Do we value Human life?

Are the lines if right and wrong clearly defined?

Human Being’s differ from other forms of life.

They build fires and cook their food.

They clothe themselves (sometimes)

They worship God or something else like,

a belief or theory or even another person.

They try and communicate in many ways.

Verbal, written and actions.

Human beings have a personhood and rights.

But today an human embryo,

only has as many rights as society allows.

Those that believe in God’s laws know a embryo,

is a baby and a person with rights.

Other’s believe a embryo is a fetus,

and can be disposed of at the convenience of another.

Those of you that put your faith in society,

or a complex social structure rather then faith in God.

Beware because the day may come where society has no need of you.

Society on the whole could decide everyone over 65 is a burden.

Why not do away with them all, Euthanasia for all Seniors.

This could never happen you say, we murder our babies why not?

Life is life, human is human,no one is more worthy then another.

Only criminals that seek to hurt others should ever be denied,

the priviledges we have a God given right to.

I choose a Higher law when people forget morality.

Ravi was determined not to be the cause of death, but was eventually convicted of “bias intimidation” and following the 30 day stint in jail is a probation period.

During the trial, gay rights activists actually were against prison sentencing for Ravi, claiming him a “scapegoat” for the death of Clementis. Many mixed views were most likely a huge influence in the sentencing of Ravi.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (United States Constitution)

So basically, to each his own. We are free to speak as we wish, so long as it does not entice violence or promote treason, you are free to say what is on your mind. And we are free to so in a public manner.

“The amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression (including speech, press, assembly, association, and belief), and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Nolos Plain English Law Dictionary)

The freedom to practice and preach religion iw protected in this Amenment, With good reason too. Without this, the governemnt could choose one religion for alll of the constituents… that is scary.

I am grateful for the freedom to express my feelings and opinions. Religion is not my forte, but I have no problems with the words being spoken and shared.

I am also grateful for the freedom to speak with free will, I can argue politics, family, love, money, all of the thiings that happen in life without fear of persecution for going against the grain.

The 1st Amendment also gives us the right to tell our governement when they are doing wrong, this gives the right to petition with bills and laws for the good of the people. Pretty nifty…

Isn’t America…. awesome!?

References:

United States Constitution. Amendment 1.

First Amendment (Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute)

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

American workers celebrate, in September, on the first Monday of that month, the effort put in by past employees of various companies, in what is referred to there in the USA as Labour Day. Americans abandon work for the day in droves, though it has to be said that they are not in synch with other countries in staging this celebration when they do.

Many countries worldwide, including the UK, prefer to use May Day – May 1st –  as the widely recognised International Workers’ Day, an annual holiday celebrating the labour movement. Not that the day is given over purely to partying, The day’s significance making it popular with protesters, simply because the very first May Day was marked by a workers protest.

Strangely enough, although not at all well recognized in the USA, May Day actually has American origins, arising from the American fight to get the right to an eight-hour working day for everyone. It was in August 1866 that newly emerged National Labour Union – which was only to survive seven years – put a great deal of effort into persuading Congress that a law was needed to make an 8-hour day mandatory.

Though this failed, the message did reach the various states, and only a year later, the eight-hour day mandate passed into Illinois law, though employers simply refused to cooperate, resulting in a May 1st riot that year in Chicago, suppressed forcefully by police. Government employees breathed a sigh of relief in 1869, when President Ulysses S. Grant proclaimed the 8-hour day for civil servants.

Throughout the late 1800s, labour unions across the US made a key demand of legislation making the eight-hour working day standard, groups such as Knights of Labour, the Federation of Organized Trades as well as the various Labor Unions becoming very vocal.

this was especially true each year on May 1, on which day the organizing of strikes and demonstrations in support of the movement became the usual, though demands were continuously rebuffed. It was in1886 that labour unions called for a national strike, drawing more than 300,000 workers to gather in protest on May 1.

