The expansion of dough Essay Example for Free

The expansion of dough Essay There are many factors that may have an effect on the expansion of dough but I will research temperature and material, the experiment is as follows. 25g of flour will be weighed into a beaker, and sugar will then be added. 30cm3 of yeast suspension will be measured in the 50cm3 measuring cylinder, and then added to the flour and sugar. It will then be stirred until a smooth paste. The paste will then be poured into the 250cm3 measuring cylinder without touching the sides. This is a precaution, because otherwise there will not be the correct amount of paste. The volume of the paste in the measuring cylinder will be recorded and the cylinder will be placed in one of the waterbaths, the temperature noted. The clock will be started and the volume recorded every 2mins for about 30mins. I think this experiment will work because dough is known to rise when heated I think that the higher the temperature, the bigger the expansion and if left over a period of time, at the same temperature, it will increase further, until a certain point. I believe this, because yeast is made up of a single-celled organism, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which multiplies rapidly when fed sugar and the yeast will convert starch to glucose, a simple sugar. This ferments the sugar, which converts to alcohol and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide gas helps raise the dough and the dough rapidly expands, increasing in volume. To support my hypothesis further I had to research, I found the following sites and books helpful: http://encarta. msn. co. uk/find/Concise. asp? z=1pg=2ti=761556236 http://homecooking. about. com/library/weekly/aa072197b. htm Biology for AQA separate award by Ann Fullick. I have performed the experiment using the method mentioned previously. I have paid attention to the precautions carefully, and tried to do it correctly and as precise as possible and have obtained the following results: Time (mins) Volume (cm3) Temp: 22i C-glass Temp: 32i C-plastic Temp: 32iThe results shown in the table prove that the higher the temperature, the further the dough will rise, supporting my hypothesis. To support my hypothesis further I had to research, I found the following sites and books helpful: http://encarta. msn. co. uk/find/Concise. asp? z=1pg=2ti=761556236 http://homecooking. about. com/library/weekly/aa072197b. htm Biology for AQA separate award by Ann Fullick The graph, on the next page, shows that when dough is heated at a higher temperature it will rise faster. However, if heated in a glass-measuring cylinder, it would have perhaps risen further than it did. This can be seen by comparing the dough at 32i C in the plastic measuring cylinder (A) and the dough at 22i C in the glass-measuring cylinder (B). Although A is 10iC above B for the first fourteen minutes, they are constantly crossing temperatures. As line of best fit, starts lower than B, its intercept being 23 and Bs being 32. From the graph, the differences between the lines can be seen easily, at 37i C, it had risen the most and at 22i C, it had risen the least, the difference between the two being 46 cm3. At 22i C, it raised 28cm3, at 32i C it raised 44cm3, and at 37i C it raised 74cm3, and the graph showed this. From the line of best fit, the lines can be compared by their intercepts and gradients easily. However, the line which each set of results form is more important.Each of them show a steady rise, but the steadiest is the dough at 37i C, this suggest that perhaps this is an ideal temperature for rising dough, not too high as to kill the yeast and not too low, so it wont grow as fast and as steady. This also helps me to understand why a change in material will help the dough rise faster or slower. If in a glass container, the heat can pass through easily, and so it will rise faster, but because plastic is an insulator, the heat cannot pass through as easily. In conclusion, I can form the opinion that dough will expand more rapidly when at a higher temperature, perhaps ranging between 30iand 40i , and in a container that is not heat resistant, and the graph shows this in a simpler form. I think this because yeast multiplies at a faster rate in a high heat, however, if too high, it will die. Also, the graph shows the dough rising at a steady rate at 37i C, and so at 40i C it would perhaps rise faster, and it raises relatively well at 32i C. Although the yeast would probably rise faster in a higher heat, within bread the carbon dioxide gas given off would probably create pockets within the bread, or the yeast would begin to die. The results have turned out as expected, supporting my prediction. My method gave evidence that was reliable, and so would be counted on as correct. I believe this because it showed how yeast can be useful and expands dough in higher temperatures. By producing dough and exposing it to the conditions in which I wanted to test it, I could produce reliable results. This was done by measuring the dough carefully and fairly, using the same ingredients as a precaution, making the investigation fair; and then heating it at a steady temperature. By recording it throughout, I was able to produce a graph, to show my results in a clear and precise way. I think that I have given enough evidence to draw a conclusion. However, I think that this investigation could be advanced, by heating dough at a lower temperature, such as 15i C, in two different materials, and then the same again at a higher temperature, such as 50i C, also at a middle temperature, such as 18i C. By comparing two extremes and an intermediate, we can see if yeast will rise any more rapidly and steadily at the different temperatures and more importantly, if the materials in which they are heated make a difference. This would help support my earlier conclusion, that dough will expand more rapidly when at a higher temperature, perhaps ranging between 30i and 40i , and in a container that is not heat resistant. Investigation to observe the effect of temperature on the expansion of dough Dominique Briggs 10y Biology Mrs Tottey Show preview only The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Patterns of Behaviour section.

