Postemployment Benefits The company has decided to restructure the operations at one of its stores. As part of this restructuring, the company has…

Postemployment BenefitsThe company has decided to restructure the operations at one of its stores. As part of this restructuring, the company has determined that the store facility is impaired. The store originally cost $3,000,000 and has accumulated depreciation of $1,300,000. The fair value of the store is determined to be $800,000. In addition, 32 employees at the store are being terminated as part of the severance package, each employee is entitled to job training benefits (costing $500 per employee) and two month’s salary (averaging $5,000 per employee). Make the journal entry or entries necessary to record this restructuring. I hope you can help me. Please.. 🙂

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15

homeland

Thesis: I do not support our government engaging in gun control legislatio

I. Keeping our government controlled by the People

A. Our founding fathers believed an armed militia and armed public would ensure that a government never got out of hand because the People could take up arms against a corrupt government.

B. When totalitarian and fascist government take over a particular country, one of the first things they do is confiscate all of the arms and other guns and ammunitions so that the individual citizens have no way to overthrow the corrupt government.

II. Protect our homeland from foreign invading armies

A. In the United States, citizens on privately approximately 300+ million firearms.

B. There is enough firearms to almost arm every man, woman and child in the United States.

C. No invading army would ever be able to withstand the defense the People would bring to bear against any foreign adversary on our soil.

III. Keeps us safe in our homes and property

A. The police are not able to be everywhere at the same time.

B. Firearms empower men and women to go any place at any time and not “be afraid“.

C. We all have a duty to protect our children.

D. Protecting our homes and property is a right the People have as a matter of human rights.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15

BHS220 SLP due 14 jan 18

BHS220 SLP due 14 jan 18

Your specific assignment for this week is to select one type of quantitative health datum to collect from your own life. Some examples of data to collect could be:

  1. How many minutes do you spend exercising each day?
  2. What is your total daily caloric intake in calories?
  3. What is your resting heart rate in beats per minute?
  4. How many ounces of water do you drink each day?
  5. What is your estimated total caloric expenditure from exercise each day?
  6. What is your estimated daily intake of saturated fat in grams?
  7. What is your daily systolic/diastolic blood pressure?

Your Task:

  1. Choose one variable that varies measurably from day to day. Be sure to specify the units of measurement, and state how it will be gathered.
  2. Then collect at least 5 days worth of data on that one variable. For example, if your variable is how many minutes you spend exercising each day, simply record the number of minutes that you spend exercising each day during the sampling period. Be sure to save this data for use in remaining SLP assignments. The more data points that you gather during the session, the better.
  3. Describe the data you have collected and its importance in relations to individual/population’s health.
 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15

PLEASE ANSWER 1 PEER WITH 2 PARAGRAPH , PLEASE I NEED 2 REFERENCES NO MORE THAN THAN 5 YEARS OLD.

Also for part of this discussion it is required a reply to one classmate.

Support answers with two cited peer reviewed journals

 

Nurse practitioners have been given the mandate of authorizing drugs and prescribing medications following the challenges that are facing the delivery of healthcare. Examples of such problems are the decreasing number of medical providers, unavailability of adequate health care services in rural and underserved areas as well as the increasing specialization among the professionals. The professional practice issue of a nurse practitioner as a prescriber is that prescribing is done in different contexts of practice. Thus no regulations are governing the process, the practice is outdated, and there is lack of enough funds for the education of the nurses (Sabatino et al., 2017). As a result, painkillers end up being prescribed in most cases.

Nurse practitioners have been found to prescribe drugs with the aim of promoting pharmaceutical companies that sponsor their education without relying on sufficient evidence in their prescriptions. This is according to the survey conducted on a sample of nurse practitioners who were randomly selected from the American Academy of nurse practitioners which is the largest body of nurse practitioners in the United States. In conclusion, therefore, the role of a nurse practitioner as a prescriber needs to be regulated and seriously examined to ensure proper prescriptions are done.

References

Miller, E., Balmer, D., Hermann, M. N., Graham, M. G., & Charon, R. (2014). Sounding narrative medicine: studying students’ professional identity development at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges89(2), 335.

Sabatino, J. A., Pruchnicki, M. C., Sevin, A. M., Barker, E., Green, C. G., & Porter, K. (2017). Improving prescribing practices: A pharmacist‐led educational intervention for nurse practitioner students. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners29(5), 248-254.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15

To further articulate the paradox of misguided personal loyalty

To further articulate the paradox of misguided personal loyalty to superiors in criminal justice agencies, practitioners and students should be familiar with the following facts:

1. Despite the cultural support for the practice of personal loyalty to superiors, there is no mention of it in agency rules and regulations. This may compel one to ask, if personal loyalty to superiors is such a great virtue, why are agency rules and regulations so reticent about it? On the other hand, if personal loyalty to superiors is optional, why are the practitioners who offer it rewarded so handsomely? Would not that raise suspicion concerning the integrity of the organization and the good-faith efforts of its leaders?

2. The more it is that agency leaders are subjected to external scrutiny (for example, a state audit, criminal investigation, or charge of misappropriation of funds), the more they demand personal loyalty from their subordinates. By contrast, no loyalty demands are usually made when the agency is stable and safe. The more likely reason for this behavior is to deter the practitioners from leaking adversarial information that could embarrass the superiors.

As an illustration, consider the undocumented story of a state governor who had just lost a favorite legislative bill by a single vote and who, upon discovering who the responsible legislator was, accused him of disloyalty. According to the story, the legislator responded apologetically, “but Governor, I have always been loyal to you when you are right.” At that moment, the governor rudely interrupted, “but… I do not need you when I am right!” Even if this story is fictitious, it demonstrates how disingenuous the practice of personal loyalty to superiors can be.

3. The practice of personal loyalty to superiors ignores the fact that some superiors are not worthy of loyalty. This can be shown by the fairly large numbers of supervisors and administrators who are fired or disciplined at all levels of government each year. And if that is the case, it is inappropriate to expect criminal justice practitioners to be loyal to unworthy superiors, and hypocritical if they are compelled to do so.

4. The excuse that personal loyalty to superiors is simply a knee-jerk reaction, one akin to saluting commanders on military bases, is misleading. While saluting military commanders is required by military rules, personal loyalty to superiors is not. Furthermore, while no harm to third parties occurs when military commanders are saluted, serious harm can occur when criminal justice practitioners comply thoughtlessly with their superiors’ unrestrained desires. Moreover, if personal loyalty to superiors were truly intended as a reflex action, the entire argument in favor of loyalty would be

259

pointless. 5. The common tendency of superiors to treat personal loyalty as a one-way-street relationship (that is,

the superiors need not return the loyalty) destroys the essence of loyalty. Any one-sided relationship in a free society should be considered suspect and potentially abusive. Furthermore, because institutional effectiveness requires that superiors and subordinates trust one another, then practicing one-way-street loyalty can destroy this trust.

Cases in Point

The following cases illustrate the dangers of personal loyalty to superiors in real criminal justice conditions: the first, in a police department; the second, in a correctional institution.

Case No. 1: A Police Situation

Miami Mayor Joe Carollo fired City Manager Donald Warshaw over a disagreement pertaining to Police Chief William O’Brien. Following the raid on the home of Elian Gonzalez’s Miami relatives, Carollo demanded that Warshaw fire O’Brien for failing to inform the mayor’s office of the raid and for allowing a Miami police officer to participate in the action after the mayor had announced that the police department would not assist federal agents if such a raid occurred. When Warshaw refused to fire Chief O’Brien (his successor at the department), Mayor Carollo dismissed Warshaw, although the city charter did not grant the mayor the authority to do so. Sixteen hours later, O’Brien announced his resignation, stating, “I refuse to be chief of police when someone as divisive and destructive as Joe Carollo is mayor” (Bridges, 2000:IA).

Carollo defended his decision to dismiss O’Brien by claiming that he had “lost all confidence” in the chief because he had refused to warn Carollo of the raid by federal authorities (LaCorte, 2000:5A). O’Brien, in turn, defended his decision not to inform the mayor of the raid, calling it “a police issue and not a political issue” (LaCorte, 2000:5A). The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which eventually led the raid, requested that the police department keep the plans for the action confidential and not disclose the purpose of the federal search warrant. An INS agent later called O’Brien “a hero” (Bridges, 2000:18A).

Case No. 2: A Corrections Situation

Wayne Gamer, who at the time was the commissioner of corrections in Georgia, allegedly authorized a mass beating of inmates at Hays State Prison in northwestern Georgia. He reportedly watched while the inmates— some already handcuffed and lying on the floor—were punched, kicked, and stomped until blood streaked the walls. When the officers who participated in this beating were later interrogated, they stated, “we were all under the impression that it was OK to do it.” Furthermore, Ray McWhorter, the highest-ranking prison official participating in the assault, allegedly covered up the entire affair. He publicly denied that any abuse had occurred (Houston Chronicle, July 1, 1997).

Discussion

These two cases clearly demonstrate the dangers of unrestrained personal loyalty in the workplace, the first at the executive level and the second at the operational level. They demonstrate the need for moral fortitude in the proper conduct of criminal justice activities. In the first case, the police chief proudly resigned in protest, and in the second, the correctional officers failed to protect the inmates from acts of unjustifiable abuse by higher officials. Both cases show the vulnerability of the public good when unprotected by watchful ethical subordinates. On the one hand, it was the seemingly disloyal act of Chief O’Brien that carried the day by making the INS raid successful. On the other, it was the abdication of professional judgment by the correctional officers that allowed illegal and unjustified physical assault to be so brutally inflicted on the inmates.

The moral of these two cases can be troubling and calls attention to the hierarchical nature of loyalties in

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15

The Paradoxical Nature of Personal Loyalty to Superiors

The Paradoxical Nature of Personal Loyalty to Superiors

The obligation of personal loyalty to superiors, especially in criminal justice agencies, is paradoxical. Although it is hardly mentioned at the workplace, it is considered essential to workers’ survival—they must adhere to it, or at least pretend to do so. While the superiors emphasize the significance of such loyalty, it can more frequently cause administrative embarrassment (remember the letter FBI agent Coleen Rowley wrote to the FBI director in 2002 noted in Chapter 5). Consequently, unless it can be shown that personal loyalty to superiors is legally or morally justified, the practice must be deemed unnecessary and possibly dangerous.

Consider, for instance, the troubling statements by two high-ranking criminal justice officials cited by Kleinig (1994) during a meeting he had with them. The first statement was, “when an organization wants you to do right, it asks for your integrity; when it wants you to do wrong, it demands your loyalty.” The second was, “when I make an appointment, I look for two things: loyalty and competence, in this order” (Kleinig, 1994:10). Unless one is a neophyte, the former statement should be dismissed as hyper-bole, and unless one is a cynic, the latter should be considered a naturalistic fallacy: If it is true that the value of competence is lower than the value of personal loyalty, how then can society be assured that its practitioners are competent enough to make intelligent decisions for the good of all concerned? Kleinig further added an even more repugnant note by stating, “the more ethically troubling implication of this citation was not what the official stated, but the fact that it was n

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15

The Physiology of Personal Loyalty to Superiors

The Physiology of Personal Loyalty to Superiors

In the objective reality of public agencies in general, and criminal justice agencies in particular, concern for personal loyalty to superiors enters into every decision the practitioners make. Subconsciously, yet unceasingly, the practitioners ask themselves, if they do this or that, who will they please or offend; who will support or ostracize them; and, inescapably, will their careers prosper or suffer as a result. To articulate this point, I ask you to consider, for example, the symbolic, yet not uncommon, case of a police officer who pulls over a young female driver suspected of speeding, who, after questioning, turns out not only to have a violated traffic law but also to be the police chief’s daughter. What is the first thought that will overcome the majority of officers in such a situation? No one knows for sure, because police officers usually do not talk about such incidents (basically out of personal loyalty to their superiors) and no pertinent research exists.