The Chicago strikes turned to violent conflict, over a few days between workers and strike-breakers in the Haymarket area, the aftermath of which saw local labour leaders rounded up, tried and executed, these so-called Haymarket massacres being  one of the reasons that Americans prefer to celebrate Labour Day in September.

At the turn of the 20th century, the average working week in the US, in manufacturing at least, was no less than 100 hours, so despite the labour movement getting more vociferous and aggressive with demands, little had really changed. It was actually 1916 before railway workers achieved the right to an 8-hour working day, and overtime payments, but it would be another 50 years before the rest of the American workforce was to enjoy the same privilege.

This comic depicts a pair of same-sex weddings. (Fhoto: bbc)

A total of 1.7 million voters will be asked his opinion about gay rights groups, including whether they could have the right to marry as heterosexual couples. Although the referendum was held but the effort is ready to give equal rights to gay groups are fiercely opposed the Catholic Church and conservative groups.

On June 2011, Parliament passed the Act Slovenia The new family, but this new law immediately got opposition conservatives. With the support of the Catholic Church, the conservatives managed to collect 40 000 signatures to force a referendum convening.

Under the new law, gay couples can register their relationship so that the relationship has the same legal status as marriage in general. Which is also stipulated in the law are things such as property ownership, inheritance and family visits.

The only thing that has not been regulated is a matter of adopting a child. “Only allowed one of the couple who adopted a child not as a gay couple,” read one article that law.

However, for the opponents of gay rights groups, this legislation has exceeded the limit. Conservative judge to recognize gay relationships then it is the same as lowering the sense of a family, the role of father or mother, and the way the sale of children and the exploitation of poor women.

“The law must be rejected because the family does not respect the basic rights of children,” said Chairman of the Citizen Initiative Pro Family Rights, Ales Primc. “No child can grow normally in the absence of a father or mother,” said Primc.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Ljubljana Anton stress his support for the group leaders and pastors as Primc presiding called on his people to come and vote in the referendum.

“This referendum is a typical example of cultural battle over who should determine the destiny of man,” said Professor Vlado Miheljak, social and political prikologi expert at the University of Ljubljana said.

“That’s why the Catholic Church was deeply involved in this campaign despite the legislation will not impact too much,” continued Miheljak.

A poll made Delo newspaper last weekend showed 60% of Slovenia supports the implementation of legislation that the new family. According the Constitution of Slovenia, if a law was rejected in a referendum then the law will not be discussed again in parliament during the next 12 months.

By:                YASMEEN

E mail:    k.yasmeen@iub.edu.pk

With extreme anguish and pain, we narrate that in Pakistan women are facing various types of violence in their day to day life. According to the report of The Aurat foundation, at least one woman is victimized in the country every minute.

Pakistani women and girls are being murdered, kidnapped, Killings in the name of “honors” suicides, rape and gang-rape, burning with acid etc.

Violence women are tortured even killed by their fathers, husbands, and brothers and beaten up day to day life. I have heard several complaints of women have victimized, against police officer’s rude and barbarian behavior on TV Live program Victimized are ready to register there complaints & they are worried, but, our police ignores serious matters and more active on minor cases.

 Mostly women victimized of violence have to face social pressures and police obstruction but when media highlights the complaints police becomes alert and file the FIR and when the relevant police  officers interview to media——– they look as thy are Heroes.

How Funny!

crime rate in term of Violence against women in Lahore District is high but, “Surprisingly, Karachi has the lowest rate of violence against women despite being the largest city of the country in term of population, , According Aurat Foundation’s Annual report, in 2008 1,784 acid burns, 1,897 women were killed, The foundation added that 546 cases of violence were reported in Punjab in the first three months of 2008.

 In second quarter of 2009, almost all the cases are reported cases, 759 cases were not registered, only of 3,099 cases were registered. Out of a total of 4,514 cases, the numbers of the cases of murder 691, abduction are 1046, rape 466, suicide cases 388 and honor killing of women, 293, among all the recorded cases etc. Cases of violence against women witnessed a 13 percent increase in 2009 in one year It is said FIR of only 5,462 cases had been registered it is said that there were no media reports of at least 784 cases.

