Recent orders
Management at Apple Company Leadership
Management; Apple Company Leadership
Students Name:
Affiliated School;
Date;
What did you find of most interest or most revealing about Apple during your research for the period of 1985 to 1996? Describe its importance to our research.
Apple is one of the most successful technology companies globally. Founded by Steven Jobs, the company had flourished since 1976, however the period between 1985- 1996, the company experienced the lowest sales due to change in leadership (Scheneiders, 2010). The following are some of the leadership changes and their implications are as follows.
In 1985- the co-founder Steve Jobs was stripped of all his power and authority in the company. This made him to sell off all his shares as a retaliation response and he moved to founding another technology company called NeXT Inc.
1n 1985- John Sculley took over as the chairman of the board of directors and as the new leader of the company. Change in leadership however in most instances does not mean change in loyalty; this means that employees may not necessarily be willing to adopt the new methods imposed by the new leader.
In 1987- Apple Inc had its first corporate stock dividend, the stock split and with it came a quarterly dividend of 0.3%. This means that the stock value of the company decreased (Fiancial times, June 1985).
Between 1989-1990- the Sculley spearheaded the acquisition of very many companies in an effort to keep up with the quality of work that was done by Steve Jobs. The following were some of the companies acquired during the time; Styleware, Coral software, Satellite Communication Company, Orion Network System and Nashoba Systems. Some of these acquisitions ended up being more of liabilities than assets to the company.
Early 1990- this was under the leadership of Spindler, the company was involved in the manufacture of too many models that created confusion because they had minor differentiations. This was also accompanied by poor marketing strategies and the retailers would refuse to display the computers. This tarnished the PR of the company as it was known to be based on simplicity. This decreased the sales of the devices and decreased the revenue earned by the company (Linzmayer, 2004).
Several poor decisions were also witnessed during this time for instance the purchase of the competing firm IBM, a decision that was made in order to prevent Sun Microfinance from acquiring the company. Also during the same time there was a need to make a deeper penetration into the market the company signed a contract with a third party to Apple Inc had as it was only able to get 10% of the plough back from the endeavour.
Officially the company was sinking as it had lost the market share control it initially had and there was a decrease in innovation and revenue. This prompted the board to request Steve Jobs, the co-founder to return as an interim CEO in 1996. Once Jobs came back he was able to make the company focus on the manufacture of a limited variety of products as opposed to many products that have no sales. He was also able to find a loophole in the 3rd party licensing of the Mac Os and terminated the contract (Scheneiders, 2010). The company was restored to its initial glory as was termed as one of the biggest company turns of the 21st century.
References
Financial Times, Peter Hawk, Apple Computer Experiences Change in Leadership, Retrieved from Public Plans, June 1985
Linzmayer, W. O. (2004). Apple Confidential 2.0; the Definitive History of the Company, Springer Publishers
Scheneiders, S. (2010). Apple’s Secret of Success- Traditional Marketing Vs Cult Marketing, Oxford University Press, New York
Management of Employee Welfare
Management of Employee Welfare
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Code
Professors Name
Date
Management of Employee Welfare
Wage and work hour protection laws vary from state to state. However, there are a number of protection laws that are the same in all of the United States. One of them is the protection law on unemployment benefits. In the event the employer is the one responsible for the termination, there are specific laws that should be adhered to (Vosco et al., 1). Individuals must have been jobless due to events beyond their power, such as layoffs or dismissals, and must also satisfy state-specific standards in order to be eligible for benefits. Employees generally have access to benefits for up to 6 months, though reimbursements may occasionally be prolonged during difficult economic circumstances.
Another wage and work hour protection law is the family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was enacted into law in 1993 (Vosco et al., 1). As an outcome, qualified workers are entitled to up to 3 months of leave without pay each year if they choose to stay at home after child birth or adopting a baby or in the event of a significant sickness for themselves or a member of their family. One must have been employed by the firm for at minimum a year and 1,250 hours in order to be eligible for FMLA payments. The law of employment based discrimination has also become very effective (Vosco et al., 1). The laws forbid employers from discriminating on employees based on gender, age, disability, race, religion and national origin. It states that all employees should be paid and treated the same based on their knowledge, skills and work experience.
