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.
李娜宣布顺利产女,一家三口幸福合影
诺贝尔奖得主的人生故事激发了"美丽心灵"
看脸的世界:女性对高颜值男性更宽容
希拉里赢得年轻潮人的支持了吗
科技产品是怎么毁了你的爱情
谷歌与李维斯合作打造智能仔裤
微软下月正式推出Win10 盗版用户也可免费更新
五月份房屋销售量创下同期历史新高
投资者正在希腊被屠宰
英海边小镇禁男士比基尼
中国需求疲弱拖累铜价走低
德国女司机开车撞上英国坦克
央行正式推出“大额存单”
前FIFA官员承认受贿 FBI调查世界杯主办权
“防儿童走失系统”亮相南京
连任仅5天 国际足联主席布拉特宣布辞职
益康国际面临"小公司大麻烦"
科普:长期穿高跟鞋会损害双脚
体坛风暴 谁将是布拉特的继任者
在日本捐资扶贫可抵税还能吃龙虾
磁铁真的会毁了你的智能手机吗?
《哈利波特》外传来袭 小雀斑出演男一号
谷歌与苹果 移动大战方兴未艾
美国为何能对国际足联下手
中国每周诞生一位亿万富翁
'防儿童走失系统'在我国首次启用
中国超半数网民曾遭遇网络诈骗
苹果、谷歌出名前都叫啥?
霍金:若无贡献会安乐死
像娜塔莉波特曼般聪明?这5类书最能提高IQ
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |