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.
SAT阅读题三大特色
SAT阅读考试的建议
如何深入理解SAT考试阅读题
如何做GMAT阅读 你说了算
SAT篇章阅读高分攻略
SAT阅读问题类型
SAT阅读材料:The Maysville Road veto
SAT英文阅读:The Wrath of Kant
SAT阅读习题7 含中文注释
sat阅读扩展Game based learning
sat阅读:How the Steel Was Tempered
备考SAT阅读理解的方法
SAT阅读素材:Hoover Dam Architectural style
SAT阅读方法与原则
SAT阅读英文小说推荐 5部
SAT阅读课外扩展材料
SAT阅读素材:Let the Great World Spin
SAT阅读高分攻略系列(十一):短篇阅读
SAT英文阅读:人工智能与SAT学习
做SAT阅读 要思维转变
SAT阅读:Alfred University
SAT阅读:SAT novel
SAT官方指南阅读习题五
SAT阅读素材:Modern urban design
SAT阅读SPP策略(二)
SAT阅读SPP策略(一)
SAT阅读材料:Characteristics of True Community
SAT阅读素材:a learning sysstem
SAT片段阅读:City Planning According to Artistic Principles
SAT阅读试题结构
| 不限 |
| 英语教案 |
| 英语课件 |
| 英语试题 |
| 不限 |
| 不限 |
| 上册 |
| 下册 |
| 不限 |