidential doctrines were made during the Cold War and, in fact, are related with the same, while others are a reflection of the problems, as well as emerging problems pertaining to their time (Ferrell, 2006). Indeed, they underline a foreign policy ideology that is more consistently applied at a given time, as was the case for the Truman’s Doctrine.
The Truman Doctrine was crafted in an effort to curb the likelihood of a communist insurgency in Turkey and Greece (Jeffery, 2000). In the doctrine, President Truman requested the United States Congress to offer economic and military aid amounting to $400 million, so as to curb this insurgency. The doctrine was based on the requests by England, which, after being considerably weakened by the two World Wars, had abandoned its commitment to Turkey and Greece (Jeffery, 2000). In this regard, it urged the United States to step in and save the two countries from being subverted into communism. In this regard, President Truman, in 1947 lobbied the United States Congress to come to the aid of the two Mediterranean countries through the provision of $400 million (Jeffery, 2000). The statement used in justifying the doctrine, as Truman told the Congress, was that that the United States must have the policy for supporting free people that are resisting any attempts of subjugation by armed minorities, or even outside pressure.
The United States and Greece relations before Truman’s Doctrine
A large number of studies pertaining to the relations between the United States and Greece focus primarily on the Cold War period after the Truman Doctrine. However, the two countries interacted on a number of fronts prior to the world war. The interest of the United States on Greece has been longstanding, although it has primarily been on the unofficial and informal level (Ferrell, 2006). Prior to the cold enunciation of the doctrine, the United States government had not been in active support of the Greek efforts. Indeed, the American philhellenes had been in support of attempts to protect and achieve Greek autonomy (Smuckler, 2001). They viewed contemporary Greece as an embodiment of virtues pertaining to its classical counterpart (republicanism, freedom of thought, human dignity, and knowledge among others), and worked in a diligent albeit unsuccessful manner to push policymakers in the United States to enhanced official concern for and interest in Greece (Jeffery, 2000). Scholars have noted that pre-Cold War intervention by the United States in Greek affairs was primarily motivated by perceived associations among the Greek and American political cultures (Bostdorff, 2008). The American Philhellenes felt that they were indebted to ancient Greece especially with regard to their democratic institutions, in which case they believes that they have a duty and obligation to impart the blessing pertaining to liberal and free institutions in Greece, as they considered this to be the land where these ideals had initially been conceived (Smuckler, 2001). The two countries had fought together in the World Wars, had similar ideals and had participated in NAT, the OSCE, as well as other international treaties that have formed strong basis for strategic cooperation between the two countries (Bostdorff, 2008). Underlining this cooperation is the fact that the United States has maintained Naval Support Activity in Souda bay in Crete, which underlines intense military cooperation. On the same note, Greek citizens are allowed to visit the United States for professional reasons and tourism without necessarily having a visa (Smuckler, 2001). The European Union- United States relations in the framework of Transatlantic Dialogue encompass a wide range of commercial, political and economic issues, not to mention institutionalized contacts, security issues, as well as coordination on varied levels (Smuckler, 2001). On the same note, the two countries have been undertaking government-to-government level interactions, especially considering the high-level Greece-United States Economic and Commercial Cooperation Committee (ECCC), which has become a strategic tool for the two sides to enhance their trade flows and bilateral economic cooperation (Bostdorff, 2008). Indeed, efforts are being undertaken in the business sector to enhance B2B cooperation between the two countries with the aim of facilitating or allowing for the access of enhanced markets in the Middle East, Southern Europe, Black Sea and Caucasian Region. This has been beneficial to the two countries as it has leveraged the United States business and technological leading edge, as well as Greece’s strategic geo-economic position (Spalding, 2006). All these elements of collaboration had their foundations formed by the Truman doctrine, which allowed for enhanced participation of the United States in Greece’s affairs.
Effects of the Truman Doctrine on Global Affairs
The Truman Doctrine had far-reaching effects on the United States, as well as the global affairs. First, it defined the manner in which the United States and other countries under the United Nations approach foreign interventions (Bostdorff, 2008). The doctrine argued that failure to secure the welfare and stability of people in any part of the world would, essentially, be endangering the welfare and stability of the free world (Spalding, 2006). This line of thinking was instrumental in the formation of the United Nations, which has underlined the fact that local threats come with worldwide consequences.
In addition, the Truman Doctrine acknowledged the fact that foreign interventions were joint military, political and economic ventures. It underlined the fact that foreign interventions did not necessarily have to be reliant on military action (Bostdorff, 2008). Today, countries such as United States, and European countries have adopted economic and political sanctions as part of their foreign policy, thereby allowing for their achievement of international goals without the use of coercion or violence (Spalding, 2006).
Moreover, the Doctrine cemented the place of the United States in the frontline in the international community (Spalding, 2006). The country’s leadership is extremely crucial in spreading democracy, prosperity and peace around the globe. It is, therefore, no wonder that the United States has been intervening in varied countries even without the participation of the United Nations.