Statutory Protection of Employment Law

Statutory Protection of Employment Law The Failed Promise of Statutory Protection The subject of the legal regulation of labor is one of great complexity. Up to the present time a priori objections to such regulations have delayed their introduction, and only gradually, as experience has demonstrated their usefulness, have they been extended to situations which seem to require them. In †¦ the United States the notion that the legislative power should not be used to regulate conditions of employment has been abandoned by most thoughtful persons, but the prejudice against interference is as strong as ever. Henry R. Seager, Economics, 1904, p. 431 Following a period of legislative inaction, selective statutory restrictions on the right to dismiss came into existence largely as a byproduct of labor legislation of the late 1920s and early 1930s. The introduction of limitations to the at-will rule within the NLRA framework, in particular, marked the long overdue recognition that, as long as employers had the right to dismiss employees, at-will public policy goals, such as industrial peace and the extension of orderly collective bargaining, were unattainable. Following a roughly historical chronology, this chapter explores how, from the 1920s onwards, restrictions on dismissals were constructed around notions of â€Å"orderly† collective bargaining. Thematically, the focus of the chapter is on the creation of new institutional structures and their impact on the status of workers in terms of job security. Underlying this analysis is the tentative hypothesis that the NLRA, and the practices which evolved from it, provided unions and their members with a sense of control over dismissal rights which was largely illusionary. This mistaken sense of control, in turn, encouraged unions to put efforts into job security enhancing measures at the plant and company level which ultimately did not constrain managerial prerogatives effectively. This lack of real control became apparent in the mid 1960s, when the Supreme Court handed down several decisions which reaffirmed the right of management to close branches and discharge employees without u nion interference. Apart from excluding non-unionized workers, the NLRA system, perhaps against the intentions of its original sponsors, ultimately came to severely circumscribe the right of unions to bargain over job security at the very time when such protection was needed. The Promised Lands of Protected Bargaining At the turn of the century, many US industrial relations scholars questioned the assumption that injustices in the labor market could be remedied through legislative acts and/or, more generally, via a strengthening of individual employment rights. Opposition to legislative approaches was grounded primarily in the belief that solutions to the â€Å"labor problems of industrial societies† could be created more easily by strengthening the standing of organized labor as collective bargaining agent rather than by creating a host of specific employment regulations.[1] Accordingly, in 1911, the Harvard economist Taussig suggested that the most urgent task in reforming US employment relations was not detailed new legislation per se, but rather the protection of bargaining representatives:[2] The workmen clearly gain by having their case in charge of chosen representatives, whether or not these be fellow employees; and collective bargaining and unionization up to this point surely bring no offsetting disadvantages to society. As to the immediate employees, there is often a real danger that he who presents a demand, or a grievance, will be â€Å"victimized.† He will be discharged and perhaps blacklisted; very likely on some pretext, but in fact because â€Å"he has made trouble.† In the 1930s, Taylors influential Labor Problems and Labor Law argued, very much along the lines of earlier reform advocates, that individual workers had been deprived of their ability to bargain primarily because of the expansion and centralization of management.[3] To remedy this situation, Taylor argued, the state had to enable workers to bargain collectively, both for wages and for the protection of their jobs. Said Taylor:[4] Legally free to dispose of his services at any price he deems just, immediate necessity in the face of an oversupply of labor reduces that freedom to empty words. His [meaning the workers] inferior bargaining position is not wholly due to economic inequality, but in part to a lack of knowledge of labor conditions, and a bargaining skill less effective than that of his employer. The injustices growing out of the individual bargaining burden affect not only the individual worker but the entire group to which he belongs. Unregulated competition resulting from individual bargaining tends to pull down the terms of employment to the level of the weakest employer Taylors notion that inequalities of labor were due to the exposure of workers to individual rather than collective bargaining echoed the opinions of some of the nations leading judges of the time. Judges Holmes and Field had earlier opposed bans on union activity on account of the fact that union activity merely counterbalanced the combination of capitalists.[5] Despite the gradual acknowledgement of the legitimacy of strike action by some courts, up until the 1920s, few judges had been willing to offer protection to those workers who were discharged for union membership or strike activity. In theory, collective bargaining could serve to limit the power disequilibrium between the employer, who, as Holmes says â€Å"is free to discharge the worker, and the worker who depends on his job for his livelihood.†[6] In practice, however, the relationship between job security and collective action had remained largely antonymous. Post World War I, workers who participated in collective action, be it as organizers or as strike participants, were likely to face retaliatory discharges or even blacklisting.[7] Industrial actions in which in excess of 1,000 workers were permanently dismissed included the Homestead strike of 1892, the Pullman strike of 1894, and the steel strike of 1919-20, which involved approximately 365,000 workers and resulted in over 10,000 permanent discharges. In the Boston police strike of 1919, in which the policemen struck for the right to organize with an AFL affiliate, meanwhile, more than one third of the police force were permanently discharged. The first congressional statute addressing issues of dismissal and organizing activity, the Erdman Act, had attempted to prohibit the retaliatory discharge of union members working on the railroads; at a time when the railroads were the only area where the Federal Government had the authority to regulate such matters. Passed by Congress in 1898, Section 10 of the Erdman Act made it an offense to threaten an employee â€Å"with discharge† or to blacklist the employee after a discharge because of membership in a labor organization. Specifically the Act read: [8] That any employer subject to the provisions of this act and any officer, agent or receiver of such employer who shall require any employee, or any person seeking employment, as a condition of such employment, to enter into an agreement, either written or verbal, not to become or remain a member of any labor corporation, association, or organization; or shall threaten any employee with loss of employment, or shall unjustly discriminate against any employee because of his membership †¦ or who shall, after having discharges an employee, attempt or conspire to prevent such employee from obtaining employment or who shall after the quitting of an employee, attempt or conspire to prevent such employee from obtaining employment, is hereby declared to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and †¦ shall be punished for such offense by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars. In 1908, section 10 of the Erdman Act was declared in violation of the Fifth Amendment by the Supreme Court in Adair v. United States. This rather predictable decision again rendered members of labor organizations unprotected from retaliatory discharges.