What seems typical, however, is that the officer agonizes over the high probability of a negative reaction from the police chief (even though the issued ticket was perfectly legitimate), whereas, if the driver had been another person, the officer would not worry. What makes this situation particularly stressful is the unspoken, yet questionable, tradition of personal loyalty to superiors. From an ethical perspective, the officer’s decision to issue a ticket should depend on the gravity of the offense, observance of departmental rules, enlightened sense of discretion, and trust in the department’s sense of fairness. The issue of personal loyalty to superiors should not be a factor, because if it is, the officer is logically justified in over-ticketing or under-ticketing the daughter of any superior (or for that matter, citizen) to whom they owe no personal loyalty at the time.

While this scenario can be casually dismissed as insignificant or benign, it exemplifies, at least in principle, the dangers of unexamined personal loyalty to superiors. Such danger signifies the misguided belief that, by virtue of one’s personal loyalty, one is expected to act more favorably toward one’s superiors, including in situations that might violate the concepts of the rule of law and equal protection. From an ethical perspective, the issue, the practitioners’ reluctance to freely and honorably perform their constitutional duties for fear of retaliation by a slighted superior, is not only legal but also strongly moral. Allowing for such a mental reservation can lead to more serious consequences if, for instance, the chief’s daughter is underage, driving under the influence of alcohol, or fleeing the scene of an accident. Furthermore, criminal justice practitioners face much more serious situations than issuing traffic tickets. In police and correctional settings, it is not unusual for probationers to be accused of abusing authority, falsifying evidence, lying on the witness stand, or covering up for corrupt acts. Historically, such acts marred numerous national cases, including Watergate, Iran-Contra, My Lai, and Abu Ghraib. Furthermore, because criminal justice practitioners take an oath to faithfully execute all laws, and because the basic integrity of justice is at stake, it is all the more crucial that issues of workplace loyalty be carefully examined and morally discussed.

257

The Peculiar Nature of Personal Loyalty to Superiors

Personal loyalty to superiors can be defined as an act of “intentionally upholding higher commitments to specific superiors for periods of time at the risk of undermining personal commitments to the truth.” As such, the practitioners (unless justified, as in the case of an emergency) invariably suspend their judgment about what is right or wrong and act on the basis of unsubstantiated sentiments. Examples include one’s loyalty to clan members, classmates, and friends. But personal loyalty also must be seen as having a self-sacrificial dimension. For the sake of the object of loyalty, the practitioners set aside significant personal and public interests.

The peculiarity of personal loyalty to superiors stems from the concept’s moral fragility. Consider, for instance, the following scenarios:

Personal loyalty to superiors can be offered to a worthy object but for an unworthy reason (for example, power, egoism, personal gain, or corruption). Kleinig points out that personal loyalty can create conditions that make it vulnerable to exaggeration and distortion. Loyal people may not always be loyal; their ambitions change, and with them, their loyalties. The betrayal of George Washington by Benedict Arnold (one of Washington’s most loyal generals) is a case in point (Bayh, 1972). The superiors themselves may not value the submissive practice of personal loyalty; many may even loathe it. It is not surprising that, as a result, middle managers may not hesitate to file grievances against their managers, and chief deputies may not hesitate to run for office against their sheriffs. For personal loyalty to be genuine, it should be a two-way-street relationship. Yet while subordinates are silently required to demonstrate loyalty to their superiors, the latter do not consider themselves obligated to reciprocate. Consequently, being aware of such contradictions is essential to truly understanding the dangers of personal loyalty to superiors.