Statutory Laws affecting Employee Rights over the Past 50 years
In the last 50 years, there have been a number of changes in the workforce. Employees have been given more rights to give them an easy time at work. Women who previously stayed at home and took care of their families now balance between families and work. The number of people in the workforce over the age of 35 has also increased as from the 1970s (Hofmann et al., 2). There are laws that protect employees against discrimination of age, gender, disability, race and religion. Other significant changes in employee rights laws include the least salary nationally which has been set by the Fair Labor Standards Act at $7.25 per hour, while specific states choose a higher rate. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for enforcing occupational safety legislation (Hofmann et al, 2). A company and worker payroll tax pays for Social Security benefits.
OSHA Violation in Texas
In February 2022, OSHA cited W.D. Townley and Son Lumber Company Incorporation after investigating since July 2021. This was after receiving a report that an employee had fallen from a stack of pallets (3). OSHA reported that the company lacked energy control procedures, dangerous equipment protection techniques and head protection gear. The company did not also alert OSHA of the accident 8 hours after it occurred. This was violation of OSHA laws which stated that each employer is required to create and maintain working environments that are generally safe, healthy, and free from observable risks that are causing or are likely to cause employee fatalities or significant physical harm (3).
Workers Compensation in Texas
According to Texas workers’ compensation legislation, an illness or injury acquired while promoting or carrying out the boss’s operations is covered, regardless of who is responsible. This includes illnesses sustained during work-related travel (Heyman & Timm, 4). A third party’s criminal act if directed at the worker for a limited purpose unconnected to the job, acts of religion, the worker’s pranks, willful heinous crimes or self-injury, drunkenness from alcohol or drugs informed consent in an off-duty leisure activity, inebriation, or other circumstances not obscured by the insurance. Injury reports must be submitted within 30 days of the incident, the initial impairment rating must be challenged within 3 months of its issuing, and the official documentation for a workers’ compensation claim must be submitted within 12 months of the incident (Heyman & Timm, 4). Those timeframes begin to run from the day the worker should have realized the illness or injury was related to their place of employment if the connection between the two was not immediately evident.
Sources
Vosko, Leah et al. 2017. The compliance model of employment standards enforcement: An evidence‐based assessment of its efficacy in instances of wage theft. P. 256-273. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/55564763/2017_-_Leah_F_Vosko_-_Thecompliancemodelofemploymentstandardsenforcement_retrieved_2018-01-17_-with-cover-page-v2.pdf.
Hofmann, David A., Michael J. Burke, and Dov Zohar. 2017.100 years of occupational safety research: From basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk. P 375. Retrieved from https://goallab.psych.umn.edu/orgpsych/readings/16.%20Occupational%20Health%20and%20Safety/Hofmann,%20Burke,%20&%20Zohar%20(2017).pdfINVESTIGATION INTO WORKER’S FATAL FALL FINDS HENDERSON SAWMILL, PALLET MANUFACTURER EXPOSED WORKERS TO WILLFUL, SERIOUS HAZARDS. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=d2b86887-a6d5-40fc-ac68-a600528a2f8b&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fnews%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A64PF-WPB1-DYTH-G3SX-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=8058&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=rz2yk&earg=sr0&prid=9296faa7-d988-4d83-beaa-92a7eeba69fdHEYMAN, RICH, and EMILY TIMM. 2020. Participatory Research Wins for Texas Workers.P 140. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wz-DEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA140&dq=Workers+Compensation+in+Texas&ots=0zi0I3lNXE&sig=GoIq5tJ8zv86BZ65ROk0kgJdDrE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Workers%20Compensation%20in%20Texas&f=false
Management of Employee Conduct Agency Law
Management of Employee Conduct: Agency Law
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Code
Professors Name
Date
Management of Employee Conduct: Agency Law
Agency Law
The concept of agency law focuses on the interactions between agents and principals, or situations in which one party has the ability to perform actions on behalf of someone else. Employer-employee, administrator-executor and guardian-ward relationships are a few that are frequently linked to agency law (Hilal & Bryan, 1). A union or a firm may act as both the principal and the agent in contracts that lead to the formation of agency-type relationships. The term “agency” refers to an agreement, either clearly indicated or insinuated, whereby one individual, referred to as the principal, assigns another individual referred to as the agent, with managing a company and carrying out operations on his behalf or in his name. The agent concurs to overseeing the company and provides a record of his activities.
