Basically, long story short, I started a job a year and a half ago. All went well for the first 6 months, then my boss got very angry at being passed up for a promotion. Now, his whole attitude is, “If I’m not happy then no one can be happy.” Everyone is miserable because of him. He calls me into meetings on friday afternoons at 5pm and I don’t leave until 9pm. He yells, slams his fist on the desk and shoots pens across the room in his rage. He is so angry at me for taking one sick day when I had bronchitis or for having a bad result on one project out of 100′s I’ve worked on. Others in our office all have kids and are afraid to report him and possibly be fired. Our VP is above him and adores him b/c he kisses butt to her all day. Should I go to HR and report him for harrassment. I have lots of e-mails, quotes and tons of examples with dates of how he treats me. Our industry is tight and small and word travels fast so it may be hard to get another job later on. Please help me??
I have been suspended with pay for 5 weeks now while my case is in review. I just started a marketing company as a hedge against the current economy. The company thought I was doing business with clients on the side. I did help one client with an internet site and I was helping another non-profit for free. I am in sales and marketing and I have not taken any money from the customers I have helped. I did send an e-mail to a one of my marketing customers that has no relationship with my company. They went through my computer/e-mail records and I’m sure found a few things that were against the company policies but far less than I have witnessed the managers do. They are now bringing me in for a follow-up interview with the HR director. The first interview was an ambush and I am expecting the same thing on Monday. The Director of HR wants to “clarify” some of my answers to the original HR reps questions. I want to know what rights, if any, I have when responding to their questions. The original reason to fire me doesn’t exist but they told me I used the company’s assets for personal business and that is reason for termination. Why didn’t they just fired me 5 weeks ago?
My company employs around 200 people. There is an HR department run by the HR Director who is seriously inadequate in the role. She has a shared PA with other directors and there is also a part time admin assistant. I’d like to know if there are any legal requirements regarding the size of HR department and their legal responsibilities to us as employees. Is there any kind of governing body that they would have to report to (and that we could complain to). I have no complaints about general admin, more to do with the care side that is seriously unsupportive. e.g. one of my staff has needed random time off work to care for a sick relative, and will need more time off whilst the relative undergoes treatment. I emailed HR to ask how to deal with this, after a week a reply from the director said she was going home sick and would deal with it on her return. This was several weeks ago and still hasn’t been sorted, this is typical of the director. Any advice gratefully received!
just wondering how I should ask him that’s politically correct and also if I should ask him or HR?
I’m pretty ticked off, my boss got a bonus and every VP that reports to him but not me (I’m his assistant)
I feel like calling, in confidence, another secretary I know to see if she has one but not sure if that’s a good idea.
I’d really appreciate your input. Thank you.
I had interviewed with 3-4 different people about three weeks ago at their corporate headquarters in Los Angeles and I felt like the interview went great. I have been going back and forth with the HR director and she has told me that they are really close in making a decision. It has been three weeks since the day I interviewed and the only response I am getting is we are close in making a decision. How long do background checks take anyways?? I have never waited this long for a job. What should I do?
More than 25,000 illegal immigrants a year stay in Britain due to Government inaction, official figures reveal. Thousands of enforcement cases and tip-offs are not followed up by the Home Office because they are not considered important enough, immigration officials have revealed.Their claims came after a Home Office memo was released ordering frontline immigration staff to stop deporting foreign students who are refused permission to stay in the UK once their visas run out.
In 2006, 28,540 foreign immigrants living in Britain – excluding asylum seekers – were refused permission to stay here by the Home Office. But in the same year only 12,830 were thrown out of the country or left voluntarily, leaving a backlog of almost 16,000.
Figures also reveal that 4,000 foreign prisoners complete their sentences each year without being deported, while the backlog of failed asylum seekers not sent home is growing by 6,000 each year.
The Home Office claims some cannot be sent home on human rights grounds because their home countries are too dangerous. But insiders insist that in most cases the Border and Immigration Agency’s lack of resources is to blame.
Across the country 1,500 immigration officers are tasked with catching and deporting the backlog of illegal immigrants, estimated at more than 600,000.
And thousands of those who are caught have to be released almost immediately because there is nowhere to lock them up.
