1. What is the definition of “Human Resource Management (HRM)?”
2. What are the three (3) exams you can take to show your mastery of Human Resource Management (HRM) material? Please identify each type of exam (i.e., name of exam) in BOLD font.
3. What are the seven (7) roles that Human Resource Management (HRM) plays in an organization? What do you believe is the most important task an HRM professional should be able to complete? Please identify each role in BOLD font. 4. What is a code of ethics? Why is it important for an organization to have a code of ethics? 5. What are the four (4) main steps within the staffing function? Remember, “Staffing involves the entire hiring process from posting a job to negotiating a salary package.” Please identify each step in BOLD font.
6. What are three (3) strategies for announcing a job opening? Please identify each strategy in BOLD font.
7. What are the two (2) factors that usually weigh heavily in deciding which questions should and should not be asked during an applicant’s interview? Please identify each factor in BOLD font.
8. What are the three (3) considerations a Human Resource Management (HRM) professional should address during an employee’s review for promotion within an organization? Please identify each consideration in BOLD font. What do you believe is the most important consideration an HRM professional should contemplate during the employment promotion process?
9. What is the definition of “applicant screening (i.e., filtering)?”
10. What was the “key question” asked by former Indianapolis Colts’ (National Football League) head coach Jim Mora, when interviewing Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf prior to the 1998 NFL Draft?
Investigation of the eighth Amendment Distributed: 23rd March, 2015 Last Edited: ninth January, 2018 Disclaimer: This exposition has been put together by an understudy. This isn't a case of the work composed by our expert exposition authors. You can see tests of our expert work here. Any assessments, discoveries, conclusions or proposals communicated in this material are those of the writers and don't really mirror the perspectives of UK Essays. eighth Amendment Presentation The eighth (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution can be legitimately characterized as the segment of the United Sates Bill of Rights what restricts the government from forcing exorbitant fines, neither perpetrating unfeeling and unordinary disciplines nor forcing over the top safeguard. The eighth amendment was endorsed to be a piece of the United States Constitution in the year 1791.This change was relatively like a stipulation made in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 where the administration made a presentation to the point that they needed to work as their precursors had by not requesting for extreme safeguard neither forcing unreasonable fines nor dispensing pitiless or strange disciplines. On account of England the arrangement was for the most part determined by the discipline including Titus Oates. Amid the reign of King James II in the 1680s Titus Oates filled in as an installation in the London pillory circuit. Oates was included numerous conventional punishments that had been all in all forced constrained on him in a way that was both unreasonable and unparalleled. Oates had lied under pledge which prompted numerous blameless individuals being put under capital punishment. Parliament affirmed the presentation against "savage and uncommon disciplines "for England in the year 1689. The revelation was clarified by the parliament that it should anticipate disciplines, for example, the one perpetrated on Titus Oates by the King's Bench. In December 1689 the then parliament embraced the arrangement to be passed into law. The main state to receive a stand like that of England on the issues was the territory of Virginia. In the year 1776 the Virginia revelation of rights joined the English bill of rights and afterward went on above and beyond to suggest in the year 1788 that the above arrangement be incorporated into the assembled states constitution as at the Virginia tradition that intended to affirm the U.S constitution. It was some Virginia states men, for example, Patrick Henry and George Mason that initially supported that congress be constrained by utilization of the confinement as in the English bill of rights. This depended on the feelings of trepidation that if that did not occur the congress could cause a few disciplines that were both irregular and extreme on lawbreakers. The two Virginians additionally focused on the requirement for the Congress to get rid of the line in the English bill of rights that appeared to concede to torments and savage discipline exacted on its kin before. And furthermore prescribed congress to begin the authorization of common law for the more rehearsed customary law. At last Mason and Henry were effective in their mission and afterward the eighth amendment was embraced by the United States. In the year 1789 James Madison changed the words "should" in the English bill of rights to" might" at that point proposed it to the congress for revision. Remorseless and strange disciplines The eighth amendment as indicated by the Supreme Court restricted completely the curse of a few disciplines and in the meantime prohibit some different disciplines which when contrasted with the wrongdoing for which they were given for supposedly was exorbitant or those which apparently was inordinate when the capability of the culprit was put into light. This was viewed as vital in light of the fact that in the prior years a portion of the judgments passed on to the general population were in overabundance considering the way that the culprits were either bumbling to carry out such violations or the wrongdoings conferred were minor. In the year 1962 the incomparable courts decided that the unfeeling and irregular disciplines act connected to every one of the conditions of the United States through the fourteenth amendment. This took after the case including Robinson versus California, 370 U.S. 660 in the year 1960. Prior to the Robinson case the eighth amendment had just before been connected