1.Create a job description and specifications for your dream job.
2.Design a compensation and benefits package related to your dream job.
3.Rationalize your compensation and benefits package. Be sure to indicate the research and considerations that went into the design of the compensation and benefits package.
4.Imagine this is the only position of its kind in the organization. From this perspective, design a performance appraisal program to assess your job performance. 5.Rationalize your performance appraisal program. Be sure to indicate the research and considerations that went into the design of the performance appraisal program.
Distributed: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 Exposition QUESTION: Discuss the French 2004 Law which disallows state school understudies from showing any religious signs. Quickly present the law, clarify the reasons why this law was embraced and demonstrate how it fits with the guideline of secularism in the French Republic. Since the French Revolution in 1789 and the law set up in 1791, requiring the state to be nonpartisan and all open and church matters to be thoroughly isolated, France has been viewed as a common state. France has been staggeringly strict on this law since it was built up, trusting that nonpartisanship implied fairness, which is one of the fundamental standards in France. After a fairly extensive stretch of time, the administration in France inevitably got an arrangement of laws alluded to as the Jules Ferry laws. These laws proclaim that all state schools are required, in structures, staff and educational programs to be mainstream, no indications of religion to be appeared by any means. This prompted the selection of the 2004 law expressing that every obvious indication of religion in school were to be prohibited. A law that emerged from an emergency which began in the late 1980's, the place Muslim young ladies were wearing the headscarves which spoke to their religion in a state school. While generally unopposed in France, the presentation of this law achieved some debate, inside France itself and around the neighboring nations. This article embarks to clarify the 2004 law, and the reasons why it was embraced. It additionally means to investigate how this law fits in with France's standards on mainstream quality, and correspondence. The law that president at the time, Jacques Chirac approved fifteenth of March 2004, became effective on second September 2004, the start of the new school year. This law denies any types of religious signs being worn in schools. Since inside the law itself, there is no referral to a particular signs, the law precludes everything, including except not select to, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religious images. The official name for this law is, in English, Law No. 2004-228 of 15 March 2004 managing, as per the standard of secularism, the wearing of images or attire meaning religious alliance in schools, universities and open high schools. The title of the law itself is quite certain, in this manner tying off the proviso that existed in the past laws, in which the emergency started in any case. The profound underlying foundations of the common territory of France originates from the French unrest in 1789. Before this period France was administered by an outright government, implying that the lord and just the ruler had all the ability to control the nation. There were no restrictions to how the lord could control, so oftentimes, rulers manhandled that control. The lord, amid this timeframe ruled, as he and the congregation accepted, out of consideration for God, thus the congregation was profoundly required with the manner in which the ruler ruled. After the unrest, the manner in which the nation was ruled was changed in a huge and affecting way, the state wound up mainstream, "the ruler currently controlled by the desire of the general population, and not by the finesse of god" (Jones 1994) France was additionally presently managed under the new constitution, as an established government, and as a republic. The general population presently had a somewhat vast say in how their country was controlled. The established government acquired numerous new laws for how the lord could lead for instance, if another law was to be passed it needed to experience a progression of councilors before it got to the ruler himself. This new constitution included a bill for the new privileges of men and natives (rejects ladies and slaves). This took into consideration all men and subjects to be conceived and stay free; this includes opportunity of religion and the right to speak freely, for all men and residents to be equivalent; this includes uniformity of property proprietorship, and equivalent charges, and finally the republic is one and unbreakable; which incorporates national power and the state being mainstream. Almost a century after the beginning of the transformation, new laws came into government by the methods for a man called Jules Ferry. Ship is best known for his instructive laws, which were gotten in 1882. These laws express that instruction for state schools in France was to be complimentary and necessary for youngsters matured somewhere in the range of six and thirteen years of age, and all state schools must be mainstream. "Ship's 'schools without God' were sharply restricted by the churchmen… … Yet regardless of their challenged beginnings the schools demonstrated a standout amongst the most continuing social accomplishments of the early Third Republic." (Jones 1994), this demonstrates despite the fact that there was a resistance for these schools at first, they turned out to be exceptionally effective, and it was a solid help for the mainstream quality standards