[9] Unionized workers were given some support by the courts in the Brandeis and Holmes Supreme Court decisions of the 1920s.[10] Explicit legislative protection of those engaging in organizing activity however commenced as late as 1926 with the passage of the Railroad Labor Act (RLA), which, apart from requiring employers to bargain with unions, prohibited employers from discriminating against union members.[11] The RLA applied originally to interstate railroads and related undertakings, but was later amended to include airlines engaged in interstate commerce. The Norris La Guardia Act (NLGA) of 1932 gave some federal sanction to the right of labor unions to organize and strike.[12] Implicitly, it also limited the ability of federal courts to enforce â€Å"yellow dog contracts,† under which workers promised not to join a union or promised to discontinue union membership.[13] The National Industrial Recovery Act (NRA) of 1933, the predecessor of the National Labor Relations Act, in troduced the idea of codes of â€Å"fair competition† which fixed wages and hours in certain industries. Title I of the Act, which was declared unconstitutional in 1935, guarantied the right of employees to collective bargaining without interference or coercion (which included the dismissal of employees). [14] The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, or Wagner Act, included some previously invalidated labor sections of the NRA, as well as a number of additions. Primarily concerned with restricting employer activities against union organizing and bargaining efforts, the NLRA prohibited employers from, firstly, â€Å"dominating or otherwise interfering with the formation of labor unions†; secondly, â€Å"interfering or restraining employees engaged in exercising their rights to organize and bargain collectively; and, thirdly, from â€Å"refusing to bargain collectively with unions representing a companys employees.† In doing so, sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA effectively tied the legal protection of employees from retaliatory discharges to the right of employees to organize collectively. The Act stated to this effect that:[15] Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Sec. 8. It shall be an unfair practice for an employer— (1) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7. (2) To dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it†¦ (3) By discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization†¦ (4) To discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he had filed charges or given testimony under this act. (5) To refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees†¦ Under the NLRA regime, employers were required â€Å"not to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees† with regard to â€Å"rates of pay, wages and hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.†[16] While the Act had made it clear that retaliatory dismissals of union members were illegal, it gave no guidance on the question of whether bargaining over â€Å"other conditions of employment,† included issues relating to job security.[17] Moreover, despite the appearance of sweeping legislation, coverage under the NLRAs protective umbrella was narrow. Public employees at the federal, state, and local level, agricultural workers, domestic workers, and supervisory employees all were excluded.[18] Nonetheless, for those covered by the Act, statutory dismissal protection was available in connection with established categories of protected activity the courts had created. This included dismissals for strike action, union membership and related activities. Indeed, at its outset, the NLRB rulings allowed significant numbers of dismissed employees to gain reinstatement. From the appointment of the Board in the Fall of 1935 until March 1939, the Board handled a total of 20,192 cases involving over 4.5 million workers. Of these cases 19,018 or four fifths were closed. Of the total cases closed, about 52% were decided by agreements, while the remainder were dismissed, withdrawn or closed in some other way before coming to the Board. About two thousand cases were strike cases, involving 356 thousand workers, of which 75% were settled and in which 227 thousand workers had to be re-employed. An additional 15 thousand cases were decided in favor of workers alleging non-strike related discriminatory discharges, and resulted in the reinstatement of the respective workers. Between January 1 of 1938 and April 1 of 1939 alone, the Board heard 1,675 cases alleging discriminatory discharges and ordered the reinstatement and/or compensation of 1,022 wo rkers.[19] In theory, there was a potential for collective bargaining agreements to include job security guarantees of some form. Given existing cultural pre-dispositions, both amongst the judiciary and managers, however, the possibility of partial union control over personnel and investment decisions was remote. Judicial support for the right to manage had a strong pedigree and its influence would not wane quickly. In the 1890s already, some state courts had felt the need to defend the right to manage. In the view of most courts this right was as much a part of the free labor creed as was the right to work. â€Å"Free labor† required that both employers and individual workers were fully responsible for their decisions. Permitting workers to organize and successively influence managerial decisions was viewed as a danger to free economic competition. In State v. Glidden, an outraged Connecticut judge stated, that once workers could influence managerial decision, no longer would the heads of industrial and commercial enterprises rise from the â€Å"ranks of the toilers, no longer could self-reliant ambitious men push to the fore.†[20] Unable to manage as they saw fit, businessmen would stop risking their capital, time and experience. â€Å"At best, the nations business would be conducted by paternalistic enterprises, at worst anarchy pure and simple † would prevail. At the turn of the century, Taussig had already predicted that union demands for job security would clash with managers insistence on â€Å"the right to manage.† His Principles of Economics stated to this effect that:[21] Private ownership carries with it the seeds of conflictthe inevitable clash between those who employ and who are employed. Disguise it as we may, smooth over to our utmost, adjust where we can, there the conflict is, ever liable to break out. The private employer regards his business as his own, its methods of management as subject to his own judgment. It is almost invariably urged by him and his spokesman that the effective working of the business machine depends above all on unfettered freedom in the selection and tenure of employees. So long as this attitude prevails, the workman will feel in turn that he must retain his weapon of defense, the strike, even though it entail injury to a wide circle of persons. Even if employers were to consent to restrictions on their power of discharge, contests would remain, strikes would brew. And on the other hand discharge is but one of the matters in which employers absolute rule is to be questioned. Discharge is conspicuous because it is t he outstanding weapon. As long as unions and their members had little formal protection through the law, management had been able to assert its dominance with relative ease, if only by dismissing those who questioned it. Once NLRA legislation protected concerted action, this situation had changed radically, and conflicts between unions and management over dismissal rights were pre-destined. When President Truman called the second National Labor Management Conference in 1945, labor and management representatives found themselves unable to agree on the boundaries of collective bargaining. Disagreement had arisen particularly with regard to managements right to make workers redundant, close and/or relocate branches. The statement of the management representative at the conference expressed the employers dismay over this matter:[22] Labor members of the Committee on Managements Rights to manage have been unwilling to any listing of specific management functions. Management members of