On the basis of this discussion, it should be safe to suggest that if public service is to be based on rationality, due process, and equal protection, then reliance on personal loyalty to superiors demonstrates incoherence. This can be explained by the primary-secondary obligation paradigm. By virtue of organizational citizenship, the practitioners’ primary loyalty must be to serving the public, and, if so, every other loyalty must be considered secondary. Subsequently, if criminal justice practitioners are expected (or, worse still, compelled) to exercise personal loyalty to superiors as the primary obligation, they will be acting either illogically or disingenuously. Such acts are illogical if made on the basis of ignorance, and disingenuous if made on the basis of prior knowledge; in either case, the agency’s integrity is impugned and its reputation tarnished.

258

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15

This grammar of loyaltie

This grammar of loyalties can also be identified by its durability. Personal loyalty to superiors is short-lived and transient; it seldom outlives the subordinate-superior relationship. Institutional loyalty is more profound; it lasts as long as the practitioner is currently employed by the agency. Integrated loyalty is lifelong and transcendent; it continues throughout the practitioners’ life, regardless of which agency they serve. Compliance with this grammar of loyalties requires a great deal of caution and good faith. It is, therefore, important that criminal justice practitioners consider the following triadic criteria:

1. Personal loyalty to superiors, being the most temporary and volatile, should be the least necessary workplace loyalty.

2. Institutional loyalty, being the more comprehensive and durable, should be the normal workplace loyalty, and cannot be replaced by personal loyalty.

3. Integrated loyalty, being the cornerstone of all professional and moral loyalties, should be the highest level of all workplace loyalties. It should always be aspired to in the supreme name of criminal justice. As such, Royce may have said it best when he referred to integrated loyalty as loyalty to loyalty (Royce, 1908).

256

This grammar of loyalties can also be identified by its durability. Personal loyalty to superiors is short-lived and transient; it seldom outlives the subordinate-superior relationship. Institutional loyalty is more profound; it lasts as long as the practitioner is currently employed by the agency. Integrated loyalty is lifelong and transcendent; it continues throughout the practitioners’ life, regardless of which agency they serve. Compliance with this grammar of loyalties requires a great deal of caution and good faith. It is, therefore, important that criminal justice practitioners consider the following triadic criteria:

1. Personal loyalty to superiors, being the most temporary and volatile, should be the least necessary workplace loyalty.

2. Institutional loyalty, being the more comprehensive and durable, should be the normal workplace loyalty, and cannot be replaced by personal loyalty.

3. Integrated loyalty, being the cornerstone of all professional and moral loyalties, should be the highest level of all workplace loyalties. It should always be aspired to in the supreme name of criminal justice. As such, Royce may have said it best when he referred to integrated loyalty as loyalty to loyalty (Royce, 1908).

256

This grammar of loyalties can also be identified by its durability. Personal loyalty to superiors is short-lived and transient; it seldom outlives the subordinate-superior relationship. Institutional loyalty is more profound; it lasts as long as the practitioner is currently employed by the agency. Integrated loyalty is lifelong and transcendent; it continues throughout the practitioners’ life, regardless of which agency they serve. Compliance with this grammar of loyalties requires a great deal of caution and good faith. It is, therefore, important that criminal justice practitioners consider the following triadic criteria:

1. Personal loyalty to superiors, being the most temporary and volatile, should be the least necessary workplace loyalty.

2. Institutional loyalty, being the more comprehensive and durable, should be the normal workplace loyalty, and cannot be replaced by personal loyalty.

3. Integrated loyalty, being the cornerstone of all professional and moral loyalties, should be the highest level of all workplace loyalties. It should always be aspired to in the supreme name of criminal justice. As such, Royce may have said it best when he referred to integrated loyalty as loyalty to loyalty (Royce, 1908).

256

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15

The Grammar of Workplace Loyalties

The Grammar of Workplace Loyalties

Maintaining loyalty relationships in criminal justice agencies can be particularly stressful because, although the work itself is exhilarating, the work environment may be disappointing. A gratifying loyalty relationship, therefore, may not be “a fair-weather commitment”; it often has a “self-sacrificial dimension” (Kleinig, 1996:71). For that reason alone, perhaps, it is important that criminal justice practitioners fully understand the grammar of their workplace loyalties. The term grammar of loyalties is here used to mean “the skillful conjugation of three levels of loyalty, which, while not interchangeable, may overlap with varying degrees of intensity” (Souryal & McKay, 1996:48). Moreover, because the ethical weight of these levels is critical, they will here be rank-ordered from the least valuable to the most valuable.