In the said scenario, I am small business owner who decided not to employ staff so as to cut costs. I gave friends the job to act on my behalf at a fee; therefore this is an implied agency law scenario. It is implied because there is no contract of employment yet my friends go around telling people that they work for me. They also wear the business uniform and deal with clients and vendors. In the event that one friend orders too much from a vendor I will be held accountable. This is because my friend works for me and is compensated by me. I am therefore responsible for whatever actions he takes while performing work-related duties since I regulate his working environment and procedures. In this case the scope of employment which includes the workers compensation and all benefits the employee is likely to get is not applied (Bysal, 2). There is no employment contract to adhere to and every action by my friends is liable to me.
At-will Employment
With an at-will contract, an employer is free to terminate a worker at any moment for any reason, aside from those that are illegal, or with no justification at all. Similarly, there are no negative legal repercussions if a worker quits their employment at any moment for any purpose or for no purpose at all. At-will hiring also indicates that staff may modify the conditions of the employment agreement at any time with no warning and no repercussions (Gertz, 3). A boss might change pay, stop providing incentives, or cut paid time off, for instance. In its purest form, the U.S. at-will law exposes workers to discretionary and unexpected termination, a constrained or on-call work plan based on the demands of the boss, and sudden reductions in salary and incentives.
In most cases an employer is allowed to fire an employee for reasons such as the employee took much time off, the employee is not performing well and the employer does not like the employee (Pollack, 4). Other reasons an employer can fire an employee include the employer is having a bad day, the employer thinks the employee talks too much or the employer does not get along with the employee. However, the employer is not supposed to fire an employee for reasons such as reporting sexual harassment, reporting wrong activities for example fraud, taking medical leave, participating in union work, complaining about OSHA violations and filing a claim for unpaid wages (Pollack, 4). An employer is also not allowed to fire an employee because he or she discriminates on their gender, age, religion, race or medical condition.
Discussion: Paul Parsons V. Priester Aviation, LLC.
This case is a direct example of an at-will employment termination. The commercial aircraft firm Priester Aviation employed Paul Parsons as a pilot. In June 2021, Priester assigned Parsons to travel to Thailand. Parsons informed a Priester employee that he thought this journey would be against the rules of the Federal Aviation Administration (5). The next day, before the planned trip, Priester fired Parsons. Parsons claims that Priester’s decision to fire him violated their contract of employment, was an unfair form of retaliation for Parsons’ refusal to engage in criminal activity, and was motivated by unfair dismissal due to age. Parson at the time was 65 years old. Priester claimed to Parsons that the company fired him for boarding an illegal person without the owner’s consent (5). According to Parsons, this individual was on board to assist with cleaning the aircraft, which is the duty of the pilot. Parsons contends that this justification is a ruse because there is no requirement in any Priester policy or statement in its manuals for a pilot to get permission before boarding somebody. Parsons sued Priester for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and age discrimination (5). Priester made a motion to dismiss the charges of contract breach and unfair dismissal arguing that Parsons was not fired for refusing to conduct a crime and that he was also an at-will employee.
The court ruled in response to the breach of contract allegation, Priester Aviation, LLC’s request to dismiss was granted. However, the wrongful termination claim was denied (5). I agree with the court’s ruling because Parsons should not have been fired. The company should have given him a warning for allowing the person to board without their consent. If Parsons would not have identified the criminal act, the company would probably have not had an issue with the third party on board. It was evident that the company was used to committing the offence and they did not want a whistleblower on their team so they fired Parsons.
Sources
Hilal, Susan and Bryan, Litsey. 2020. Reducing police turnover: Recommendations for the law enforcement agency. P 73-83. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461355719882443Baysal, Ulas. 2018. The Scope of Employment Security Regulations for Workplaces Under Turkish Labor Law. P 245-249. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/615075Gertz, Sally. 2017. At-will employment: Origins, applications, exceptions, and expansions in public service. P 47-74. Retrieved from http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/PUBLIC%20POLICY%20(Public%20Administration%20and%20public%20policy%20131)%20American%20public%20service%20radical%20refor.pdf#page=80Pollack, Daniel. 2017. Wrongful Termination of Public Human Services Employees. Retrieved from https://repository.yu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12202/4737/art%20APHSA%20Wrongful%20termination%20of%20public%20human%20service%20employees.pdf?sequence=1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 2022. PAUL G. PARSONS, Plaintiffs, vs. PRIESTER AVIATION, LLC, Defendants. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_22-cv-00105/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_22-cv-00105-0.pdf