Sexual harassment, sexual assaults, killing in the name of honor, Child marriages amongst children, rape and gang-rapes are also a typical example of the low status of women in society

There are uncountable instances some of them I will explain.

It is regular feature in Pakistani society that Girls being married to adults and — Child marriages amongst children.

in Karachi, Zahida’s father, wanted to marry with Dilshad’s sister. Zahida eight-year-old Zahida was married to Dilshad, 17, by her father Abdul Rasool in exchange. This cannot be called a ‘marriage’, but it is unfortunately not an isolated case.

in October, 2009 Miss Asma Khan ‘15’ was gang raped by three of her school teachers and she was refused for file FIR and denied for medical treatment by Mr. Muhammad Hussain Samtio,– To avoid the teacher’s powerful landlord connections and damages to their daughter’s reputation, Headmaster advised to Asma’s parents as is required by law school -not to complaint to police. Allegations in media have since suggested that she was raped by the same men. One of the perpetrator’s was finally arrested but even through rape in a non-bail able offence in Pakistan, by the help of corrupt colleagues he got released. Asma’s father was pressured by them to take the case to a jirga, which he refused and Asma facing threats had to leave the area.                                                                                

Last August, 2009, seven policemen picked women up in an official van on the pretext of investigation. At the Pindi bypass stop in Punjab a woman was waiting for a Lahore-bound bus when they took her to a nearby hotel and gang-raped her.

Near Sukkur, Sindh, last July, a 10-year old girl found lying unconscious hours later by her father who had gone to a nearby grocery store. A man kidnapped her and subjected her to sexual assaults.

A brutal incident of domestic violence was reported in January in where Muhammad Ramzan, a resident of Melsi, cut his wife Fayyaz Mai’s tongue for complaining to her parents about him.

Fatima Bhutto also highlighted the case of Samia Sarwar who was murdered in the name of honor in 1999.

In another incident reported in April, Zakia was killed by her husband Zahid in Murree, he cut her lips and hung her corpse on a tree in a forest over a domestic quarrel.

Is there any solution to all this brutality???

Yes__ there is!

 Judiciary and the Police have to necessarily to stop this impunity and have to fairly condemn the perpetrators. For this Government policy should be tightened against such police officers who don’t actively listen and file FIR of victimized women. Through these steps and education, and awareness about violence can decrease the ratio of violence against women’s.in Islamabad, March 10, 2010 president of Pakistan has signed the protection against harassment bill, which prohibits harassment of women at workplace but Government should take many more steps to stop the violence.

Now question arises that!!!!!|

How many females will take step to stop violence?

How many victimized women’s are ready to punish such animals who destroy women’s life??

How many victimized women will take steps to save other women from such dirt?

Women’s should raise voice against violence.

I know by all way can not hundred percent stop this dirty violence but! The ratio will decrease eventually.

For instance Mukhtaran Mai, when gang raped, highlighted her case-this off course discourage many culprits and increased courage in victimized women’s to raise their voice against violence.

There is need to take step to stop others wrong steps. Otherwise every passed bills policy and struggle is baseless. Things can never be seen if we don’t open our eye, so! Things will improve only when we open our eyes, raise our voices and check the wrong things of others__please check up and see around.

Twitter+Face book:k.yasmeen@iub.edu.pk

By: YASMEEN

List of Yasmeen’s famous articles on Internet

01: Animals wearing masks of human.

02: politics and eligibility criteria.

03: How to save your job?

04: cold hearts.

05: sect and faith.

06: Force behind my eyes.

07: Who am I?

08.peace

09: Need to open eye-women violence.

10: Which thing converts man to evil?

11: Why desires are endless till death?