John Tincey, of the Immigration Services Union, said: “The ‘harm agenda’ (the Home Office system for gauging how harmful it is for an illegal immigrant to stay in the country) gives directors a basis for concentrating on one area but not another.
“Immigration officers used to be allowed to weigh up tasks based on their experience and judgment. Now we have a series of targets to hit and boxes to tick.”
i looked it up on the internet…there have always been citizens siding with the wolves, but this is a wilderness problem. here is the game dept statement:
Wolf Management in Alaska
Wayne L. Regelin,
Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Public attitudes toward wolf management, and wolf control in particular, are based on deeply held values. Conflicts between people with divergent values have fueled the controversy for decades, and I expect this will not change. Some people and organizations have no desire to understand and accept the values of others on this issue. This conflict of values makes setting wildlife policy difficult.
Most Alaskans are proud that we have large and healthy wolf populations, and many recognize that we have a special responsibility to manage wolves to ensure their continued abundance. Wolves do have an impact on moose and caribou populations, and this impact, in combination with factors such as severe winter weather or bear predation, can depress moose and caribou populations to very low levels leaving little harvestable surplus for humans.
Man has the ability to influence this system by reducing wolf populations and allowing ungulate populations to recover from depressed levels. The controversy centers on whether — or when and how — it is appropriate for man to decrease wolf numbers to increase ungulate harvests
The department tried a new approach to resolve the long-standing issue of wolf control. We proposed the concept of developing a statewide wolf management plan using a stakeholder process. We hoped a strategic plan built with a lot of public involvement had the potential to defuse the issue and allow development of a stable wolf management policy.
The board agreed, and we selected team members, hired a facilitator and developed a charter for the group. Twelve citizens, representing a wide variety of wildlife values, served on the team. The team included advisory committee members, Alaska Natives, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, Alaska Outdoor Council, National Audubon Society, hunters, trappers and the environmental community at large.
From the hisroricalperspective, of these long-held conflicts, these resolutions have come:
1. The department will never again conduct widespread and continuous wolf control to increase ungulate populations. The monetary costs are too high and the public does not want their wildlife to be managed in that manner.
2. Wolf control by department personnel may be possible in small areas to help restore moose or caribou populations. In order to gain public acceptance, it will be necessary to have citizen participation in a planning process, guided by reliable scientific information.
3. Public acceptance is more easily gained if non-lethal methods of wolf population reduction are used, but this practice is probably not feasible in most places in Alaska.
4. A statewide planning effort, as was done in 1990, is unlikely to be productive. Such a plan can only provide general guidelines for wolf control. We must address each area individually with a planning team that includes local residents.
5. In most places in Alaska, local residents and other hunters must reduce predator populations on their own, through legal means of hunting bears and hunting and trapping wolves. The board and department will need to consider seasons, bag limits and methods needed to reach to this goal, as part of an overall wildlife management strategy.
6. The intensive management statutes are difficult to use and time consuming. Their emphasis on predator control is contradicted by public opinion, as represented through successful ballot initiatives.
7. Wolf management is complex, because sociological considerations are more influential than biological information. The majority of the American public and a sizeable proportion of the Alaskan public do not want the department to undertake wolf control.
8. The public supports department and board actions that recognize and provide for a diversity of wildlife values and uses. One way the board has demonstrated this balanced view has been to provide viewing opportunities by protecting wolves. The department will continue to support providing for appropriate viewing opportunities.
9. The public has an important and legitimate role in managing public resources. We must continue to discuss predator and prey management objectives with a broad-based public.
********************
What do you think now?
|
HR Director, Manager and Executive Jobs When it comes to your career and job search for HR Director Jobs, let HR Director Jobs be your first and only resource to act as your online recruiter. We monitor and pull from hundreds of websites and job boards to provide you with the highest quality HR Director Job matches you can depend on. Unlike other job sites, we only concentrate on HR Director and Executive Jobs for your level and location.
As the Human Resource leader, your responsibilities range from directing the daily operations of the Human Resources Department, administrate HR policies, budgeting and supervise HR staff. In addition, your department will manage employee benefits, performance management, employee counseling, recruitment, hiring, orientation, training, worker’s compensation, employee health, meet compliance and HRIS programs. As HR Director, you act as the liaison to upper management and directly report to the President / CEO of most companies. |
