Communication Week 7 Part One Answer Question

Communication Week 7part One Answer Question Roughly 100 150 Words

Attend a political campaign speech, or watch one on television or YouTube, or watch a speech broadcast on C-SPAN by a business or professional leader. Pay particular attention to the speaker’s delivery. Critique his or her use of gestures, movement, posture, eye contact, facial expression, vocal delivery, and appearance. For the second part, you will create a speech that should be three to five minutes long. You must also upload a transcript of your speech and include a 75-word reflection statement discussing what aspects of this assignment you found helpful for your future career and some strategies you can use to improve your speechmaking abilities. Before presenting your speech, rehearse it on video and evaluate your delivery using specific criteria such as eye contact, gestures, posture, facial expressions, vocal clarity, and variability. (Beebe & Mottet, 2013).

Paper For Above instruction

The first part of this assignment involves observational analysis of a public speech, emphasizing nonverbal communication and delivery techniques. Watching a speech on television or YouTube allows students to analyze how speakers use gestures, posture, eye contact, facial expressions, vocal variation, and appearance to enhance their message. Effective delivery can influence audience engagement and perception, making the critique a valuable exercise in understanding communication dynamics in political or professional contexts (Beebe & Mottet, 2013). For the second part, creating and recording a speech fosters practical skills in extemporaneous speaking—using notes without reading verbatim—and allows self-assessment through specific evaluation criteria. Preparing and delivering a speech on video gives students insight into their strengths and areas for improvement, such as maintaining eye contact, using natural gestures, and varying vocal tone. Reflecting on this process enhances self-awareness and strategic planning for future communication success (Beebe & Mottet, 2013).

Paper For Above instruction

The influence of disciplinary procedures on labor-management agreements significantly shapes workplace relationships and organizational discipline systems. Disciplinary procedures serve as a formal process governing employee behavior and conduct, with clear policies outlining the consequences of violations. When incorporated into labor-management agreements through collective bargaining, these procedures establish mutually agreed-upon rules that ensure consistency, fairness, and transparency in handling misconduct (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). Such agreements typically specify disciplinary steps, rights to representation, and grievance procedures, which balance management’s authority with union protections. The processes also help prevent arbitrary actions by providing structured disciplinary measures that promote trust and cooperation between parties. Any modifications to procedures—such as changes in due process or disciplinary escalation—must be negotiated, highlighting their influence on labor relations and workplace stability. Overall, disciplinary procedures embedded in agreements serve as essential mechanisms for conflict resolution, compliance assurance, and fostering a productive work environment (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013).

Case Study Analysis

Question 1: Should the company’s treatment of the grievant for the first two “sleeping on the job” incidents influence the outcome in this case? Explain.

The company's prior treatment of the grievant for previous incidents of sleeping on the job could influence the case's outcome, especially if the disciplinary actions were inconsistent or lacked proper procedural safeguards. In labor relations, consistency in disciplinary measures is critical to ensure fairness and prevent claims of discrimination or unfair treatment. If the employer's past responses were lenient or inconsistent, it might suggest a pattern of tacit acceptance or negligence, which could weaken their case for dismissal now. Conversely, if previous disciplinary actions were justified and aligned with company policy, they could support the current decision. Ultimately, the context of prior treatment reflects on whether the employer acted reasonably and in good faith, which could influence whether the dismissal was appropriate or excessive (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). Fair and consistent application of disciplinary procedures maintains trust and legality in labor-management disputes.

Question 2: Did the Company have just cause to dismiss the grievant for violating safety rules when in each instance cited, the truck was out of gear with the safety brake on?

The company’s justification for dismissing the grievant hinges on whether the safety violations were severe enough to constitute just cause. In each incident, the truck was out of gear but with the safety brake engaged, indicating that the employee may not have posed an immediate threat or safety hazard, but still failed to adhere to proper safety protocols. Under labor law, just cause for dismissal requires substantiation that the employee violated a reasonable rule and that the disciplinary action was appropriate in relation to the violation (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). Since the safety rule was arguably not broken in a manner risking immediate harm, and the safety brake was engaged, the dismissal might be seen as disproportionate. Employers must balance safety concerns with fair disciplinary practices, ensuring that disciplinary measures are not punitive beyond the violation’s severity (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013).

Question 3: Is the union’s argument that the grievant just appeared to be “sleeping” credible in the absence of any testimony of support by the backhoe driver, a fellow union member? Your response should be a minimum of 150 words per question.

The credibility of the union’s argument that the grievant was merely appearing to sleep hinges on the available evidence and witness testimony. Without eyewitness testimony from the backhoe driver or other reliable witnesses, the claim that the employee was only “appearing to sleep” is less convincing. In disciplinary hearings and grievance procedures, corroborative evidence is critical to substantiate claims, especially when the employee denies misconduct. The absence of support from other union members or witnesses weakens the credibility of the argument because it relies solely on the employee’s assertion, which could be influenced by personal bias or misinterpretation. Furthermore, workplace policies generally consider actual sleep on the job a serious safety violation, and claims of mere appearance require substantial supporting evidence to overturn disciplinary actions (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). Therefore, the union's position merits skepticism unless further credible evidence supports the assertion.

References

• Beebe, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (2013). Business and professional communication: Principles and skills for leadership (2nd ed.). Pearson.
• Carrell, M. R., & Heavrin, C. (2013). Labor relations and collective bargaining: Private and public sectors (10th ed.). Prentice Hall.