Search results

From time to time, clients ask counsel and brokers about the pros and cons of using an assignment versus a sublease to effect a transfer of possession and a transfer of obligations with respect to leased premises. With about equal frequency, questions come up regarding the differences between assignments and subleases, and ‘whether those differences really make a difference’ after all is said and done. While assignments and subleases are both means to achieve substantially similar ends, they do yield different legal and business results. The purpose of this paper is to explain and discuss some of the similarities and some of the distinctions between assignments and subleases, both from a legal perspective and from business and practical perspectives, and to discuss some of the reasons that the different parties involved in such transactions may prefer, or wish to select one of these transaction forms over the other.

The tragic events of 11 September 2001 have caused people in all walks of life around the world to pause and reflect about what is important to them. With the World Trade Center, one of the icons of global capitalism and New York’s skyline, reduced to a heap of burned and twisted rubble at ‘Ground Zero’ in lower Manhattan, the world of commercial real estate is undergoing a time of reflection in the wake of these unbelievable events. While the catalyst for this time of reflective analysis was at the same time both horrific and compelling, the careful consideration of relevant lease issues and of the need for disaster recovery planning that has resulted will help everyone to be better prepared for unexpected events of any kind in the future. The purpose of this paper is to identify three standard lease provisions that have always been important, but now bear even closer scrutiny in the aftermath of the catastrophic losses of 11 September. These provisions are: Casualty; Interruption or Unavailability of Services; and Insurance. Most form leases contain provisions that address these subjects and raise various issues that are ripe for re‐examination. This paper discusses how such issues might be analysed (or re‐analysed) in the aftermath of this senseless tragedy. Please note that the legal conclusions, practices and norms outlined in this paper are generalised from a United States perspective and, as such, the norms and potential solutions may vary in other countries and on a case‐by‐case basis within a country. Further, the starting point and, often, the ending point in the analysis of any leasing issue is the specific language of the lease, which itself is subject to any applicable laws of the relevant legal jurisdiction. It is important to consider the issues and analysis discussed in this paper in light of the specific market norms and laws of the jurisdiction which are applicable.

Acute and chronic pain affects more Americans than heart disease, diabetes, and cancer combined. Conservative estimates suggest the total economic cost of pain in the United States is $600 billion, and more than half of this cost is due to lost productivity, such as absenteeism, presenteeism, and turnover. In addition, an escalating opioid epidemic in the United States and abroad spurred by a lack of safe and effective pain management has magnified challenges to address pain in the workforce, particularly the military. Thus, it is imperative to investigate the organizational antecedents and consequences of pain and prescription opioid misuse (POM). This chapter provides a brief introduction to pain processing and the biopsychosocial model of pain, emphasizing the relationship between stress, emotional well-being, and pain in the military workforce. We review personal and organizational risk and protective factors for pain, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, optimism, perceived organizational support, and job strain. Further, we discuss the potential adverse impact of pain on organizational outcomes, the rise of POM in military personnel, and risk factors for POM in civilian and military populations. Lastly, we propose potential organizational interventions to mitigate pain and provide the future directions for work, stress, and pain research.

This paper describes how Avoidant Organization Disorder, a common form of narcissism, thwarts organizational health and performance. Avoidant Organization Disorder is juxtaposed with interruptions in organizational learning. A model illustrating the possible relationship between the two and how Avoidant Organization Disorder may precipitate interruptions in organization learning is presented.

This paper develops a new theory arguing that party change results from ruptures in political parties’ ties to civil society organizations. I demonstrate the utility of this approach by using it to explain why the Rhode Island Democratic Party (RIDP) changed from a hierarchical machine to a porous political field occupied by multiple interlegislator cliques and brokered by extra-party political organizations and professionals. While others attribute party change to bureaucratization, electoral demand, or system-level changes, I analyze historical, observational, and interview data to find that a severance in the RIDP’s relationship with organized labor prompted party change by causing power to diffuse outward as leadership lost control over nominations and the careers of elected office holders. In the spaces that remained, interest groups and political professionals came to occupy central positions within the party field, serving as brokers of the information and relationships necessary to coordinate legislative activity. This analysis refines existing theories of party change and provides a historically-grounded explanation for the institutionalization of interest groups and political professionals in American party politics.

Although many employers continue to adopt various forms of worker participation or employee involvement, expected positive gains often fail to materialize. One explanation for the weak or altogether missing performance effects is that researchers rely on frameworks that focus almost exclusively on contingencies related to the workers themselves or to the set of tasks subject to participatory processes. This study is premised on the notion that a broader examination of the employment relationship within which a worker participation program is embedded reveals a wider array of factors impinging upon its success. I integrate labor relations theory into existing insights from the strategic human resource management literature to advance an alternative framework that additionally accounts for structures and processes above the workplace level – namely, the (potentially implicit) contract linking employees to the organization and the business strategies enacted by the latter. The resulting propositions suggest that the performance-enhancing impact of worker participation hinges on the presence of participatory or participation-supporting structures at all three levels of the employment relationship. I conclude with implications for participation research.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between theory and history, or more specifically the role and use of theory in the field of history of education. It will explore the following questions: What is theory, and what is it for? How do historians and, in particular, historians of education construe and use theory? And how do they respond to openly theoretical work? The author poses these questions in light of ongoing discussions in the field of history of education regarding the role, relevance, and utility of theory in historical research, analysis, and narratives.

The explicit use of theory in historical research is not altogether new, tracing an intellectual genealogy since the mid-1800s when disciplinary boundaries among academic fields were not so rigidly defined, developed and regulated. The paper analyzes three books that are geographically located in North America (USA), Australia, Europe (Great Britain) and Asia (India), thereby offering a transnational view of the use of theory in history of education. It also examines how historians of education respond to explicitly theoretical work by analyzing, as a case study, a 2011 special issue in History of Education Quarterly.

First, the paper delineates theory as a multidimensional concept and practice with varying and competing meanings and interpretations. Second, it examines three book-length historical studies of education that employ theoretical frameworks drawing from cultural, feminist poststructuralist and postcolonial approaches. The author’s analysis of these manuscripts reveals that historians of education who explicitly engage with theory pursue their research in reflexive, disruptive and generative modes. Lastly, it utilizes a recent scholarly exchange as a case study of how some historians of education respond to theoretically informed work. It highlights three lenses – reading with insistence, for resistance, and beyond – to understand the responses to the author’s paper on Foucault and poststructuralism.

Setting theory to work has a fundamentally transformative role to play in our thinking, writing and teaching as scholars, educators and students and in the productive re-imagining of history of education.