The Causes of the Development of Antimicrobial Resistance Essay

The Causes of the Development of Antimicrobial Resistance - Essay Example The former class includes antibiotics like the ÃŽ ² lactams (penicillin, penicillin derived antibiotics, carbapenems, cephalosporins, vancomycin) and most aminoglycosides especially against Gram-negative organisms but not against Gram-positive and anaerobic micro-organisms. The other class of antibiotics, the microbiostatic, include antibiotics that prevent the micro-organisms from multiplying by interfering with their protein production, DNA replication, and other metabolic pathways. Tetracycline, sulphonamides, trimethoprim and most microbicidal antibiotics at low concentration are few examples of the microbistatic group. The first antibiotic to be discovered was penicillin derived from the Penicillium mold. It was discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Later on, the development of synthetic penicillin broadened the spectrum of activity and at the same time enhanced the efficacy of these drugs. However, with the emergence of resistant bacterial strains, the usefulness of penicillins have been limited in the recent years. Methicillin is a narrow spectrum ÃŽ ² lactam antibiotic which was developed in 1959 by Beechman in order to treat penicillin-resistant Gram-positive organisms like Staphylococcus aureus.  In the 1960s and 1970s, it proved so efficient against Staphylococcus aureus that it was extensively used and even sprayed in the wards of hospitals to control Staphylococcal infection in newborn. ( Elek SD, Fleming PC. A new technique for the control of hospital cross infection. Lancet 1960;ii:569–72). Methicillin-resistant isolates though present were not notably troublesome because of the emergence and prevalence of microbial resistance especially MRSA( methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in hospitals. The major antibiotic-resistant pathogen associated with nosocomial infection.

Scope & Nature Essay Example for Free

Scope Nature Essay The scope of operations management ranges across the organization. Operations management people are involved in product and service design, process selection, selection and management of technology, design of work systems, location planning, facilities planning, and quality improvement of the organizations products or services. The operations function includes many interrelated activities, such as forecasting, capacity planning, scheduling, managing inventories, assuring quality, motivating employees, deciding where to locate facilities, and more. We can use an airline company to illustrate a service organizations operations system. The system consists of the airplanes, airport facilities, and maintenance facilities, sometimes spread out over a wide territory. The activities include: Forecasting such things as weather and landing conditions, seat demand for flights, and the growth in air travel.   Capacity planning, essential for the airline to maintain cash flow and make a reasonable profit. (Too few or too many planes, or even the right number of planes but in the wrong places, will hurt profits.) Facilities and layout, important in achieving effective use of workers and equipment. Scheduling of planes for flights and for routine maintenance; scheduling of pilots and flight attendants; and scheduling of ground crews, counter staff, and baggage handlers. Managing inventories of such items as foods and beverages, first-aid equipment, in-flight magazines, pillows and blankets, and life preservers.   Assuring quality, essential in flying and maintenance operations, where the emphasis is on safety, and important in dealing with customers at ticket counters, check-in, telephone and electronic reservations, and curb service, where the emphasis is on efficiency and courtesy. Motivating and training employees in all phases of operations, Locating facilities according to managers decisions on which cities to provide service for, where to locate maintenance facilities, and where to locate major and minor hubs. Now consider a bicycle factory. This might be primarily an assembly operation: buying components such as frames, tires, wheels, gears, and other items from suppliers, and then assembling bicycles. The factory also might do some of the fabrication work itself, forming frames, making the gears and chains, and it might buy mainly raw materials and a few parts and materials such as paint, nuts and bolts, and tires. Among the key management tasks in either case are scheduling production, deciding which components to make and which to buy, ordering parts and materials, deciding on the style of bicycle to produce and how many, purchasing new equipment to replace old or worn out equipment, maintaining equipment, motivating workers, and ensuring that quality standards are met. Obviously, an airline company and a bicycle factory are completely different types of operations. One is primarily a service operation, the other a producer of goods. Nonetheless, these two operations have much in common. Both involve scheduling activities, motivating employees, ordering and managing supplies, selecting and maintaining equipment, satisfying quality standards, and—above all—satisfying customers. And in both businesses, the success of the business depends on short- and long-term planning. The operations function consists of all activities directly related to producing goods or providing services. Hence, it exists both in manufacturing and assembly operations, which are goods-oriented, and in areas such as health care, transportation, food handling, and retailing, which are primarily service-oriented. A primary function of an operations manager is to guide the system by decision-making. Certain decisions affect the design of the system, and