in bodies of evidence against the government. For the situation including Furman versus Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 of the year 1962 the four rules that would decide if a discipline passed onto a culprit was "savage and abnormal" were composed by Justice Brennan. These included explanations that for the discipline passed on judging by how extreme it is corrupt human poise under conditions as on account of torment, it likewise that any strange and unfeeling discipline was one which was absolutely and unmistakably dismissed by the entire society, one which apparently was dispensed in a way that supposedly was completely discretionary or one that was plainly superfluous. Brennan went ahead to compose that it was a desire that no American state would pass a law that would appear to undermine any of the four principals, with the end goal that all choices made in court including the eighth amendment would consider all the these standards. The disciplines for which as per the eighth revise were illegal paying little respect to the wrongdoing submitted would incorporate any type of eviscerating, open dismembering, drawing and quartering or copying alive. This in connection to the four Brennan standards where disciplines that were completely dismissed all through the general public. In the instances of Atkins versus Virginia 536 U.S. 304 of 2002 the preeminent court proclaimed executing rationally crippled individuals fell in the illegal disciplines and furthermore on account of Roper versus Simmons 543 U.S. 551 of 2005 where the court decided that executing individuals under18 years was an infringement of the eighth amendment paying little mind to the wrongdoing conferred by the culprit. Disciplines that were illegal for specific wrongdoings included cases in which the court needed to topple disciplines, for example, the cadena transient which ordered that "hard and excruciating work" shackling are discarded while during the time spent imprisonment or when looked with common incapacities that were lasting. The case specified above occurred in 1910 and was frequently observed as a methods for building up some proportionality while applying the eighth amendment. In some different cases it was decided that rebuffing a characteristic conceived American national for any wrongdoing by taking without end his citizenship was seen to be illegal and crude as it included totally harming the individual's status in the general public. For a situation including Coker versus Virginia 433 U.S. 584 of 1977 the court at the time plainly expressed that the burden of a capital punishment or assault was absolutely unlawful and that connected to whatever other situation where demise did not happen. It proceeded to illuminate that assault violations by definition do exclude either demise or even any genuine body mischief to the next individual. Unreasonable fines For a long time the United States Supreme Court never had much to state when the subject of inordinate fines was specified. In one early case the Supreme Court had no capacity to change any judgments go by a lower court as respects the subject of overwhelming fines being forced on somebody. In later years the need to need to audit the measure of fines exacted on a man since it generally prompted the detainment in light of the fact that the individual was not able raise the sum forced on him/her by the court. In a stage intended to guarantee break even with native assurance the court figured out how to put to importance the words "over the top fines" when contrasted with the individual for whom the judgment is intended to influence. Be that as it may, the court additionally precluded applying the above provision couldn't be connected to cases including private situations where the legislature had not been engaged with the indictment nor was it to get any offer of any of the granted harms. This choice depended on the expectation for which the unreasonable fines statement was intended for. The court plainly expressed that when the eighth amendment was embraced into the unified states constitution the word 'fine' was taken to allude to any installment that would need to be made to sovereign element for an offense conferred. THE court left open the choice in the matter of whether the provision could be connected to qui cap activities or cases including common punishments yet in the meantime it inferred that the over the top fines proviso was at first expected to influence the fines that were just forced by one payable to the legislature. In cases including any affable relinquishment the unreasonable fines statement could be connected. The significance of the statement as it respects to the quantum discipline of a specific offenses when it is autonomous of the capacity of the guilty party to pay the fine forced on despite everything him anticipates the consequence of legitimate procedures. Over the top safeguard In England it was the obligation of the sheriffs to choose whether or not a man should have been allowed safeguard. Because of the consistent mishandle of intensity by the sheriffs the administration in those days discharged a statute that plainly arranged the bailable and the non-bailable offenses. Be that as it may, these statutes could be subverted by the choice of the King's judges. As per the law then a man could be held without safeguard contingent upon the charges of the sovereign expert. It was regularly contended that the King did not have the expert to settle on such choices and this prompted the encroachment of human rights when individuals were purposefully kept in jail in spite of having submitted bailable offenses. This and numerous more ambiguities were in the long run put to an end by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. After the Habeas Act was passed judges were looked with the choice to set the safeguard sums however they frequently represented a few sums that were impracticable. It was until the year 1689 that the English bill of rights restricts the request of over the top rights however a further revision to recognize bailable and non bailable offenses was required. Safeguard is said to be abundance>GET ANSWER