Personal loyalty is the lowest rung on the ladder of workplace loyalties. It is mechanical in nature and constitutes the subordinate’s unexamined obligation to accept, comply with, and support a superior’s directions and wishes. Examples include the obligation of police officers or correctional officers to be personally subservient to their sergeants and lieutenants. As a result, they may agree to make an illegal arrest, give an inmate a break, or recommend the revocation of a probationer in violation of the rules. The guiding statement at this level is “from each practitioner based on his or her performance.”

Institutional loyalty is the next rung on the ladder of workplace loyalties. It is organizational in nature and constitutes the practitioners’ obligation to accept, comply with, and support the agency’s mission and to honor its ends-means strategy. Examples include the obligation of probation officers to revoke a person’s probation solely on the basis of agency rules and regulations, professional standards, and ethically accepted practices. The officers involved should objectively examine the circumstances of the case, solicit legal advice, and use justified judgment. The guiding statement at this level is “from each practitioner based on his or her devotion to honor the agency.”

Integrated loyalty is the highest and most virtuous level of workplace loyalties. It is idealistic in nature and constitutes the practitioners’ obligation to observe, above all else, the constitutional principles of the land and the ideals of public service. Examples include the practitioners’ obligation to honor freedom, privacy, honesty, rationality, and goodwill. It represents the unadulterated commitment to the doctrines of equality, impartiality, decency, and compassion—indeed, to the pursuit of civility. The guiding statement at this level is “from each practitioner to the highest constitutional, professional, and moral ideals.”

This grammar of loyalties can also be identified by its durability. Personal loyalty to superiors is short-lived and transient; it seldom outlives the subordinate-superior relationship. Institutional loyalty

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15

Yet unexamined loyalty can be dangerous and often has threatened world peace

Yet unexamined loyalty can be dangerous and often has threatened world peace. The cases of personal loyalty to Hitler or Stalin may be extreme examples of bad loyalties, the kind that produce disastrous consequences. Blamires likened that kind of loyalty to an intoxicant. He noted that “we breathe the word loyalty and immediately a sentimental warmth floods our minds” (Souryal & McKay, 1996:46). Fletcher also stressed loyalty’s natural bias when he commented, “by definition, [loyalty] generates interest, partiality, an identification with the object of one’s loyalty rather than with the cause it serves” (Souryal & McKay, 1996:46).

Issues of loyalty cannot be divorced from issues of disloyalty, a sentiment viewed as “the forsaking of an object of loyalty for self-serving and individualistic or self-assertive reasons” (Kleinig, 1996:74). Criminal justice practitioners who are accused of disloyalty (perhaps because of their agencies’ paramilitary nature) are considered pariahs, and their chances for survival as practitioners may be demonstrably blunted. In ultraconservative agencies—the kind where the practitioners are called upon to circle the wagons and take no prisoners—disloyal workers are routinely targeted for elimination as the Jacobeans were during the French Revolution. During Watergate, for example, not much reflection was needed to realize that the “loyalty of a G. Gordon Liddy or John Mitchell generated about as much admiration as the honor amongst thieves, and that for all their soul-stirring qualities, [they] were frequently jingoistic and exclusionary” (Souryal & McKay, 1996:53). Because of its notorious ambiguity, perhaps, loyalty has also been labeled an “uneasy virtue” and the “last refuge of scoundrels” (Kleinig, 1996:71). Blamires was much more suspicious, pointing out that “[O]ne can say fairly that whenever loyalty is quoted as a prime motive or basis for action, one has the strongest reasons for suspecting that support is being sought for a bad cause” (Blamires, 1963:24

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Use Code FREE15