Search results

This empirical paper seeks to address the neglected work condition aspect of lean production (LP) implementation, specifically the relationship between LP and worker job stress.

The Karasek job stress model was used to link shopfloor practices to expected worker stress. The model incorporates the effects of job demands (physical and psychological), job control and social support. The study employs management and worker questionnaires, management interviews and structured plant tours. The response variable is total worker job stress – the sum of the physical and mental stress levels. The independent variable for the first question is the degree of lean implementation at the sites.

The results are based on 1,391 worker responses at 21 sites in the four UK industry sectors. About 11 tested practices are significantly related to stress and an unexpected non‐linear response of stress to lean implementation is identified. Results indicate that LP is not inherently stressful, with stress levels significantly related to management decisions in designing and operating LP systems.

The hypotheses tests shed light on the relationships between LP practices and job stress, and reveal a significant managerial influence on stress levels. The regression model shows the scale and significant lean practices of this influence, with the work practices explaining 30 percent of job stress variations. The stress reduction and stress control opportunities identified in the study show the potential for designing and operating effective lean systems while also controlling stress levels.

This is the first known multi‐industry empirical study of the relationship of job stress to a range of lean practices and to the degree of lean implementation.

Suggests that sexual harassment is very common. Analyses the defences to sexual harassment under three categories: general employer defences to claims of sexual harassment, unique defences to hostile environment harassment and new developments to sexual harassment defending sexual harassment claims. Provides cases as examples. Concludes that there is still a great deal of manoeuvring room within the language of the Court.

Cites California as one of the most progressive states in the area of sexual discrimination legislation and has quickly added precedents set by the Supreme Court into their legislation. Outlines the history of Californian sexual harassment legislation with reference to case law before considering recent cases. Provides tips for employers.

Briefly defines sexual harassment before discussing the pertinent section of the Civil Rights Act 1964. Outlines the procedures of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and looks at developments through the use of recent case law. Gives some examples of high profile cases. Concludes that there is an increased frequency in workplace relationships and there is a need for appropriate guidelines to be in place.

Provides a background to the development of sexual harassment legislation through the Supreme Court. Examines the characteristics of sexual harassment laws and how the Supreme Court has implemented and expanded these rules in specific cases. Concludes that it is imperative that employers understand their liability for sexual misconduct in the workplace and use the presented cases to formulate and enforce an effective anti‐harassment policy.

Provides details of new developments in negligent training by researching articles in current trade magazines over the last six months. Gives details of employee related litigation that have recently been in the headlines and states any appropriate recommendations or preventative measures to help employers combat employee related litigation. Covers subjects including age, pay, and hiring methods. Concludes that employers must constantly monitor developments in the law to enable their policies to remain up to date and minimise risk.

Highlights that, since 1999 in the USA, employees have had the right to sue their employers for damages, thanks to a US Supreme Court decision. Itemizes, with full details, the three main areas for compensation as: sexual harassment; compensation discrimination; and retaliation (by employers). Concludes employers need to start assessing their compliance with the new standards immediately.

Defines sexual harassment, suggesting that many e‐mails can be defined as such. Cites some examples of e‐mail misuse and urges employers to consider preventive measures. Looks at some of the methods of monitoring electronic mail, and forwards some remedies.

Outlines the role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and covers the Civil Rights Act 1964 before briefly mentioning the Age discrimination in Employment Act 1967, equal pay Act 1963, Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 and other laws. Provides statistics from the EEOC website and also looks at affirmative action. Considers recent developments affecting Manufacturers in relation to race, sex age and disabilities, citing case law examples. Discusses reverse discrimination and concludes that companies need to keep pace with developments.