Review the following videos and web links to respond to the questions below.
Honda, Toyota, Chrysler Re-Recall 2 Million Vehicles (Links to an external site.)
Takata Fights US Call to Expand Air-Bags Recall (Links to an external site.)
Automakers should’ve Caught Bad Air-Bags (Links to an external site.)
Statement from Takata’s Chairman (Links to an external site.)
In today’s business environment, there is no single definition of quality. Discuss the Takata’s airbags currently under recall using one (1) of the definitions of quality.
What do you think leaders of Honda, Toyota, and Chrysler could have done differently to minimize the impact of this recall? Be sure to justify your response from class readings in your eText.
DB POSTING REMINDERS:
Please remember the initial post should be written as early in the week as possible, and the peer responses are due by Saturday evening.
Be sure to reference your eText or other research to support your response. You will be graded on how you relate the class readings to your initial post.
When you make your initial post, please fully answer the question and make substantive responses - i.e. at least 200 words that really dive into the topic and show that you've read in your texts and done research to support your opinions.
Apply appropriate examples that illustrate your points - feel free to bring your workplace experiences into the discussion. It helps us all learn when we can relate our past workplace experiences to what we're learning here in the
Since 1977 a variety of legislation has conferred on different groups of people/s different priorities and therefore differing responses to their homelessness. Despite these various legislations however the basic foundation and divide of the statutory and non statutory homeless has remained (bold added for emphasis): Statutory Homeless – those entitled by legal right to both temporary accommodation and then more settled accommodation to resolve their homelessness e.g. families with dependent children or a pregnancy. Non Statutory Homeless – those entitled to advice and assistance to resolve their homelessness but not accommodation e.g. childless couples and single people with no relevant health issues. This group can also include those who were accommodated temporarily, as above, but on further investigation were deemed to be intentionally homeless or not vulnerable (in priority need). (Fitzpatrick, et al., 2009). In relation to these different legislations and related policies there are some important points of note. Unlike other non UK countries, excepting France (Fitzpatrick and Stephens, 2007), the legally enforceable right to settled or more permanent accommodation for the English statutory homeless could be viewed as an impressive stance. Importantly also is that officially, homelessness is defined as much wider than “rooflessness”. In effect you can be homeless for various reasons if still in accommodation e.g. you will be homeless within 28 days (e.g. after a notice) or you have accommodation that is deemed unsuitable (e.g. overcrowding). Additionally, the settled or more permanent accommodation provided to the statutory homeless has historically usually been social housing, this has led to debates about “perverse incentives” (Lund, 2006, pg.132). Recent legislation in England (Localism Act 2011) has however enabled one off private rented tenancy offers, of sufficient duration, to represent settled or more permanent housing. Possibly one of the most important English social policies in recent years has been the move to a more preventative approach to homelessness (Pawson 2009). Following on from successes in reducing rough sleeping the prevention of homelessness was promoted heavily by the previous government (Pawson, Netto and Jones 2006) and is also supported by current government (DCLG 2012). The concept of prevention has attracted criticism (P>GET ANSWER