others affect the operation System design involves decisions that relate to system capacity, the geographic location of facilities, arrangement of departments and placement of equipment within physical structures, product and service planning, and acquisition of equipment. These decisions usually, but not always, require long-term commitments. Moreover, they are typically strategic decisions. System operation involves management of personnel, inventory planning and control, scheduling, project management, and quality assurance. These are generally tactical and operational decisions. Feedback on these decisions involves measurement and Control. In many instances, the operations manager is more involved in day-to-day operating decisions than with decisions relating to system design. However, the operations manager has a vital stake in system design because system design essentially determines many of the parameters of system operation. For Example, costs, space, capacities, and quality are directly affected by design decisions. Even though the operations manager is not responsible for making all design decisions, he or she can provide those decision makers with a wide range of information that will have a bearing on their decisions. A number of other areas are part of the operations function. They include purchasing, industrial engineering, distribution, and maintenance. Purchasing has responsibility for procurement of materials, supplies, and equipment. Close contact with operations is necessary to ensure correct quantities and timing of purchases. The purchasing department is often called on to evaluate vendors for quality, reliability, service, price, and ability to adjust to changing demand. Purchasing is also involved in receiving and inspecting the purchased goods. Industrial engineering is often concerned with scheduling, performance standards, work methods, quality control, and material handling.  Distribution involves the shipping of goods to warehouses, retail outlets, or final customers. Maintenance is responsible for general upkeep and repair of equipment, buildings and grounds, heating and air-conditioning; removing toxic wastes; parking; and perhaps security. The operations manager is the key figure in the system: He or she has the ultimate responsibility for the creation of goods or provision of services. The kinds of jobs that operations managers oversee vary tremendously from organization to organization largely because of the different products or services involved. Thus, managing a banking operation obviously requires a different kind of expertise than managing a steel- making operation. However, in a very important respect, the jobs are the same: They are both essentially managerial. The same thing can be said for the job of any operations manager regardless of the kinds of goods or services being created. The service sector and the manufacturing sector are both important to the economy. The service sector now accounts for more than 70 percent of jobs in the United States, and it is growing in other countries as well. Moreover, the number of people working in services is increasing, while the number of people working in manufacturing is not. The reason for the decline in manufacturing jobs is twofold: As the operations function in manufacturing companies finds more productive ways of producing goods, the companies are able to maintain or even increase their output using fewer workers. Furthermore, some manufacturing work has been outsourced to more productive companies, many in other countries that are able to produce goods at lower costs. Many of the concepts presented in this book apply equally to manufacturing and service. Consequently, whether your interest at this time is on manufacturing or on service, these concepts will be important, regardless of whether a manufacturing example or service. Operations management is often used along with production management in  literature on the subject. It is therefore, useful to understand the nature of operations management. Operations management is understood as the process whereby resources or inputs are converted into more useful products .A second reading of the sentence reveals that, there is hardly any difference between the terms production management and operations management. But, there are a least two points of distinction between production management and operations management. First, the term production management is more used for a system where tangible goods are produced. Whereas, operations management is more frequently used where various inputs are transformed into tangible services Viewed from this perspective, operations management will cover such services organization as banks, airlines, utilities, pollution control agencies super bazaars, educational institutions, libraries, consultancy firm and police departments, in addition, of course, to manufacturing enterprises. The second distinction relates to the evolution of the subject. Operation management is the term that is used now a day. Production management precedes operations management in the historical growth of the subject The two distinctions not withstanding, the terms production management and operations management are used interchangeably. Scope of Production and Operation Management The scope of production and operations management is indeed vast. Commencing with the selection of location production management covers such activities as acquisition of land, constructing building, procuring and installing machinery, purchasing and storing raw material and converting them into saleable products. Added to the above are other related topics such as quality management, maintenance management, production planning and control, methods improvement and work simplification and other related areas.

