108. Employees should not have full access to their own personnel files. If, for example, employees were allowed to see certain confidential materials, the people supplying that information would not be likely to express their opinions candidly.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
The issue is whether employees should have full access to their own personnel files. The speaker claims that they should not, pointing out that such access could diminish the condor of those supplying information. To some extent, I agree with this viewpoint. Although employees are entitled to be accurately informed about the substance of performance reviews or complaints in their files, at times there will be good reason not to identify information sources.
First of all, employers have a right to control some information pertinent to their business success. Unproductive or uncooperative workers can seriously harm an organization; for this reason, employers need to have accurate information about employee performance. But when employees have full access to their own personnel files, co-workers and even supervisors will often find it difficult to give frank criticism of underachievers or to report troublemakers. So although employees have legitimate claims to know what has been said about them, they are not always entitled to know who said it.
Secondly, employers are obligated to control some information when their employees are accursed of unlawful conduct. Since employers are responsible for wrongdoing at the workplace, they must investigate charges of, for example, drug activity, possession of firearms, or harassment. But again, without assurances of anonymity, accusers may be less forthright. Furthermore, they may be in jeopardy of retaliation by the accused. So while workers under investigation may be generally informed about complaints or reports, they should not know who filed them. Even so, employers do not enjoy an unlimited right to gather and keep confidential information about employees. For example, it would be unjust to investigate an employees political viewpoints, religious preference, or sexual orientation. Such invasions of privacy are not warranted by an employers right to performance-related information, or duty to protect the workplace from criminal wrongdoing.
In conclusion, limiting employee access to personnel files is sometimes warranted to encourage candor and prevent retaliation against information sources. At the same time, employers have no right to solicit or secure information about the private lives of their workers.
下一篇: GMAT考试写作例文224篇连载(九三)
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习14 社会交际类话题指导
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习16 素质教育话题指导
2016高考新焦点一轮复习第一部分课文课件 Module 4:Unit 4 Body language
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习13 社会发展类话题话题指导
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习19 文学艺术话题指导
2016届高考英语总复习课后强化作业18(外研版必修3)
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习01 写作技巧(高三)
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习05 环境保护话题指导
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习10 旅游探险类话题指导
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习17 体育运动话题指导
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习11 青少年成长话题指导
创新设计2016版高考英语(大纲版)总复习(同步训练):Units 1~2限时规范训练
2016届高考英语总复习课后强化作业19(外研版必修4)
2016江西省萍乡市高考英语词根词缀记忆法(一)
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习07 建议申请话题指导
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习18 未来与理想话题指导
山西省芮城县高三英语阅读专练(1)
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习12 人物类话题指导
2016届高考英语二轮复习书面表达专项练习03 辩论对比话题指导
2016届高考英语总复习课后强化作业17(外研版必修3)