学院论文代写：案例分析

学院论文代写：案例分析

一神论认为整个组织中的所有利益相关者都是一个团队。在这种背景下，Chand假设公司的员工都在朝着为公司创造利润的目标努力。具有讽刺意味的是，昌德的看法只对昌德和公司有利。工人在这种情况下受到剥削。昌德需要支付具有竞争力的市场利率，并遵守支付员工薪酬的规定。昌德已经采取了一神论的方法。他可以为公司的整体利益和生计向员工支付更高的薪水。除此之外，采取多元化的办法也可以找到友好的解决办法。通过发展多元化的视角，可以给员工更多的权力和授权。《劳资谈判法》规定，只要雇主提供有关雇员权利的资料，雇员可以按商定的工资率工作。人民在签订协议后14日内，可以对支付方式发表意见。
在这起案件中，一个十几岁儿子的母亲对公司的运作提出了投诉。因此，餐馆老板需要向员工展示他们是如何努力向员工解释政府规定的员工权利的。在员工协议中，如果已经签署，应该有一个灵活的条款在协议中。在这种情况下根据事实证据，可以看出餐馆老板并没有尽到诚信的努力。工人们不知道他们的权利。实际上，110名工人的工资过低。在这种情况下，没有共同利益的多元主义或一元主义目标。因此，可以说，员工的支付方式不能构成合法。尽管员工们同意这些条款，但由于他们缺乏知识或经验，他们还是被剥削了。从事件的分析来看，可以说餐厅老板剥削了员工。即使公司的员工同意支付食物和饮料的费用也是不正确的。

学院论文代写：案例分析

Unitarism operates in the perception that all the stakeholders in the entire organization are functioning as one team. In this context, Chand has assumed that the people in the company are working towards the goal of making profits for the company. Ironically, Chand perception only benefits Chand and the company. Workers are exploited in this situation. Chand needs to pay competitive market rates and follow the mandates to pay the employees. Chand has already undertaken Unitarism approach. He can pay the employees more for the overall benefit and sustenance of the company. Other than that, undertaking pluralist approach can also find amiable solutions. By developing a pluralist perspective, more power and empowerment can be given to the employees. Bargaining act stipulates that the employees can work under the agreed pay rate provided the employer has provided with information regarding their rights. The people are allowed to express or voice their views against such payment within 14 days of signing the agreement.
In this case, the mother of a teenage son has filed a complaint about the functioning of the company. Owing to this, the restaurant owner needs to show how they had taken up the efforts to explain the government mandated employee rights to the employees. In the employee agreement, if it was signed, there should have been a flexibility clause in the agreement. In this case based on the factual evidence, it can be seen that the restaurant owner did not act in good faith efforts. The workers did not have the knowledge about their rights. Essentially 110 workers were grossly underpaid. In this scenario, there is no pluralist or unitarist objective of common good. Hence, it can be said that the method of payment of the employees cannot be constituted as being legal. Even though the employees agreed to the terms, they are exploited owing to their lack of knowledge or experience. From the analysis of the events, it can be said that the restaurant owner has exploited the employees. Paying for food and beverages is not correct even though the employees of the company agreed it upon.