12: Soul and Eye

A Government does has the right to restrict information when it is a physical threat to the community, as well as when it is intellectual or cultural threats. The reason being, the authorities have been entrusted with the duties of protecting the community. The argument for curing citizens’ right is almost always opposed, and has connotations of “censorship” which consequently leads to an emotionally charged, and thus perhaps an irrational counter-argument to curbing their citizens’ rights to information.  If one allows their mind to be opened to new and unfamiliar philosophical ideas, a compelling case can be made for a government’s rights to implement some form of curbing of the citizens’ right to information, or as many call it censorship.

Authorities, such as the government, have the duty to protect the community. A simplified surmise of this argument may demonstrate the case that may be made for censorship: ideas lead to actions, and bad ideas often lead to bad acts, bringing harm to individuals and possibly societies as a whole, to ruin. However, this thesis may have a single, yet particularly important, flaw. This being that what if we cannot identify what is bad; therefore clearly we cannot know either bad ideas or bad acts. The perception of what is good and evil (bad), of what is right and wrong, is a key constituent of the fabric of censorship. A common perception of the advocates of censorship is that they claim to know good and evil exhaustively, and that they deliver moral proclamations on everything in existence. However, this is not so, as good and evil has much to do with perspective. Conversely, if we are able to identify certain evils unanimously, and the advocacy of those evils seems likely to encourage people to commit them, the next logical step would be to prohibit such advocacy, should it not? If to commit certain evils is harmful to society and thus a crime, then a logical counter-measure would be to prevent the advocacy and encouragement of such evils to be perfectly lawful. Governments, and communities, should be able to protect themselves, and should act autonomously to restrain the source of evil.

Complete freedom of information is simply a means by which those with money and influence remake society at the expense of those without these things. This is so, due to the anti-censorship argument which glorifies individualism, albeit at the expense of the common good. This is naturally to the benefit of the rich, and at the expense of the poor. The reason being that the rich and influential promote and endorse ideas that challenge traditional ways of life, and it is primarily the poor who suffer on their account. The society we live in should exist to protect and promote the welfare of all, and more importantly the poor and the working-class person. Essentially it is only those with sufficient money and ennui that have the luxury of time and resources to produce ideas that corrupt or demeaning to the society we live in, and thus the adverse effects of freedom of information are far more significant upon closer examination.

Censorship (Photo credit: IsaacMao)

Thus, the primary point of counter-argument is the largely based on primal fear and the emotional connotations that are derived from curbing of a citizens’ rights to information, which is so, due the heavily stigmatisation of the word ‘censorship’. The case for censorship has many merits; however this steep stigmatism needs to be first overcome. Theoretically, censorship and curbing of a citizen right can be done effectively, if a consensus is reached. Therein lies the problem however, as a no consensus of what is worthy of public knowledge can be agreed upon unanimously. The abstract idea of curbing a citizen’s right to information for the benefit of the public can be recognized as a legitimate practice. The overwhelming reason for its lack of practicality is sadly the truth that man has critical weakness of not being able to control power in many instances throughout history. Many failed attempts at controlling the flow of public information have been throughout the times, from the Nazi’s in Germany to the Communists in the Soviet Union. These examples made in history make it clear that humankind‘s nature to abuse power does not make censorship a viable option in modern society. However, it does not hurt to order our thoughts logically, even if we cannot put it into practice immediately.

Gulliver’s Travels follows the adventures of Gulliver, a sailor, as he gets stuck in various mysterious lands as he explores the West Indies. Upon his first Adventure Gulliver comes upon the land of Lilliputia where all the people are only about 6 inches tall. The land of Lilliputia is run by an emperor who has supreme rule and is very cautious and wary of Gulliver’s actions. In the land of Lilliputia Gulliver falls under the assumption that all leaders are corrupt and greedy. While in Lilliputia Gulliver discovers the art of rope dancing that is used to elect government officials and also gets stuck in tough situations like when he has to urinate on the palace in order to save it from a raging fire. Gulliver’s adventures in Lilliputia come to an end as he escapes punishment for his actions by fleeing to the land of Blefuscu, the kingdom and mortal enemies of the Lilliputians. After arriving home Gulliver later sets our again, however this time Gulliver ends up in the land of Brobdingnag, a land filled with giants. In the land of Brobdingnag Gulliver meets a much different type of leader, one that is wise and does not lead his people astray. However, also in the land of Brobdingnag Gulliver finds himself become a novelty trying to gain the favor of even the children in the kingdom by himself acting silly.

