Your group has been hired as a team of consultants to provide some theoretically sound and practical advice to the Chief Executive Officer of Parker Smallgoods. Founded in 1920, the Parker family of farmers and butchers had a dream to provide the Australian public with the finest quality meat, cured using traditional Italian recipes. In 2017, the Parkers are a major supplier of smallgoods to the Australian market. The product range spans across traditional Italian salami, ham, bacon and smallgoods. The family-owned company has state-of-the-art facilities located in Bundoora, Victoria and employs over 250 workers. The company has a very flat organisational structure – the CEO reports to a Board of Directors (made up of members of the Parker family). Each department has a manager, with the production department having supervisors who directly manage the production line workers.
In a recent independent health and safety investigation, the auditor found ‘multiple instances of lax safety practices by front line workers’ and ‘a poor attitude towards safety amongst front line staff, supervisors and middle management’. However, the auditor commended senior management on their general commitment to the safety of workers, but found ‘this has not translated into safe working practices on the factory floor’. The auditor cited several examples of dangerous practices he witnessed on the production line, including workers reaching into meat mincers to remove blockages whilst the mincer was operating; poor manual handling practices; workers not wearing their personal protective equipment; dangerous use of forklifts; equipment such as knives not being put away properly; and safety barriers on machines being removed to speed up the production process.
In his recommendations, the auditor suggested that Parker Smallgoods ‘work towards developing a culture of safety within the organisation’.
Peter Parker, the CEO, is concerned about his workers’ safety. In a private meeting, he commented “It’s just a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or dies on the factory floor. What can I do? We have good procedures. We have spent a lot of money on making sure the factory is safe. But, I can’t make the supervisors and employees follow our safety procedures…..I can’t watch them all the time”.
Peter has hired your group to come up with five recommendations as to how he can create a ‘safety culture’ within Parker Smallgoods. He has asked for a comprehensive Report that he can give to the Board of Directors. The Report should:
1. Briefly outline the legal responsibilities that employers have to ensure a safe workplace
2. Define the term ‘safety culture’ (drawing on appropriate academic literature)
3. Explain how a safety culture can improve safety behaviours of employees (drawing on appropriate academic literature)
4. Identify five recommendations that Parker Smallgoods should implement to improve the safety culture within the organisation. These recommendations may incorporate multiple HRM functions, including performance management, rewards, training and development, recruitment and job design. For each recommendation, a clear explanation about how this will lead to improved safety behaviours should be provided.
Work and Attitudes toward People on Welfare Welfare is one of the United States most unmistakable political issues. Since the U.S welfare framework was built up in 1935, its financial structure, the wellspring of its subsidizing and the capabilities of its beneficiaries have been constant themes of open deliberation. As a result of America’s profoundly assorted populace, a plenty of states of mind have created with respect to the way that individuals see welfare beneficiaries, and this might be credited to a wide range of variables. I willingly volunteered look all the more particularly at the connection between people who work (or don’t work) and individuals who are on welfare. The inquiry that I chose to look into was, “completes a person’s business status impact their disposition towards individuals who are on welfare?” I trust this is an essential inquiry to deliver on the grounds that individuals have a tendency to sum up that people who work have brutally adverse demeanors toward individuals getting welfare checks since they don’t need to work for the cash. On the off chance that this is in certainty genuine, at that point I trust it would assume an enormous part in the results of numerous decisions and in addition how states arrange their welfare frameworks. My speculation is Ha: in a correlation of people, the individuals who are presently working will have more antagonistic sentiments towards individuals who are on welfare than people who are not working. My invalid speculation would be H0: there is no connection between a person’s work status and their sentiments toward individuals who are on welfare. I trust my theory to be genuine in light of the fact that I figure it would be elusive a man who works and endeavors to get a salary and is likewise tolerant of different people who are getting cash without working. A few people may feel that their work and endeavors are deprecated in light of the fact that people who don’t advance a similar exertion can at present claim a “pay”. There may likewise be people who had encountered monetary hardship (in the same way as other of the general population who use welfare) yet worked their way once again into money related dependability without the guide of welfare. These individuals may have a more antagonistic “in the event that I could do it, at that point they ought to have the capacity to do it” demeanor towards individuals on welfare. I think this speculation is relevant to people in a wide range of occupations however considerably more so to people in the physical work compel. Individuals who work bring down paying difficult work occupations could have to a great degree pessimistic perspectives towards individuals who are welfare since they are physically endeavoring while welfare beneficiaries might not need to do as such themselves. On the opposite end of my theory, people who are not utilized could have more constructive sentiments toward individuals on welfare for a few reasons. The most outstanding reason is that there is likely a higher possibility that people who are not utilized may in reality be accepting welfare help themselves. I don’t trust that people who are at present on welfare will have pessimistic emotions towards the very program that they are utilizing. Another factor could be people who are not really “out of the activity” but rather are basically not currently hoping to work. For instance, housewives, non-working understudies and youthful grown-ups might not have an indistinguishable pessimistic emotions from somebody who is utilized on the grounds that they don’t have an occupation or wage to contrast and those of individuals who are on welfare. These gatherings of individuals might not have the same “deprecated” feeling that utilized individuals may have and they may have more nonpartisan or constructive sentiments towards individuals who are on welfare. The informational index that I utilized for my investigation is nes2008. This dataset is from an American National Election Time Series Study which occurred in 2008. 