Otto Von Bismarck: Germanys Unification

Otto Von Bismarck: Germanys Unification Bismarck could not have unified Germany through his ambition alone; he had to exploit the already powerful existing forces of Industry, Liberalism, Nationalism and the increasing clamour from these groups for Prussia to assert her influence over Germany. The traditional German view from historians such as Heinrich von Treitschke  [1]  was that German unification was achieved in 1871 as a result of the actions of the iron chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, who meticulously planned the events leading to unification. Indeed a large number of pre-1945 German historians were keen to emphasise the role of Bismarcks diplomacy and military triumphs dismissing other factors such as the economy as unheroic and bourgeois.  [2]  The intentionalist approach during this period is hardly surprising given that Germany was very much still in love with the iron chancellor and German society as a whole was instilled with Military values and a love of strong leadership as seen with the later Hitler Myth. More recent historians however like A. J. P Taylor  [3]  , have argued that Bismarck had no such `master plan. Instead, Bismarcks success was a result of his flexibility as a statesman, Prussias economic power and its favourable diplomatic situation. The actual process of unification was mainly spread over three wars, products of Bismarcks diplomacy. However behind the scenes there were indeed many other significant factors before Bismarcks time and indeed during his time, that contributed, albeit to a small extent, to eventual unification in 1871. The basis of unification had been laid by Prussia before 1840, a basis founded not on political but on economic grounds  [4]  . While social and political movements, such as Liberalism and Nationalism, played a part the people with the power to cause change were much more concerned with their economic ambitions. Economic forces like the Zollverein shifted power from individual rulers of states to the middle classes who realised power and money could be gained from unification, as economist J.M Keynes said Germany was formed from coal and iron rather than blood and iron.  [5]   Adopting free trade, the same currency, weights and measures allowed more cooperation between members of the Prussian Customs Union thus increasing their dependence on each other. The Prussian customs union strived to protect German business from foreign influence by introducing tariffs on raw materials, especially iron and cotton from the industrial power house of Britain. These tariffs coupled with the doctrine of free trade meant wider markets for home-produced goods at cheaper prices. This broke down regional barriers and rivalry between states shifting the emphasis from pride in ones state to pride in a greater entity, a greater Germany. Initially the PCU did not include many states however the economic success of Prussia impressed smaller northern and central German states. Other states, jealous of Prussias success, formed their own unions with the emphasis more on spoiling Prussias trade that establishing their own. These unions were unable to compete with Prussia and most Ger man states threw their lot in with the Prussians and the new enlarged customs union, the Zollverein. The economic union of the Zollverein encapsulated over 25 states with a population of 26 million. The union gave some protection to the German home industries making trade easier for them, it stimulated there economic growth, encouraging the building of roads between Prussia, Bavaria, Wurttemburg and Frankfurt, and as it was founded and ran by Prussia it firmly established them as the economic leader in Germany and despite their reactionary manner many states also regarded Prussia as the natural leader of a united Germany. The Zollverein was in itself a force for unity and therefore a focal point for nationalist sentiments. The Zollverein also had a political effect in isolating Austria. The Austrians were committed to trade tariffs to protect their agriculture and industry; thus their inability to join the Zollverein served to increase Prussian power in the confederation. During industrialisation Prussias exports increased whilst Austrias decreased. This indicates that even before the appointment of Bismarck, Prussian leadership was successful in stimulating the economy. This economic unity also brought social and political unity to German states. It is not known if the Prussians intended to use the Zollverien as a tool for unification but according to Andrina Stiles Prussian ministers were well aware of the potential political ramifications those who found financial advantage in an economic union under Prussian leadership might be expected to take a favourable view of similar arrangements in a political union.  [6]  Historians critical of Bismarcks achievements such as Henderson  [7]  tend to agree with this view of the Zollverein being the greatest contributing factor for the reasons underlined by Stiles. It is however important to remember that structuralist historians in favour of factors like the economy also have the ability to exaggerate, Henderson claims that the unification of 1871 was merely the formal completion of a unity already achieved in the economic sphere  [8]  . This is a bit of a stretch, while the Zollverein was majorly important it did not bring unity with it, many members of the Zollverein still supported Austria up until the Franco-Prussian war despite the clear leadership of Prussia. It seems that the close economic links had made scarcely a dent in the traditional political hostility  [9]  Overall the Zollverien was more of a German market place as opposed to a national economy. Political ideologies thrived throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, challenging the old world feudal lords and absolute rulers. Spawned from the fires of the French revolution and the ideas of liberty, fraternity and equality nationalism and liberalism were forces to be reckoned with. The development of the railways, much like the autobahns later, inspired much nationalist feeling. One German economist described the network as the firm girdle around the loins of Germany binding her limbs together into a forceful and powerful body  [10]  . The railways made Germans more mobile which contributed to the breakdown of local and regional barriers. The appeal of Nationalism was rising among Germans, stimulated by poetry, music, history, philosophy and threats from foreign governments. In the face of this threat Germanys press threw their weight behind the nationalist upsurge and songs such as Deutschland uber Alles were scribed . The French invasion of Germany by Napoleon made the inhabitants of the 39 German states very aware of their military weakness as independent states. Germans who were normally content to be Bavarians, Westphalians or members of other states became discontented at the fact that Germany would be unable to stand against foreign oppression with much nationalistic feeling being generated throughout Germany in the face of a threat from the old enemy. This nationalistic feeling coupled with the effort to eventually drive the French armies out would draw the German people together with much clamour for a strong unified Germany. Liberal movements in Germany proved detrimental in dissolving the old feudal system of Germany. The removal of regional leaders such as the Duke of Brunswick meant that the states were no longer constrained by the will of a single ruler and could easily unify with other states if they so desired. A greater freedom of the press also allowed the Nationalist ideas to spread through Germany when before they would have been censored or put down by reactionary governments. The death of King Frederick William III of Prussia, in 1840, also helped to liberate Germans. His son who succeeded him acted much more like a constitutional monarch, abolishing censorship, releasing political prisoners and extending the powers of provincial diets. He also did not have the association with Austria that his father had held enabling him to stand out more as an independent German King. Together these factors began to generate pressure for unification even before Bismarck became involved in politics in any serious way A single unified Germany seemed all the more inevitable and by late 1840 there was an increase in clamour for the establishment of a unified Germany. However it is wrong to state that Germans were besotted with the idea. Most liberals were concerned with developments within their own state, not in the situation in Germany as a whole. German nationalism tended to be sporadic- erupting during periods of perceived danger and the subsiding again as seen with the French in 1840 and during the Schleswig-Holstein incident in 1846. Also, not all nationalists could agree on the true extent of the German nation-state they wished to create, these divisions would prove to a serious obstacle in 1848. There was also a divide culturally, between the more industrialised and liberal west and the agrarian, autocratic east. So while important, the social ideas of the tim e were not as nearly as significant as the economic forces moving across Germany. The failure of the Frankfurt Parliament to lead a successful revolution and create a united country in 1848 has led to harsh criticism. German Historian Eric Eyck  [11]  who dismissed the Frankfurt Parliament as a lawyers parliament holds the view that the Frankfurt parliament were a bunch of inexperienced intellectuals who wasted valuable time debating trivial issues rather than taking action to bring about a United Germany. This is rather harsh as there was very little prospect of there even being a successful revolution in 1848. The liberals who assumed the leadership of the revolt based their strategies on false assumptions, most notably the illusion that parliamentary government and national unity could be achieved through agreement with the princes. When the princes made clear their refusal to abide by the resolutions of the Frankfurt Parliament the parliamentarians had no alternative strategy in mind. They didnt consider a revolt against the princes because they, being mid dle class liberals, valued order and prosperity as much as the landowning aristocracy. German philosopher Karl Marx argued that it was the failure of the revolutionaries to build a strong base of support which ensured their failure. Taylor  [12]  echoes this view saying that it was the divorce between the revolutionaries and the people that determined the happenings of 1848 unfortunately Taylor held staunch left-wing views and so his view that this almost exclusively middle class revolution failed simply because of its omission of the working classes must be taken with a pinch of salt. Popular unrest did result in outbreaks of street