the Committee conclude †¦ therefore, that the labor members are convinced that the field of collective bargaining will, in all probability, continue to expand into the field of management. The only possible end of such a philosophy would be the joint management of the enterprise. To this management members naturally cannot agree. Management has functions that must not and cannot be compromised to the public interest. If labor disputes are to be minimized, labor must agree that certain specific functions and responsibilities of management are not subject to collective bargaining. In theory, the evolving conflict about the appropriate limits of collective bargaining, and particularly the rights of labor to interfere with managements redundancy and dismissal decisions, was resolved by reference to new management concepts such as the residual rights doctrine. In practice, a set of employer friendly court decisions and the decline of unions in the US settled the issue, first, in rough terms, during the first decade of NLRA rule, and then, in greater detail, over the following three decades. The notion of residual rights, which deserves a passing mention in this context, developed from the 1940s onwards to become a prominent feature of the management of industrial relations in the 1960s and 1970s. The residual rights doctrine postulated that management rights were the result of an evolutionary process, whereby initially management possessed total freedom in ordering the affairs of the enterprise. This included freedoms with regard to whom to hire and dismiss and when to do so. Union demands and labor legislation encroached on this freedom. It followed that every time a manager made a contractual concession, and/or every time a labor law restricted management options, the original rights of management were reduced. What remained then were the residual rights, not specifically renounced by management or restricted by law.[23] If, for instance, management renounced the right to dismiss according to productivity or any other performance criterion and agreed to dismiss accord ing to seniority, seniority replaced managements previous decision criteria. Meanwhile other issues, such as how many workers could be dismissed in a specific time period, remained within the exclusive sphere of managerial decision making.[24] Adopting this view, many arbitration decisions applied a two-stage approach to questions about the appropriate bargaining remit of a union. If union representatives and management disagreed on whether an issue was a legitimate bargaining item, previous contractual agreements as well as legal requirements had to be investigated. If no explicit statement restricting managements rights in the respective matter could be found in these sources, the issue typically had to be considered as falling within managements remit. Since explicit renunciations of the rights to dismiss were typically rare, management usually maintained broad discretion over dismissals, which fell outwith causes covered explicitly by just-cause rules. Because existing practices and informal agreements had little legal bearing on conflicts over the interpretation of the NLRA, the residual rights doctrine offered almost no guidance to the courts in evaluating the legitimacy of union involvement in termination decisions. Here an alternative, and in many ways even more restrictive approach, evolved over time. While the NLRB of the early years generally looked favorably upon workers whose discharge could in some way be linked to union activity, it also condoned a wide set of permissible grounds for dismissal. In this context, several NLRB decisions early on vindicated traditional assumptions about managerial prerogatives. Discharges were sustained by the NLRB in cases involving gross inefficiency of a worker, incompetence, change in equipment, â€Å"ruckus and horseplay†, absenteeism, brawling, cursing of the boss, and the violation of company rules.[25] Most importantly, discharges in the absence of employee misconduct were fre quently declared permissible if there was no evidence for anti-union activity. This included discharges for lack of work, which were generally approved by the Board even in absence of union consultation, as long as anti-union bias could not be proven. In its Seagrave decision of 1938, for instance, the Board set a precedent for the preservation of employment-at-will within collective bargaining.[26] Seagrave, an automotive equipment plant had discharged an employee three weeks after he got his job. The foreman testified to the fact that the employees work was satisfactory. The worker, a CIO member, had previously been arrested for disorderly conduct during a strike and alleged that he was fired because of this previous involvement, and, more specifically, because his foreman had received a blacklist showing his name. The spokesman of the company explained that the polisher was hired because of a temporary emergency arising from the receipt of a special order, and that he was dismiss ed when the work on that order let up. The Board found no evidence for anti-union activity and declared the dismissal legal. In the case of Sheba Ann Frocks (1938), similarly, thirty employees, who had been dropped from the payroll of the Sheba garment plant, complained to the Board alleging that their discharge was based on their CIO membership.[27] Company officials testified that the layoffs took place because of a lack of work at the end of the regular production season. The Board accepted this explanation because the company retained over half of its CIO employees and discharged non-union employees as well, although not proportionally. In its conclusion the Board stated that, in the case of a dismissal for legitimate business reasons, such as slack work, no consultation with union members was required. While NLRB decisions of the late 1930s, such as Seagrave and Sheba, delineated the space between dismissal protection and managerial prerogatives more or less by default, several court decisions attempted to give guidance which was general enough to be applied to other contexts. This tendency towards establishing a formula which ringfenced managerial decision making from union intrusion could already be detected in the Supreme Courts ruling on NLRB v. Jones Laughlin Steel, the landmark case better known for its acceptance of the NLRA. In Jones, the Supreme Court stressed that although the Act required bargaining, it did not â€Å"compel† agreement.[28] For the Supreme Court, in other words, the NLRA was legal because, and only because, the Act did not interfere with â€Å"the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select employees or to discharge them.†[29] That, in defining normal rights, the Supreme Court emphasised the right to discharge workers did not bod e well for those who expected the Act to significantly reduce arbitrary dismissals. With Jones, the court had indicated that outwith matters directly related to collective bargaining, employment-at-will was still very much in place, with restrictions only affecting those discharges which were explicitly declared illegal in the NLRA. More importantly, it had implied that would be difficult to create an agreement sanctioned and protected by the Act which would eliminate the right of employers to discharge workers for â€Å"legitimate† reasons. In NLRB v. Sands Manufacturing (1938), a federal appeals court was even more explicit in affirming managements freedom to dismiss workers.[30] In Sands, a collective agreement between the company and MESA, a labor union, was broken by the union. The company apparently bargained collectively with MESA. After two months, the company signed an agreement with another union, some of whose members were employed in order to replace MESA members. The NLRB ordered reinstatement of the MESA employees and requested the circuit court to enforce its order. The 6th circuit set aside the order and dismissed the petition to enforce. With respect to the termination of the employer-employee relationship the court stated that:[31] The statute [meaning the NLRA] does not interfere with the normal right of the employer to select or discharge his employees If employees violate their contract they may be discharged for that reason and this does not constitute a discrimination in regard to tenure of employment nor an unfair labor practice, nor does it continue a discharge because the employees are members of a union. [T]he statute does not provide that the relationship held in status quo under Title 29, Section 152(3) [meaning the prohibition of dismissals during strikes] shall continue in absence of wrongful conduct on the part of the employer and of rightful conduct on the part of the employees. If such were its meaning, the right of the employer to select, and discharge his employees would be cut off. The Sands decision was in many regards more radical than previous rulings. In Sands, the court had concluded that, provided the employer had engaged in bargaining, NLRA legislation had to be interpreted so as not to otherwise constrain the employers rights to select and discharge employees. In other words, the court indicated that any action which would effectively restrict the right of employers to discharge, after basic bargaining obligations were met, could be struck down. While both the Jones Laughlin Steel and the Sands cases redefined space for at-will discharges relatively broadly, the Supreme Courts 1942 Montgomery Ward decision attempted to give a comprehensive definition of managements rights which gave managers broad control over discharge decisions.[32] In its Montgomery Ward decision, the 9th Circuit excluded from arbitrable grievances:[33] changes in business practice, the opening and closing of new units, the choice of personnel (subject, however to the seniority provision), the choice of merchandise to be sold, and other questions of a like nature not having to do directly and primarily with the day-to-day life of the employees and their relations with supervisors. Although Montgomery Ward supported traditional concepts of management rights with respect to day-to-day arbitration, it left open a number of important questions with regard to dismissals arising as a consequence of longer term strategic decisions. This included questions relating to the dividing line between a rational business decision to relocate a plant, and one involving, for example, the elimination of a unionized plantan illegal antiunion activity. Moreover, the Courts decision to exclude changes in business practice from arbitrable grievances, merely prohibited unions from insisting on arbitration in these matters; and hence relieved management from the legal duty to discuss these matters in good faith. This did neither mean that union representatives could not bargain about these issues when contracts were negotiated, nor did it imply that once management conceded to union involvement in these matters, this involvement was illegal or unenforceable. The latter issue of bargaining about alleged management prerogatives was addressed first in 1952 in NLRB v. American National Insurance Group.[34] In American National, the Supreme Court held that management could enforce limits to bargaining on the basis of a management prerogative clause, under which the union was ousted from involvement in certain matters. American Nationals management prerogative clause included issues of discipline and work schedules; that is, statutory rights with respect to mandatory bargaining. The court, nonetheless, rejected the Boards position that employers were obligated to establish ongoing bargaining during the terms of the collective agreement on issues subject to defined managerial prerogatives. While in American National the company had attempted to impose broad limitations on bargaining rights, many companies insisted â€Å"only† on the type of management prerogatives listed in the Montgomery case, such as the freedom to decide on the closure of units. In the mid-1950s, Haber and Levison reported that over 80% of the contracts signed in the building industries contained one or another form of a managerial rights clause. Many of these clauses explicitly prohibited bargaining over issues of job security.[35] The management literature, meanwhile, welcomed American National because companies were now less likely to face NLRA proceedings if they refused to discuss issues of employment security. This was the case, not only where companies had gained past assurances that union representatives would respect managerial prerogatives, but also where such clauses could be â€Å"inferred† from existing bargaining agreements.[36] Management rights in matters of dismissals and layoffs were â€Å"clarified† further in the 1958 Supreme Court decision on Borg-Warner. In NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner the Court held that there were three subjects of bargaining: mandatory, nonmandatory, and illegal.[37] The obligation to bargain, as specified in the NLRA, applied only to mandatory subjects. A nonmandatory subject was â€Å"permissive,† meaning that it could be raised by either party. However, when a party insisted on a position regarding such an area to the point of impasse, it was acting illegally under the provisions of the Act.[38] Since the law had defined the mandatory subjects of bargaining, Borg-Warner played an important role in the preservation of managerial prerogatives with regard to redundancies and dismissals. Under Borg-Warner, union demands for job security or employment guarantees could be rejected, as they could not be reasonably classified as mandatory bargaining items.[39] When determining what were mandatory and nonmandatory bargaining subjects, the NLRB and the courts of the 1950s and 1960s typically referred to the relevant NLRA section 9(a) which mandated bargaining for pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. Given these specifications, any issue involving pay and hours was obviously a mandatory bargaining item, requiring both parties to bargain in good faith or face sanctions through NLRB proceedings. More problematic was the clause including, â€Å"other conditions of employment.† When issues like redundancies, mass layoffs and mass discharges were at stake, the courts and the Board usually interpreted â€Å"other conditions of employment† to mean that union involvement in decisions about which workers were to be laid off or made redundant, was mandatory. To this effect union representatives were to be informed about planned manpower reductions. Union representatives were free to address issues related t o discharges, make suggestions with regard to manpower relocation, or suggest alternative ways of cutting costs. If the company refused, unions, however, could not insist on a settlement of the issue. While strike action relating to these matters was not per se illegal, any protracted industrial action on non-mandatory manpower issues was likely to be declared an unfair labor practice by the NLRB or the courts.[40] This approach, needless to say, gave unions with little power to influence a companys manpower decisions even in industries where levels of organization were high. Since it was often difficult to link a redundancy decision to union avoidance or to invoke contractual clauses which

Effect of Nursing on Stress Levels of Cancer Patients