4,424 aggregate people were met on an eye to eye premise, 2,322 people previously the presidential decision and 2,102 people after the presidential race. As can be accepted by the up close and personal surveying the unit of examination for this investigation was people. (ANES) The respectability of this informational index is solid in how the people were surveyed on a wide assortment of subjects, for example, their voting cooperation, values, commonality with the media and their philosophies. This safeguards the people don’t feel as if they are being met for a particular subject or to answer a particular inquiry which could influenced their answers a less precise way. The extensive number of individuals who were inspected is additionally a positive part of the informational index. Despite the fact that four thousand individuals may not superbly speak to the assessments of the whole populace of the U.S, the example estimate is sufficiently extensive to produce no less than an adequate portrayal. (ANES) Then again, the nes2008 informational collection has a couple of negative qualities. The talking of people pre-and-post-race may have created comes about that conflictingly speak to the U.S populace on account of the impact that the race may have had on a few people’s perspectives or answers. In spite of the fact that the two rushes of interviewees comprised of various individuals, the decision may have impacted people to react all the more emphatically or adversely to specific inquiries in view of the result of the race. The populace could have been spoken to far distinctively before the decision than after the race. This might be an impact that the examination was attempting to prompt, yet for my exploration it doesn’t produce the best portrayal of the populace. Another issue with the nes2008 informational index is that there was an outlined oversampling of African-American and Latino respondents. This oversampling presents another issue concerning the investigations portrayal of the overall public as it may exclude the same number of answers from different races that could influence my testing results. Fortunately, the informational collection incorporated an equation that would measure the information in a way that would better speak to the populace. (ANES) The reliant variable that I chose was welfare_therm. This is a consistent variable that requests people to rate the glow of their emotions toward individuals who are on welfare from 0º (coldest) to 100º (hottest). It is inferred that hotter emotions are more positive than colder sentiments. This was a decent factor for me to utilize in light of the fact that the inquiry that I am attempting to answer relates to person’s sentiments toward individuals who are on welfare. I think rating their sentiments in degrees instead of classes like “contrary”, “somewhat antagonistic”, “unbiased” et cetera takes into account people to be more particular while depicting their emotions towards individuals on welfare. In spite of the fact that, I do trust that the extensive variety of the thermometer may realize a less conclusive depiction of what is viewed as a somewhat constructive or somewhat contrary feeling toward individuals who are on welfare. A chart delineating welfare_therm can be found in figure 1. My principle free factor was employ_status, which had people recognize themselves inside business status classes. These classes were: working now, briefly laid off, jobless, resigned, forever crippled, homemaker, and understudy. At to begin with, this variable did not present the most substantial estimation of work status that I would requirement for my exploration. To create a superior portrayal of the sentiments produced by people who were working or not working, I needed to refine the quantity of classifications in the variable. I recoded the variable with the goal that a person’s reaction would either enlist as A. working or B. not working. This new factor was called working and would fill in as a superior variable for estimating an association with my needy variable, emotions toward individuals on welfare. A chart portraying working can be found in figure 2. The first of my control factors was sex. This variable sorted individual respondents as either male or female. It is vital to take note of that on account of how this variable was coded in Stata (1=male, 2=female), I expected to recode it with the goal that it would be all the more effectively estimated by my tests. I recoded the variable as 0=male and 1=female and I named the new factor female. I incorporated this control variable since I trusted that a person’s sex would largy affect the emotions that they had towards individuals who are on welfare. Characteristically ladies are thought to be more passionate and thoughtful towards people who might be in need and I suspected this may affect their mentality towards a man who is on welfare. The second control variable that I incorporated into my test was hh_kids, which is a straight out measure of the quantity of children in the respondent’s family unit. 0=no children 1=one child and at least 2=two children in the family unit. I trust that this variable would have served my exploration better if the classes spoke to the dynamic of family units with few children and families with numerous children better. Maybe classes, for example, 0 kids, 1-3 children and at least 3 children would have been exceptional in light of the fact that I don’t imagine that 2 kids speaks to a family unit with “many” children, which was the dynamic I was meaning to gauge. I do trust that this variable is adequate, however. I trust that the quantity of children that an individual has in their family unit impacts their sentiments toward individuals on welfare since people with numerous youngsters may comprehend what it resembles to be on a tight spending plan or to need to accommodate kids. Individuals with numerous children in their home could be thoughtful towards individuals on welfare since they may be under the feeling that the general population who are on welfare require it to help their youngsters. Income_r was my third control variable. This variable reports the wage of the respondent inside twenty five classes that range from “none or under $2,999” to “$150,000 and over”. Sadly, the classes are not similarly measured. For instance, there is a classification named “$15,000-16,999” and its resulting categor>