fighting, but these were sporadic and confined to the main cities in a territory where most of the population lived in the countryside. Monarchy in Prussia and Austria retained control crushing political initiatives within their own states. Once the revolutions in Berlin and Vienna had been crushed the Frankfurt parliament had little prospect of being a respected legislature. The years following the 1848 revolutions were turbulent for much of Europe, with new governments tentatively trying to rebuild their power. Austrias first mistake following her diplomatic victory over Prussia at Olmà ¼tz concerned the Crimean War. Russia was trying to expand her interests in the Ottoman Empire to the strong disapproval of Britain and France; and despite a tradition of cooperation with one another, Austria showed open hostility by mobilising her army along the Danube. In this way Austria lost her most powerful and consistent ally, as was demonstrated in 1859 when Russia failed to help Austria against France when defending her Italian possession of Piedmont. It is easy to see the beginnings of isolation through inept diplomacy, particularly after such reckless abandonment of Metternichs cautious, cooperative policy, which attempted (with proven success) to implement Austrian policy through a Concert of Powers. The mistakes continued, and soon Bismarck would be in a po sition to exploit them. The Prussian constitutional crisis occurred in 1860-62 over the passing of a bill that proposed that military expenditure and resources should be increased significantly. Prussian army reforms were an essential element leading to unification. Bismarcks handling of the constitutional crisis in 1861 not only gained him promotion but it gave the Prussians the opportunity to reform their army to such an extent that it would become, in time, the most powerful in Europe. The army was doubled in strength, conscription increased to three years, and new weapons introduced. It can be argued that the reform of the army was Bismarcks first step on the path towards unification. This was essential if unification was to be achieved through force. Bismarck set Prussia on a war footing. The role of Bismarck and the Army after 1848 has been stressed by many historians. Gall  [13]  and Craig  [14]  both place Bismarck at the centre of the story .This is understandable since the declaration of t he German Reich in 1871 followed the victories of the Prussian army over Austria in 1866 and France in 1871, events it seems Bismarck engineered. Even Bismarck in all his wisdom would have failed had his policy attracted the attention of the great powers., he was lucky that Britain had interests away from the continent and that Russia had abandoned Austria. Indeed Mosse explains that Bismarcks skill alone is insufficient to explain the absence of hostile coalitions  [15]  . Bismarck proceeded to woo Napoleon III of France by promising him concessions in the Rhineland if France would stay out of an Austro-Prussian war. Napoleon also tried to twists circumstances to favour France by secretly negotiating a treaty with the Habsburgs. Bismarcks next step was to certify that Italy would not be a threat, and he ensured her cooperation in return for Venetia on the event of Austrias defeat. The last country that Prussia had cause of concern over was Russia. Luckily Austria had already alienated her over the Crimean War and Russian neutrality was easily assured by the Alvensleben Convention of 1863. In this way we can see Bismarck s ystematically isolating Austria, according to Mosse, Bismarck had demonstrated great skill in the exploitation of his opponents weaknesses but he had also operated in what was an exceptionally favourable European diplomatic environment.  [16]   Bismarck soon manoeuvred Austria into the second of his so called Wars of Unification  [17]  (The first being the war over Schleswig-Holstein). The Seven Weeks War between Austria and Prussia seems both a natural and obvious progression of the events of the 1860s, and a necessary preliminary for the national unification of Germany. The Prussian armies were superior to that of Austria in almost every way. Prussian mobilisation was extremely fast thanks to new train lines. Furthermore Prussias General von Molke was military strategist of genius, certainly in relation to Austrias Benedek who was working with a minimal military budget due to economic limitations. A victory both territorially and diplomatically for Bismarck, Prussia took the Elbe duchies and also the territories of Hanover, Saxony, Hesse-Kassel, Nassau and the important city of Frankfurt. By this point in 1867, Prussian hegemony was already clear in Germany, yet despite nationalist feeling peaking Bismarck did not des ire unification. Instead he formed its precursor the North German Confederation. Taylor has argued that Bismarck had no clear aim after the victories of 1866  [18]   The final military success Bismarck needed to engineer in order to secure Prussian supremacy in Germany (and therefore, indirectly, over Austria), was to cripple France. Austrias defeat came as a bad surprise to Napoleon III who feared a strong united Germany a fear that was quickly being realised. Tension mounted when a new Spanish government invited a member of the Prussian Kings family to take the Spanish crown in 1869. France, appalled at the prospect of the Hohenzollern dynasty at both its east and west borders, managed to stop the