References
Bostdorff, D. M. (2008). Proclaiming the Truman Doctrine: The Cold War call to arms. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
Ferrell, R. H. (2006). Harry S. Truman and the Cold War revisionists. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Jeffery, J. S. (2000). Ambiguous commitments and uncertain policies: The Truman Doctrine in Greece, 1947-1952. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Smuckler, R. H. (2001). The Truman Doctrine in Greece.
Spalding, E. E. (2006). The first cold warrior: Harry Truman, containment, and the remaking of liberal internationalism. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Current Events and the U.S Diplomacy
Current Events and the U.S Diplomacy
A presidential doctrine is usually an ideological platform, which is used by a president in order to advance a certain policy towards a region or a country. The doctrine is for the purpose of accomplishing established goals and policy on behalf of the United States. American interest in Greece as well as its people has existed for quite a long time even before the Truman Doctrine came into place (Frazier, 1999). The relationship was in both in unofficial and official levels as it had been witnessed. American government policies and public attitudes directed towards Greece have existed for a long time.
Washington saw a reason to ensure that Greece did not end up under the domination that the Soviet Union wanted to impose on them. Before, the Truman doctrine, the American government was not quite active in trying to support the efforts of the Greek. For a long time, American philhellenes had protected and supported the Greeks in their struggle for independence. America saw modern Greece as being a nation filled with many virtues and thus a suitable counterpart. Some of these virtues included republicanism, love of the arts and beauty, knowledge, freedom of thought and human dignity. Therefore, American policy makers worked hard to ensure that they accommodated Greece in every way possible (Spalding, 2006).
The Pre-Cold War association between Greece and America was motivated by the fact that both nations would benefit from each other’s political culture. The United States was indebted to quite some extent to ancient Greece because of its numerous democratic institutions. The philhellenes believed that they had to ensure that Greece was impacted by blessings of liberal and free institutions. Therefore, when America became aware of the intentions that the Soviet Union had for Greece it knew that it had to help its ally. It thus came up with the Truman Doctrine, which would ensure that military and economic aid would be provided to Greece. Truman told the American congress that the Doctrine was meant to ensure that people who were free were supported, as they were resisting subjugation attempts from outside pressures and armed minorities (Spalding, 2006).
Many nations in Western Europe came to believe that Truman was one of the best American presidents, especially after he came up with the Truman Doctrine. Countries that were affected by communism would be supported by the United States, and in the year 1947, the Marshall plan came into existence. It ensured that struggling countries in Western Europe would be provided with an economic foundation. Furthermore, the 1949 Atlantic Treaty ensured that the western nations would be supplied with military assistance as this would help in resolving the political and economic chaos of post Second World War. The measures would be effective in preserving Western Europe democracy and thus maintaining American freedom. Some of these western European nations were Italy, Iceland, France, Denmark and Belgium, among others (Lykogiannis, 2002).
Currently, it is evident that Greece is facing a debt crisis that has greatly affected its economy. However, it seems that the situation as well as the relationship that existed during the Truman Doctrine time has changed between the two countries. It seems that president Truman has been the only president who was interested in matters that affected Greece. The other presidents since then did not do anything to help Greece. Now that Greece is facing a crisis, the current American government is not doing much to assist it. There is no enough support being given to Greece because at the moment, the United States gains nothing by assisting Greece. This is opposed to the past when there was a Cold War and America had to ensure that it met its interests.
The Domino effect theory provided a good explanation as to why the United States wanted to help Greece so that other countries in Western Europe would embrace it as well. Turkey and Greece were the only obstacles that were preventing the Soviet Union from having control over the Mediterranean, a strategic and economic area. On the other hand, Truman saw this as an opportunity to use its military and economic strength in order to gain control over the Mediterranean region (Merrill, 2006). If they were to succeed, America would then find it easy to take over and control other countries, and especially those ones located in Western Europe. Therefore, the Doctrine was meant to change the behavior of Greece so that other countries would be influenced by it and thus be receptive of the American government. The Truman Doctrine was therefore a means for the United States to ensure that it would have more power than the communists.
In conclusion, the Truman Doctrine assisted Greece when it was experiencing many problems. In turn, the United States took advantage of the situation to make its might known. However, it is unfortunate that the Truman Doctrine is now no longer relevant as Greece is facing a crisis and nothing substantial is being done to help it. Indeed, the American intervention plan to help stop spread communism in Greece succeeded because of the Truman Doctrine.
References
Frazier, Robert. (1999). Acheson and the Formulation of the Truman Doctrine. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 17, 2, 229–251.
Lykogiannis, Athanasios. (2002). Britain and the Greek Economic Crisis, 1944–1947: From Liberation to the Truman Doctrine. Missouri: University of Missouri Press.
Merrill, Dennis. (2006). The Truman Doctrine: Containing Communism and Modernity. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 1, 27–37.
Spalding, Elizabeth. (2006). The First Cold Warrior: Harry Truman, Containment, and the Remaking of Liberal Internationalism. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.