of France. This training appeared to work easily for more than 100 years. In 1989, an issue happened that should have been tended to by acquiring another law which in the long run became effective in 2004. The issue that emerged was, in 1989 three youthful female understudies were ousted from their state school which they went to close Paris, for wearing their religious make a beeline for school and declining to evacuate them. They even held on to wear them amid physical movement periods, and this appeared to be to a great degree pointless. This apparently safe act in the understudies eyes, prompted their removal. It was a difficulty, since instructors and directors did not know how to manage this issue, as it had never happened, so it was chosen as the understudies had infringed upon the law they were to be ousted. Numerous individuals discovered this disciplinary demonstration extreme, and it caused an incredible hubbub, including youthful female understudies everywhere throughout the nation to wear their headscarves to class also. As a result of the substantial size of despondency of the general population of France, the news was everywhere on this case, which drove the High Administrative Council to understand that some higher type of order needed to happen to recover control of the state. This was the key issue that prompted the improvement, and reception of the law in 2004. The understudies undoubtedly thought their demonstration was adequate, in view of one key mix-up in the Jules Ferry Laws of 1882. These laws just allude to the structures, educational modules and staff to be mainstream consistently. There is no notice of understudies by any stretch of the imagination. Consequently, the three understudies who coincidentally began the contention in 1989 clearly considered this to be an escape clause, and that nothing wasn't right with what they were doing. Which as far as the law, there wasn't. It for the most part came down to the way that the French individuals had an extremely 'set in stone' assessment in transit the nation ought to be, with respect to how they were translating the laws. The past occasions of the nation driven it to wind up common, and the general population of France trust that this comprises of everything. Indeed, even as the new law has come in, there are as yet certain spots which are not really expressed in the laws by any stretch of the imagination, similar to colleges and tuition based schools, the laws regarding this matter are somewhat particular. The wearing of headscarves out in the open places in France could be seen as a negative likewise in light of the connections that it has with Islamic fundamentalism. Despite the fact that a large portion of the 5 million Muslims, or 8.3% of France's populace, practice moderate religion, there are is a little percent of the individuals who are fundamentalists and are utilizing the relentless increment in the Muslim populace further bolstering their advantage. France fights seriously with the dread of having psychological oppressor assaults staring its in the face from individuals of its own dirt e.g. Algeria and furthermore assaults from Saudi Arabia. In spite of the fact that there is a possibility for individuals to go to religious non-public schools in France, there have been a few situations where sorted out Islamic activist gatherings have constrained youthful female understudies to wear the headscarf to class with the end goal to weight different young ladies to do likewise. There have likewise been instances of retention these understudies from specific classes in school which the gatherings accept are against their convictions. This is a case of another simply reason of why the law was embraced. Then again, despite the fact that there were numerous explanations behind embracing this law, there were additionally numerous reasons against. One of these reasons was, the reception of this new law confronted a great deal of resistance from different countries on a universal level. One of the restricting countries was Britain. A lot of British Muslims were against the appropriation of this standard, many going up against the conviction that it repudiated France's law of religious opportunities. The British government were likewise on board "in sentencing the French for attempting to boycott religious headwear and images in state schools" (Adenekan 2004). The boycott confronted a wide range of resistance, even from different religious partitions in Britain, saying that it was among their essential rights as people to wear images of their religion. Many trust that is a piece of their character, and removing that will cause separates in the network. Another country which is extremely illegal is United States. The country of the United States trusts that understudies can wear their religious images in schools without testing the commonness of the state. One of the most concerning issues that America has with this law is that it doesn't permit the incorporation procedure, "In this view, restricting headscarves in state funded schools is pointless despite issues that are essentially social and monetary." (Vasse 2004). The United States holds a comparative mainstream standard, yet the basic role for this appropriation was to ensure that the legislature would not meddle with chapel business, to keep religion shielded from the state, not the a different way. There were gatherings of individuals who were backing the law due to the ladies' rights. They felt that the Muslim ladies who were wearing the religious headscarves made the ladies second rate, as their rights were abused vigorously by the men, and their religion. Some could contend the opposite side of this contention however, it is said that w>GET ANSWER