candidate from accepting the offer, a candidate who it is now apparent was only put forward due to pressure from Bismarck himself. Here we can see, once again, Bismarck attempting to engineer the politics of Europe to benefit Prussia. Bismarcks crafty escalation of the crisis through the Ems Telegram forced France to declare war in 1870, and therefore secured the help of his defensive allies in the southern German states. Through superior technology and leadership the Prussian armies defeated Napoleon III after six months bitter fighting and the Napoleonic Second Empire collapsed. The defeat of France brought Prussia new territories and wealth and played the ultimate role of bringing about Kleindeutschland  [19]  . Arguably the Prussian Military was the most important factor in German unification. While many would argue that the military strength of Prussia would not have been attainable without Prussian economic success it is important to note that territorial gains were only made as a consequence of the military action in Denmark, Austria and France. Economic success while important didnt bring about unification, as the southern states loyalty to Austria proved. It wasnt until Austrias defeat to Prussia in 1866 that Germans realised that Austria was no longer a viable alternative to Prussia and Unification. Bismarcks sabre rattling was only a viable method thanks to the reforms of Roon and the military leadership of Moltke. The use of the military was so crucial to Bismarcks plans that had it not been in the state it was Bismarck probably wouldnt have even been that important in the general scheme of things. Having said that, historians have played down the role of Bismarck and the military a pproaching the story of German unification from different perspectives, seeing it as the culmination of a long process in which the rise of national consciousness  [20]  and the growth of Prussias economic power  [21]  have been given greater prominence. Germany may have been politically unified in 1871 however it was far from united. Bismarck struggled to control his own unified Germany that he had fought so hard to create. Bismarck was constantly dependent on the Reichstag majority in order to pass legislation, therefore needing allies, which sometimes required drastic changes. Although Bismarck claimed that his ultimate aim as Chancellor was the creation and consolidation of Germany, his domestic policies included a number of attacks on Reichsfeinde , which included minority groups such as Poles, Jews and socialists, not to mention the biggest group being the Catholic Church. His failure to weaken the Catholics and Socialist groups emphasise his lack of control over German domestic Policy, as does his fall from power in 1890 due to a new Kaisers very different ideas for Germany.Having said that, class divisions, religious differences and regional variations were not unique to Germany. Conflicts between traditional forces and those pressing for the modernisation of society are common features of any society undergoing rapid political, social and economic change as Germany was during the years 1871-1890. The anticlimax of Bismarcks time in office in no way diminishes his achievement the fact remains that despite these divisions in society it was unlikely that the country would ever politically divide again simply on the whim of a few disgruntled liberals. Indeed it took a second world war to achieve that. It seems clear that Bismarck played an integral part in securing Prussias dominance over Austria and ultimately in bringing about the unification of Germany. But the question of how much is a topic of great debate. Bismarcks policies were not unique or original. In his advice to the monarch he frequently referred to the traditional rivalry of Austria and Prussia trends of which dated back to the 18th century and Frederick the great. Also Prussias ability to challenge Austria lay in its military strength and economic resources both of which had been built up by previous Prussian governments. It is also sometimes easy to overlook the fact that Bismarck was a patriot of Prussia and not Germany. Throughout his time in power, his first priority was always Prussia the unification was a means to glorify Prussia. Austrias time had come to an end two decades earlier at the end of the Metternich era: doomed to a period of unclear leadership, muddled direction and a complete lack of the nation alist identity required to excite such unification. It is essential to note that although Bismarck is presented not least by himself in his Memoirs as a diplomatic genius who did not make mistakes, and who had a Prussian-led German unification mapped out at every stage years in advance, there are some important considerations that should be taken note. In his foreign policy, he was often an opportunist rather than an engineer. His diplomatic outmanoeuvring of Denmark owed much to a Danish miscalculation of support from Britain and France. Furthermore, the Austro-Prussian war was essentially a German Civil War which initially made Bismarck a villain and not a hero in the eyes of many nationalists. It was also a huge gamble that may have only paid off due to Austrian incompetence and inept leadership. Finally, it is also important to note that though Bismarck may have had a grand design for unification, he had no clear means to see how, how far, or at what pace Prussia might defeat Austria and unify the states.