The first evidence of the influences of Gulliver’s Travels among the Constitutional drafter can be seen early on in the second article of the Constitution. In section 1 of article 2 the election of the president along with the requirements of that position are discussed. The decision that the next president “shall be appointed by an elector” (U.S. Cont., Art. 2, Sec. 1) to represent the American people was mainly established to contradict the flaws of the Lilliputian political system. The example set by Lilliputian politics also helped influence the idea of creating minimum requirements that candidates had to meet, like the necessity of being a “natural born citizen” (U.S. Cont., Art. 2, Sec. 1). The anti-thesis to the American system of elections would be the way that the Lilliputians elected their emperor and his officials in particular. The emperor would choose his court and advisors through what Gulliver calls “the great diversion” (18) of rope dancing, this custom led the decision making of leaders to be based off of dexterity and agility rather than leadership capabilities and knowledge. The decision making process of leaders in Lilliputia is clearly inadequate for finding strong leaders to represent the people of that nation. The drafters of the Constitution used this process of election as a means of figuring out that a reliable, sufficient, and efficient means of electing leaders in the United States had to be established.

            Another clear incidence of the influence of Gulliver’s Travels is apparent through the establishment of the First amendment of the Bill of Rights. The writers of the amendments established laws so that congress can never create laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of press” (U.S. cont., amend. I). The establishment of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States directly opposes the traditional powers of the Emperor in the Lilliputian government. The Emperor of Lilliputia had unmatched power and had the ability to make whatever decisions he wanted and suppress beliefs that opposed his own. The drafters of the amendments used the Lilliputian emperor as an example of what dangers could threaten the rights and liberties of individuals if one singular ruler were able to make all decisions. The examples of suppression of belief are clearly seen on the argument over which side of the eggs should be cracked first; even though the argument over eggs seems feeble in the first place the underlying implications of belief restricting laws can be grafted into larger, religious, issues. Under the restrictions of egg breaking rules “six rebellions were raised on that account, wherein one emperor lost his life and another his crown” (26); when writing the amendments the influence of Gulliver’s Travels among religious laws remains very clear.

             Under the fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights Americans are protected from unreasonable search and seizures. The only time searches by the government can be legally conducted are when warrants are issued “upon probable cause” and must also be “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (U.S. cont., amend. IV). Some may say that the reason the fourth amendment was established was because that right was violated by the English government while America was still a colony, however the third amendment preventing the quartering of troops on private households without owner consent was established in order to counteract one of the biggest disturbances to American citizens. On the other hand, it could be argued that the fourth amendment was created and established because of Gulliver’s Travels alone.  After being discovered by the Lilliputians, in an effort to decide how dangerous Gulliver was, Gulliver says the emperor “directed me to deliver up several particulars” (16). The men writing the Bill of Rights and the fourth amendment would have realized that the unfair search along with the taking of some of Gulliver’s possession’s “in carriages to his majesty’s stores” (17) was highly unfair. By protecting the possessions of people from search and seizure the writers of the Bill of Rights were able to establish a level of privacy from the government that was almost previously unheard of thanks to the influence of Gulliver’s Travels.

