GMAT考试写作参考例文
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.
奥运给北京树起新地标
奥运让北京更文明
资讯英语:公务员考试报名 最火职位4616选1
象棋大师头脑发达 双脑并用
双语:中国人均寿命增速有点慢
走马观花看美国:体验世界过山车之最
双语:新型电脑芯片可让电脑提速20倍
绯闻女孩第四季剧透 Chuck是否归来之谜
盖茨基金会支持北京“无烟奥运”
“凡亚比”登陆台湾 将成为今年我国最强台风
欧盟报告称立陶宛为“谋杀之都”
北京奥运机动车限行措施昨日启动
奥运电影经典台词11句
高价蓝光影碟超清晰画质纯属骗人?
谷歌街景拍到有人街头生孩子 旁边医院毫不知情
英国弱视妇女捕获近百公斤重鲶鱼
澳一男子与收养5年爱犬“牵手”婚礼
威廉准新娘订婚白裙网上火热拍卖
双语:《绝望主妇》第七季被爆有新主妇加入
盘点2011-《时代》年度十大被忽略事件
民众提前45小时排队买奥运门票
北京奥运村迎来首批“村民”
荷兰新推宠物狗啤酒 主人可与狗共饮
奥运前夕中国加紧空气治理
英语资讯:土耳其东部发生7.2级地震(双语)
职称英语考试语法知识复习之动词
加媒抱怨“亚洲学生太多” 亚裔表示强烈不满
英皇后人选引热议 卡梅伦力挺卡米拉
北京安检可能减少奥运乐趣
麦当劳的奥运“嘉年华”
| 不限 |
| 英语教案 |
| 英语课件 |
| 英语试题 |
| 不限 |
| 不限 |
| 上册 |
| 下册 |
| 不限 |