Saturday, February 22, 2020

Affirmative Action v. Quotas, disparate treatment and disparate Coursework

Affirmative Action v. Quotas, disparate treatment and disparate impact, employment at will - Coursework Example Quotas, on the other hand, refer to a set number or percentage for the representation of people of a given group. The main difference between affirmative action and quotas is that while affirmative action has no set minimum percentages for the representation of a protected group, quotas provide this. This makes quotas easier to monitor considered that the criteria for determining whether or not an institution has complied is predetermined. Disparate impact is easier to prove compared to disparate treatment. While disparate impact involves focuses on discriminatory consequences, disparate treatment looks at discriminatory intent. One would, therefore, suppose that it is easier to establish the consequences of discrimination than to establish the intention of discrimination. Proof of discriminatory motive does not, therefore, is not part of the disparate-impact theory. This implies that establishing the consequences of discrimination within an institution does not involve the contributions of an institution’s management as it is the case with establishing the motive behind discrimination. The employment-at-will doctrine refers to the common rule that an employment contract with no defined duration can be terminated by either the employer or the employee at any time without the party terminating the contract having to provide good reasons for doing so. This doctrine goes against the â€Å"good will† requirement advocated by employee unions. Unlike the at-will doctrine, the good will requirement supposes that employers need to demonstrate that it is for a good cause that they intend to terminate an employee’s

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Sources of capital Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Sources of capital - Assignment Example Another way through which NFPs raise funds is Grant funding which includes the funds that are awarded to NFPs by the government sector or by organizations that are charitable in nature (Landskroner, 2002). For example World Health Organization may provide a local NGO located in Pakistan with funds for the eradication of poverty in deserving areas of Pakistan. Both For Profit and NFPs can even use Loan financing and equity capital to raise funds for business. Loan financing refers to the money that is borrowed by an organization from another financial organization such as the banks (Zelman, 2009). Equity finance is the capital that is raised by both the organizations by the sale of certain amount of shares of the organization to external investors. Trading or sale of assets is even means through which both kinds of organizations raise capital. Trading is the sale of goods and services in return for money and fixed assets are the assets such as land and furniture that may be sold by or ganizations to raise capital. All these sources have finance have various pros as well as cons associated with them. The main advantage of raising funds through fundraising activities is that the money that is raised does not need to be returned and the organization does not need to provide an account of where and how it was spend. But the downside of this method is that holding fundraising programs is quite expensive. In case of grants, the money does not need to be returned but the not for profit organization has to provide an account of where and how the money was spent. The upside of loan financing is that ample amount of money can be raised at a very small period of time but the loan repayment makes the method expensive. In case of equity, there is an increase in partnership due to which the not for profit organization may lose its sight of working for the wellbeing of others. The problem with trading and sale of fixed assets is that there are certain tax