Effect of Nursing on Stress Levels of Cancer Patients Does good nursing management can influence the nursing care to reduce stress, anxiety and difficult behaviour in cancer patients as compare to ineffective management plan to achieve better therapeutic outcomes? Search terms that can be used for relevant literature will be nursing management plans for patients with cancer, stress, anxiety, good nurse patient relationship, and challenging behaviours. The research is to explore and summarize the literature based on the published information such as journals, articles, books. The purpose of this review is to identify best practice evidence that examining the cancer patients. The literature review will give direction to plan the study and understand the outcomes. (Burns Grove 2009). The difficult patient behaviour versus good nursing strategies based on the research question (Emold et al 2011). Inclusion criteria included the all publications based on the difficult patient behaviour and good nursing management plans to reduce stress and anxiety in patients. The strength of evidence was based on the hierarchy of evidence with randomised controlled trial and meta-analysis being considered the best evidence as the primary source if available. Other research and levels of evidence was included where evidence was not that much strong. The literature review was undertaken using electronic data bases and catalogues such as CINAHL, science direst, PubMed, for the period of 2007 and 2014. Using the original question the key phrases ‘difficult patient behaviour in oncology’ and good nursing management strategies, stress and anxiety pain, and some psychological factors those can lead to negative outcomes on patients health outcomes and nurses attitude. These search terms highlighted the number of articles on different types of cancer patients then advanced search engine w as used to narrow my search to find out the good sourced information. Going through the abstracts of each of the articles were considered the relevance and quality. Exclusion criteria includes the key words and points those will not be covered in research such as good communication strategies, challenging behaviour and comparison between effective and ineffective management plans. The good literature review and databases mostly covered the qualitative and quantitative criteria based on the clinical question and case scenario. Develop a summary table based on your 15 selected studies (500 words). Based on your summary table, provide a synthesis of the key findings and conclusions in relation to your PICO question (250 words). Support your summary from relevant literature (use in text referencing) Good nursing management plans is one of the most effective and appropriate option for the hospitalised cancer patients. Various research studies have been conducted and analysed the difference between effective and ineffective nursing care plans. Therefore, Evidence from a variety of resources indicate that staff communication, family support, working environment those factors positively influence the patient prognosis according to Rosenzweig et al 2011; Kvale 2007; Karvien et al 2013; Emold et al 2011. However, patients diagnosed with cancer causes significant distress such as mentally and physically strains to themselves and family members (Emold et al 2011). Therefore good communication skill, availability of continued support, involvement of families required to overcome these difficult emotions (Kvale 2007 Vilet et al 2013). Karvinen et al. (2013) Whitaker et al. (2009) identified the relationship between stress, anxiety, intrusive thoughts and compliance to medical care. Cer tain psychological factors such as feelings of hopelessness, physical and mental strains affect the nursing care and patient’s prognosis (Remmers et al 2010). Different intervention strategies have also been discussed in literature such as mindfulness, self-efficacy, emotional support has the beneficial effects to the general health of patients according to Tsang et al. (2012). There are certain factors those influenced the nursing care such as workload, emotional exhaustion, and decision making skills among staff may lead to negative response and affect the patient’s well-being (McCormack et al 2011). However, the literature lacks some efficacy based on the good intervention strategies for staff to overcome the difficult patient’s behaviour. Overall effective nursing management can be structured to enhance physical, psychological, and emotional wellbeing that assists in promoting positive behaviour and good health outcomes among cancer patients.

art is hugs and kisses :: essays research papers

Art is Hugs and Kisses   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In society today, we as citizens of the world have to face the day to day reality that coexisting with mother natures’ natural beauty is a hate imposed ugliness. Every day we are force fed a horrible dosage of crime, hate, pollution, and bad attitudes that if not balanced out by beauty, would be to overbearing to partake. In my mind, art is everywhere. It’s more than just paints and brushes. It’s the way the dusk sky looks after a hard day, or a baby jerking their chubby little arms’ around in a little wading pool. It’s anything that’s visually or emotionally stimulating. It’s accidental as well as preconceived. It’s what makes life bearable.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  People now-a-days are too busy. Day’s are so filled with appointments and deadlines that people become robotic, and their emotions and creativity grow stagnant and are only used when called for by tasks imposed upon them. In my book art is just as important a human necessity as food clothing and shelter. Art is a drawback to thousands of great memories in our lives. Everyone remembers that Norman Rockwell painting hung above gram’s T.V., or the beautiful floral designs construed in icing on their wedding cake. Art is not only reminiscent but is also a cushion of comfort for those overwhelmed by tragedy and loss. After the horrible act of terrorism that took place last Tuesday, people were left in a depressed awe. Along with love and support from the nation, people overlook all the beautiful forms of art that flourished following it. There was a picture in Newsweek of the half-crumbled hotel across the street. It was cloaked with about 40 flags and ha nd painted signs of support from fellow citizens that was one of the most beautiful things I’ve seen in a while. It was a blatant picture of art. It showed love and compassion from a city that does not express it often.

bible women :: essays research papers

Rebekah   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The values in Genesis are disobeyed by yet another woman who does not conform to the female model of a fertile mother. While fertility is an overriding value in god’s human construct that women in Genesis threaten to undermine women also obstruct the â€Å"natural† course of history which god has set in motion as part of his ideal world. After god reconstructs the world through Noah and then Abraham, the divine element withdraws from the world slightly, and a natural historical course begins to play out through the momentum that god has initiated. The incident in Genesis in which a woman interferes with this momentum involves Rebekah, who intervenes on behalf of her second born son, Jacob. As a result of Rebekah’s manipulative orders, Jacob, the younger son, inherits the divine blessing from Isaac, though it is clear from the text that Jacob’s brother, Esau, had been Isaac’s favored child. Rebekah’s actions are rebellious because they result in the violation of the law of primogeniture that seems to have been the standard practice of inheritance in the book of Genesis. And by reassigning the inheritance, Rebekah threatens to destroy the course of events god has anticipated en route to the creation of his select nation. While the text shows that Rebekah had received a prophecy that â€Å"the older would serve the younger† (25:23), whenever women in Genesis take assertive actions that ramifications, conflict always ensues. Just because Rebekah received a prophecy, there is no indication that sh e was in any position to actively seek its fulfillment. Jacob, as a result of his mother’s initiative, is forced to flee his home for fear that Esau will kill him. The hate between the brothers endures, and just as Sara’s infertility caused family conflict, Rebekah’s actions likewise cause disruption in the house of Isaac and its descendents. Unlike the instances where the men in genesis take the fate of their family’s lives into their own hands under open direction from god, the rare occasions when women, such as Rebekah, take aggressive action, the result is battles and feuds. As in the case of infertility, a women’s inheritance with the divine scheme can be seen as a multiple threat to the thematic framework of Genesis. Rebekah takes assertive, independent action with regard to her family’s development, and this action clearly crosses over the rigid boundaries of the prescribed female role.