Throughout the land of Lilliputia punishment for Gulliver along with the citizens of the region was particularly cruel, this theme clearly left a mark in the minds of the writers of the Bill of Rights and therefore on the document itself. The Bill of Rights declares that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (U.S. cont., amend. VIII). Gulliver found that in Lilliputia that the “laws and customs of this empire very particular” and he found it very puzzling that “they [Lilliputians] look upon fraud as a greater crime than theft, and therefore seldom fail to punish it with death” (32). It is safe to assume that the writers of the Bill of Rights also found these laws and punishments of the Lilliputians puzzling and that opinion led them to establish laws against excessive punishment. The Lilliputians also unnecessarily threaten Gulliver after peeing on their palace to save it and put out a fire, despite the obscure way he completed the task to save the Lilliputian palace the Lilliputians over reacted, something that the Bill of Rights drafters clearly wanted to help prevent with the establishment of the American government and nation as a whole.

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, some groups may argue that Gulliver’s Travels had little to no influence upon the drafters of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.  However the evidence for these claims remains in short supply. Claims are made that Gulliver’s Travels is merely a children’s book and has no relevance to the establishment of a government. The novelty of the size difference of Gulliver and other characters along with the comical situations like Gulliver urinating on the palace or dancing for the much larger Brobdingnags has little to no political relevance. Even if it did have much influence on the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Gulliver’s Travels seems insignificant and unsubstantial when held up against documents like the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence. Gulliver’s Travels has survived for hundreds of years due to its comical storytelling and will continue to be popular amongst school children far into the future.

            Throughout multiple sections of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights the influences of Gulliver’s Travels can be clearly seen. Swifts petitions against the flaws of the English government were clearly taken into account when establishing the United States government. Jonathan Swift uses clear situations that may at first seem fantastical, absurd and ridiculous in order to convey his points of the flaws of corruption and petty arguments amongst both the government and amongst the people. Swift takes advantage of the size differences of Gulliver both against the Lilliputians and Brobdingnags in order to change the view and peel back more layers on the opinions and point of views he is trying to convey. The drafters of the Constitution saw the valid points and opinions conveyed by Swift in Gulliver’s Travels and the effects of Swifts work can be seen constantly throughout early American legal documents like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Emmeline Pethick Lawrence

Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, the daughter of Henry Pethick, a businessman in Bristol, was born in Clifton on 21st October 1867. Emmeline helped organise a club for young working-class girls. Emmeline was shocked by the poverty she encountered and it was during this time she was converted to socialism. In 1895 Emmeline joined with Mary Neal to form the Esperance Club, this involved helping a group of young women establish a co-operative dressmaking business. Emmeline spent her time helping the Independent Labour Party and developing her ideas with the Esperance Club. However, when Emmeline read about the arrest and imprisonment of Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney in October 1905, she decided to take an interest in the suffrage movement. The following year she met Kenney and after a long discussion with her she decided to join the WSPU. A few months after joining, Emmeline was arrested while trying to make a speech in the lobby of the House of Commons. Emmeline was sent to prison, the first of six terms of imprisonment that she served for her political activities. Her husband, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence also became involved in the struggle for the franchise. In 1907 Frederick and Emmeline started the journal Votes for Women. The Pethick-Lawrence’s large home in London also became the office of the WSPU. In 1912 the WSPU organised a new campaign that involved the large-scale smashing of shop-windows. Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence had disagreed with this strategy but Christabel Pankhurst ignored her objections. As soon as this wholesale smashing of shop windows began, the government ordered the arrest of the leaders of the WSPU. Christabel escaped to France but Frederick and Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence were sentenced to nine months imprisonment. Both Emmeline and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence went on hunger strike. Pethick-Lawrence continued to work for the suffrage cause and spent most of her energies after 1912 writing for her journal, Votes for Women. Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence remained active in politics until 1950 when she had a serious accident that left her immobilized. Frederick Pethick-Lawrence looked after Emmeline until she died of a heart attack at her home at Gomshall, Surrey, on 11th March 1954.

