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.
北上广将设“知识产权法院”
上海8名“持证街头艺人”上岗
十八届四中全会讨论“依法治国”
建设“创新型政府”
故宫首次发行“年票”
探月工程将实施“再入返回”试验
我国拟建“反恐情报中心”
河北出台APEC期间减排措施
国际英语资讯:CPEC Consortium of Universities pledges to enhance cooperation in business, science, technol
英国发行首支“人民币主权债券”
APEC“领导人非正式会议”
国内英语资讯:Chinese top political advisor visits Laos to promote bilateral cooperation, boost ties
保险公司推出“宠物保险产品”
腾讯360案终审“维持原判”
体坛英语资讯:Catalan unrest to affect El Clasico?
英国商家推出万圣节“埃博拉主题装扮”
邪教问题“防范办”
教育部划出高校教师行为“红七条”
关于APEC你应该知道的事
匈牙利拟征“网络税”
国内英语资讯:Feature: Xi Jinping -- a champion of multilateralism in a world of contradictions
体坛英语资讯:Gaviria wins opening stage of Tour of Guangxi
2022年小行星撞地球?NASA密切观察中
亚马逊开通海外“直邮”
刑法修正案拟取消9个“死刑罪名”
2020年起吴哥窟禁止骑大象 解放的大象将回归森林
国内火车将回归“绿皮车”
北京APEC期间实行“单双号限行”
国内英语资讯:Consensus issued after fourth meeting of World Media Summit presidium in Shanghai
国际英语资讯:UN chief spotlights partnership with SCO in fighting terrorism, organized crime
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |