look someone new
 

taking stalking to a whole new level.

:laugh::zomg:

Someone's viewing my "AruaRose newbhat" thread????

:love:

Bored?

Want something to do?

Can you tell me: the pros and cons to Bureaucratic control within management?

Or how about: Define "Right-to-Work" and how it relates to organized labor and what it's impact is on the U.S. workforce?

LOL Spirit. I don't even know what half of those words mean. Like no joke. Srsly.

>>;

Neither do I, but apparently in the past 5 weeks of school, I was supposed to have learned it at some point. :zomg::err::zomg::err:

Bureaucratic control within management Pro’s

It shows a distinct and acknowledged chain of command.
There is a tighter control over processes and how they are run.
Decision making is set by those in control and happens at a faster pace.

Bureaucratic control within management Con’s

Inflexibility can plague the system due to the rigidity of those in control.
Unexpected events can cause turmoil within the workforce if the chain of command does not react quickly.
Resentment of superiors can manifest itself through the ranks.


I’ll start to work on the second part.

If we pull any of our information from the wikipedia he will automatically give us a zero.

Holy crap, where did you get that info from?? I have to be able to back up my source if questioned, haha.

Manz is starting to scare me.... :ninja: runs :ninja:

LOL...it only proves that he is the MANZ!!!!

mostly from my own life experiences.

But I'm sure you already knew everything I stated.


As for Right to work - it was set in force by individual states but stems from the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (1935) sanctioned a state's right to pass laws that prohibit unions from requiring a worker to pay dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement.

I believe that Wikipedia or http://www.nrtwc.org/

could help you with this one.

Lmao.

It's good to be 14. :sunnies:

LOL!!

Funny, i kinda expected that from Manzcar XD

expected what :smarty::angel:

expected... answers for complicated financial-industry-related questions...

from lil ol me. I no :smarty:

"lil ol me."

Randomness~ how tall are you? :O

Unless you need to cite sources, I do not believe that using Wikipedia as a source of information can be adequately concluded as plagiarism.

Wikipedia has approximately 85-95% accuracy on each page individually, with a composite total accuracy somewhere along the lines of 88%. Some sources claim that the total accuracy lies at 90%, as per the Nature study, while others claim that the total accuracy is actually 80%.

As any encyclopedia contains "general knowledge," suffice it to say that using the knowledge within an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, without copying exact sentence structuring, should be adequate in use with in a paper. Interestingly enough, teachers of mine who insist that any paper influenced by Wikipedia is a guaranteed zero often award me full marks for a paper formed exclusively from Wikipedia and personal background knowledge. No, paraphrasing at a higher degree, rather than simple rearrangement of words in each sentence. Of course, all information should be cross-referenced with a secondary or even tertiary source, in order to ensure full accuracy.

My English teacher gave me a C on my research paper because I cited Wikipedia.

:hulksmash:

Should have just said it came from a different source...

For uni, you need to cite scholar journals... and... websites of any kind is pretty much considered insufficient... not only Wiki...

Since this is a business management I have to use business journals as my sources. But this was a written test. I was not supposed to have any references. But, he doesn't want us to pull our research from wikipedia.