The Box Tree Case

Strike always results to the loss of trust between the employer and striking workers. In the case of the Box Tree Restaurant, the workers went on strike after losing their trust on their former employer, Augustin Paege, who denied them of their commissions because he wanted to reduce his payroll expenses by $100,000. After the strike, these workers could be expected to hold back as far as trusting their employer is concerned. On the other hand, after what Baruch and her replacement employees went through at the hands of the striking workers, they are not expected either to easily trust the returning workers.The most critical job for Gila Baruch, therefore, if she wants to â€Å"restore the once sterling reputation† of Box Tree, is to rebuild trust among all parties concerned. (Corsun, Young, & Shinnar, n. d. ) The situation, however, is not hopeless. Rebuilding trust is still possible. But they should do several things urgently. First, everybody should resort to â€Å"self-ac ceptance. † This means that they should learn to accept who they are and be secured in their identity so that they could develop trust in others. (Messina, n. d.) For instance, Baruch should accept the fact that if not for the strike she would not end up owning a promising business. The replacement workers are on the same boat as Baruch. They have the strikers to thank for their jobs. If not for the strike, there would not have been any vacancy in the restaurant for them to fill. In addition, they should not forget that they, too, are workingmen like the strikers and as such, want to be fairly compensated for their time and effort – exactly what the strikers wanted in the first place.Finally, the returning strikers should be aware that they are also indebted to Baruch and the replacement workers who made it possible for the Box Tree to stay in operation in spite of the work stoppage that they tried to instigate. Without them, the restaurant would have collapsed, they wo uld have completely lost their jobs, and then their strike would have been an exercise in futility. Once they accept who they are and what the strike has done for their benefits, they should be able to trust each other because their livelihood, in fact, clearly depends on one another.Another way by which trust could be rebuilt is for everybody to work hard for the establishment of â€Å"a healing environment. † This means that Baruch, the replacement workers, and the returning strikers should adopt a â€Å"healing mode† which will enable everybody to employ â€Å"forgiveness, understanding, and healthy communication to resolve problems and issues. † Once they are in this mode, they would be able to forget the insults and the animosities during the strike and heal the wounds they created, thereby allowing for an atmosphere conducive for the rebuilding of trust.(Messina, n. d. ) They, particularly the replacement workers and the returning strikers, should also str ive for a â€Å"reduction of a sense of competition. † In other words, they should do away with their jealousies and stop being defensive with one another. Instead, everybody should start cooperating for the common good. (Messina, n. d. ) The replacement workers, specifically, should not make a big thing out of the seniority status afforded the returning strikers and instead accept the fact that they joined the company at a much later time.The affected parties should likewise â€Å"let go of their fear. † Fear is such a restricting feeling which impedes people from behaving normally and objectively towards one another. A person who fears another for any reason could never trust that person. (Messina, n. d. ) The replacement workers, for instance, should not feel threatened by the return of the strikers. They should find security in Baruch’s desire â€Å"to reward [their] hard work and loyalty† during the strike. (Corsun, Young, & Shinnar, n. d.) The retur ning workers, on the other hand, should not be afraid that Baruch will be treating them with suspicion because of what they did. They should instead show Baruch that they mean no harm for her and the restaurant and that their only reason for returning to their jobs was to resume working and continue earning for their families. Reference Corsun, D. L. , Young, C. A. & Shinnar, R. S. (n. d. ). The Box Tree. Order #32096240 attachment. Messina, J. J. (n. d. ). Building Trust. Retrieved October 10, 2007 from http://www. coping. org/growth/trust. htm

Transurethral Resection Of The Prostate Health And Social Care Essay

BPH is thought to be caused by aging and by long-run testosterone and dihydrotestosterone ( DHT ) production, although their precise functions are non wholly clear. Histopathologic grounds of BPH is present in about 8 % of work forces in their 4th decennary and in 90 % of work forces by their 9th decennary. Loss of testosterone early in life prevents the development of BPH. The similarities in presentation, pathological scrutiny findings, and symptoms of BPH among indistinguishable twins suggest a familial influence. The mean prostatic weighs about 20 gms by the 3rd decennary and remains comparatively changeless in size and weight unless BPH develops. The typical patient with BPH has a prostate that averages 33 gms while merely 4 % of the male population of all time develops prostates of 100 gms or more.6Classic symptoms of BPH include a slow, intermittent, or weak urinary watercourse ; the esthesis of uncomplete vesica voidance ; dual elimination ( the demand to invalidate within a few seconds or proceedingss of urinating ) ; postvoid dribble ; urinary frequence ; and nycturias. Patients may besides show with ague or chronic urinary keeping, urinary piece of land infections, gross haematuria, nephritic inadequacy, vesica hurting, a tangible abdominal mass, or overflow incontinence.7Upon physical scrutiny, the vesica may be tangible during the abdominal scrutiny and the prostate may be enlarged during the digital rectal scrutiny. Symptoms are non needfully relative to the size of the prostate on digital rectal scrutiny or transrectal ultrasound findings.8The transurethral resection of the prostate is a well safe process, and has efficaciously replaced unfastened prostatectomy in bulk of cases.9Various clinical manifestations produced due to the soaking up of big measures of watering fluid during endourological processs are together called as TURP Syndrome, though the syndrome is characteristically described during Trans urethral resection of prostate ( TURP ) in up to 20 % of patients.10TURP syndrome is characterized by dyspnea, sickness, high blood pressure, increased cardinal venous force per unit area, intellectual hydrops, cardiogenic daze and nephritic failure.11Dilutional hyponatremia, H2O poisoning