Millicent Fawcett

Dame Millicent Garrett Fawcett was born on 11 June, she was an English surragist who campaigned for women to have the vote and an early feminist. She was born Millicent Garrett in Aldeburgh, Suffolk. As a suffragist, as opposed to a suffragette, she took a moderate line, but was a tireless campaigner. She concentrated much of her energy on the struggle to improve women’s opportunities for higher education and in 1871 co-founded Newnham College, Cambridge. She later became president of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, position she held from 1890 until 1919. In July 1901 she was appointed to lead the British government’s commission to South Africa to investigate conditions in the concentration that had been created there in the wake of the Second Boaer war Her report corroborated what the campaigner Emily Hobhouse had said about conditions in the camps.  Millicent Fawcett (leader of NUWSS) was a moderate campaigner, distancing herself from the militant and violent activities of the Pankhurst’s and the Women’s Social and Political Union. She believed that their actions were in fact harming women’s chances of gaining the vote, as they were alienating the MPs who were debating whether or not to give women the vote, as well as souring much of the general public towards the campaign. Despite the publicity given to the WSPU, the NUWSS retained the majority of the support of the women’s movement. In 1913 they had 50,000 members compared to 2,000 of the WSPU.

It isn’t the first time I work and I have passed through many companies of all sorts. Therefore, this accumulated working experience has taught few things about good or bad management and even on how a company should be ran. For this one doesn’t need registering at any Economic School, but working experience should teach us one or two things.

Management may claim that we employees or collaborators need them. They may even claim that without them. this may be partially true the way things are getting in nowadays world, but an individual, provided he or she isn’t too stupid, will have few options for survival on its own. 

THINGS THAT MANAGEMENT SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT

- A company where employees and/or collaborators don’t stay long is a bad sign. It means that either employees as well as contributors aren’t very well treated and/or paid fair rates/salaries.

- They should never be so mean or greedy so as to forget about their employees education and training. If say a company contributes in paying part of the fees on learning and training for their employees, this will contribute well in the running of the business. Better trained employees will definitely make better workers. They will take more interest in their work.

- Staff premises should be well looked after as it is the place in which employees spend a lot of time having meals and resting while on duty. I have worked in some companies in which these premises were a real disgrace -dirty and lacking essential facilities. Would the management of these companies be right to expect a great input in the work when the employees couldn’t have a proper place for a break? The same applies for changing rooms.

- The most important isn’t cleaning and tidying away when there’s going to be an inspection from authorities. The inspectors pass and go, but the employees stay on.

- In the same way that buying cheap is a false economy, so is for a company to recruit workers that hardly have an education and they will work for hours on end for a real pittance. In the end, these workers, if they stay on, they won’t show much interest in working well. They will only do what they have been asked so as they won’t be sacked.

- Some companies pretend to be very democratic, because they ask their employees or contributors for their opinions and suggestions so as to improve the business in many ways. Yet, when employees take some time to write down few good suggestions, nobody knows where those suggestions go. At the very best, they will get a “thank you very much for your suggestion. Much appreciated”.

- Incentives of some sort are a must in every company -it may be a share in the profits, few perks or even small get-together once in a while will contribute to create a good work atmosphere.

- Nobody likes staying in a job without any possibilities for promotion. Therefore, good management must have good promotion policies -abilities, input and fidelity to the company  should come first before other considerations.

- There are family ran companies, but generally speaking many of them aren’t. It’s very a very bad sign when in a company there are too many members whether among the staff or management related to each other and when they promote among themselves. New people from outside is like the fresh air that every company should aim at.

- A good manager should always listen to what a member of the staff has to say regarding work problems or any others related to their work and the company.

- A good manager should always place itself on top of all their staff under their direction and on no accounts they should take on favourite ones.

As I say I don’t hold a degree on Economics, but having worked in different companies and fields I think I have learnt few things about how a good or bad company is. Office politics may be difficult to eradicate from work environment as well as gossip or things said and known off the record, but if there is sensible and good management this will be prevented. A good manager will never accept treats from an employee who knows that by doing so he or she may step up the ladder easily. 

I could be  a longer list, but three points should be kept in mind if a company aims to stay competitive: Rights and duties must be on equal measure. Fairness and recognition for the work well done but not by lip mouth, but taking into consideration a certain employee into account when it comes to promotion.