and ammonium hydroxide toxicities have been postulated as the cause of TURP syndrome. Acute hyponatremia with blood Na concentration below 115-120meqL could be potentially serious to patient.12 Therefore, after reexamining literature and dire demand, the present survey was conducted at private infirmary of Hyderabad. The current survey focused on the hyponatremia during transurethral resection of the prostate ( TURP ) . This survey provides the cognition, thought and protocols that have an of import function in the direction parametric quantities of patient undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate ( TURP ) . Patients AND METHODS: This cross sectional type descriptive survey was conducted at a private apparatus ( infirmary ) , Hyderabad and at third attention infirmary attached with Ghulam Muhammad Maher Medical College Sindh, Pakistan from June 2009 to November 2009. All patients above 45-75 old ages of age present with history of urinary frequence, urgency, urgency incontinency, invalidating at dark, weak urinary watercourse, hesitance, intermittence, through out-of-door patient section ( OPD ) of the infirmary, were diagnosed as benign prostate hyperplasia ( BPH ) and planned for TURP were evaluated and enrolled in the survey. The item history of all such patients was taken ; complete clinical scrutiny and everyday probe were performed. An informed consent was taken from all patients holding benign prostate hyperplasia ( BPH ) and planned for TURP. All such patients were assessed for serum Na degree preoperatively every bit good as postoperatively by taking 3cc venous blood sample and send to research lab for analysis. The fluctuation in the value of serum Na degree was estimated harmonizing to their parametric quantities and mention scope i.e. 135 mmol/L – 145 mmol/L ( normal ) , whereas the value & lt ; 135 mmol/L and & gt ; 145 mmol/L was considered as disturbed i.e. hyponatremia and hypernatremia, severally. The information was collected on pre-designed proforma. Sing ethical justification all the disbursals of this survey was paid by valuable part of whole research squad. The non concerted patients or who refused to take part in the survey, the patients who are already on diuretic therapy, the patients with diarrhoea or emesis, known instances of nephritic failure, congestive cardiac failure and liver cirrhosis were considered in exclusion standards. The informed consent was taken from every patient or from attender of patients after full account of process sing the survey, and all such manoeuvres were under medical moralss. The information was entere d, saved and analyzed in SPSS version 10.00. The mean and standard divergence was calculated for age and serum Na degree. The frequence and per centum of Na degree in TURP was besides calculated. The independent t trial was applied to compares the agencies of serum Na preoperatively every bit good as postoperatively at 95 % assurance interval and the P values a†°Ã‚ ¤ 0.05 was considered as statistically important. Transurethral resection of the prostate ( TURP ) is complicated by soaking up of irrigation fluid of about 1000 milliliter and on occasion 3000-5000 milliliter. This soaking up may ensue in hypervolaemia and serum electrolyte perturbations, clinically showing as the TURP-syndrome with neurologic and cardiovascular disturbances.14In our survey we identified hyponatremia in patients underwent for transurethral resection of the prostate ( TURP ) and it is similar with the survey by Miyao et al.15Water poisoning with hyponatremia has been postulated as the primary cause for the generation of TURP syndrome. In present survey the important alteration in Na degrees was noted which was independent of the type of watering fluid ( 1.5 % glycine or unfertile H2O ) used for the process ; nevertheless Moskovitz et Al, demonstrates no any important electrolyte alterations when distilled H2O used for irrigation.16The safety for distilled H2O is besides reported by Shih et al,17 A survey by Norlen, et Al on â€Å" comparing between intermittent and uninterrupted transurethral resection of the prostate † besides have confirmed that more the tallness of fluid used larger is the fluctuation of Na levels.18Hahnaˆ? RG presented a new hypothesis that the soaking up of watering fluid into the blood during transurethral resection of the prostate is associated with diffusion of Na ions from the interstitial fluid infinite into the plasma, some of this Na is â€Å" trapped † and removed from the organic structure in connexion with hemorrhage and elimination of piss, the sum of at bay Na increased with the sum of blood lost and two tierces was trapped with the plasma loss and one-third with the osmotic diuresis. This mechanism contributes to the absolute loss of Na from the body.19The entire Na loss, nevertheless, histories for one tierce of the maximal hyponatraemia and is still dominated by the plasma-derived Na excreted during the glycine-induced osmotic diuresis. Th e consequences of survey by Shariat, et Al had slightly different presentation that no statistically important alterations were reported in the serum electrolytes, blood urea N, creatinine, and haematocrit and the most common complications were hypotension ( 8.3 % ) , high blood pressure ( 7.8 % ) , sickness ( 6.4 % ) , and purging ( 2.8 % ) . Hyponatremia, decreased haematocrit, and increased blood urea N / creatinine were seldom reported ( 2.5, 1.0, and 0.9 % , severally ) .20However, sing the complications our survey noticed high blood pressure in 14 ( 35 % ) patients, sickness in 28 ( 70 % ) patients, purging in 30 ( 75 % ) of patients and concern in 10 ( 25 % ) patients. It is really hard to avoid happening of electrolyte perturbation during TURP, the best bar could be obtained by following a right surgical technique. Procedures enduring for more than 60 proceedingss and prostate secretory organs weighing more than 60 gms could be associated with more complications. The present survey evaluated the serum electrolyte perturbations i.e. hyponatremia during TURP, the current survey open a forum of treatment and provides an initial reappraisal and alterations observed during TURP process. The survey should be continued in progress and drawn-out stage at different clinical apparatuss to supply more cognition sing electrolyte alterations during transurethral resection of the prostate. Decision: Our survey identified the lessening in serum Na degree ( hyponatremia ) during transurethral resection of the prostate and emphasized on appropriate step to forestall serious and fatal complications. The preoperative degrees of Na should be estimated and effectual steps should be made before taking up the patient for transurethral resection of the prostate.