homeless in new york city winter :: essays research papers

Introduction A/G  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Have you ever asked yourself why don’t this homeless person just go and   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  stay in a shelter and eat and sleep in a warm place an d leave me alone? S/P  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Today I will inform my audience about the decisions homeless people have   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  to make. C/I  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Many homeless people opt to stay on the streets rather than in a shelter. V/S  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  After today you will understand why homeless people who live on the street. Transition Our homeless society is now growing very quickly and uncontrollably. Body I. New York City began this year with the largest number of homeless people crammed into shelters since the city began keeping count 20 years ago. A. The coalition for the homeless has broken the homeless population into three   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  segments: single adults, adults with families and children. 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A whooping 43% of the homeless population is children. The children are by far the largest and fastest growing segment. 2.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Adults in families account for the second largest segment with 35 % of the homeless population. 3.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Topping it off single adults consist of 22% of the homeless population. B. These figures do not include all those people who do not stay in shelters. There are   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  approximately 4000 homeless people living on the street. But I this case there are   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  more adults then children. II. Many of the people who stay in a shelter say it’s like being in prison. The condition of many shelters are usually unsafe or unhealthy or even both. A. There is a number of national studies documenting the damage homelessness inflicts upon children. 1. One study constructed by the Better Homes Fund concluded that homeless   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   children have twice the health problems of those who live in homes. B. A homeless man who goes by the name of â€Å"Red† says that shelters are very unsafe.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  While in a shelter he once was stabbed and robbed for his sneakers. He says he   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  rather ride the trains all night before he stays in another shelter. C. Even families hit the streets before they’ll stay in shelters. This means there are   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  hundreds of children on the streets, too. III. The New York Post says major Bloomberg ordered an outdoor encampment, built underneath a Bronx expressway, torn down. A. He said at a press conference that the outdoors is no place to sleep. B. When I brought this up with â€Å"Red† he told me that Bloomberg’s concern is not for   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  the number of homeless people who refuse to be regulated to the city’s   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  overburdened overcrowded and under funded shelter system, instead for the   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  beautification of the city.

Implement and monitor WHS policies Essay

1. Why is it important to provide information to work teams on the relevant health and safety legislation, the organisation’s health and safety policies, procedures and programs, and any identified hazards and their control? It is important to provide information to work teams on the relevant health and safety legislation, the organization’s health and safety policies, procedures and programs, and any identified hazards and their control, because as any other part of a business health and safety matters affect production, the quality of products/services and of course financial results. According to this, health and safety should be managed in the same way and with the same importance grade as any other aspect inside a company. Information must also be provided to all workers because it is everybody ´s responsibility to have a health and safety place in which everyone will be beneficiated, the employee and the employer. 2. Explain the importance of effective consultative mechanisms in managing health and safety risks and describe what they entail. It is important to have an effective consultative mechanism in managing health and safety risks because consultation can offer a lot of benefits such as greater awareness, commitment, positive working relationships etc. A safe work place will be easier to achieve if everyone is involved and communicate with each other, if every worker help to identify hazards, if there are talks about health and safety concerns and of course if all of them work together to find a solution. Once all the workers are aware of the impact that health and safety procedures have, they will work all together to make their work place as safe as possible. 3. What factors need to be considered when using training to implement an organisation’s health and safety policy and ensure a safe workplace? When using training to implement an organization’s health and safety policy and  ensure a safe workplace, it is important to consider all the incidents or accidents that are likely to happen in every specific work, that way hazards and risks can be prevented and avoided. 4. What are hazard reports and why are they important? Hazard report is a report made to have a record of the incidents and accidents that have happened in a company to stop them to occur again in the future. Hazard reports are important because through them, possibilities of injuries can be eliminated as the hazards have been identified with the reports. 5. Risk management is a critical part of a proactive organisation’s strategy to provide a safe workplace. What does risk management entail? Risk management is a legal requirement for all business in which a process of 4 steps has to be followed: Identify hazards, assess risks, control risks and review. Risk management is designed to prevent loss by preventing harm to people as well as give opportunities the business to grow, increasing productivity and improving services. 6. How can incident records be used to identify potential future hazards and monitor risk control procedures? Incident records allow the identification of trends and types of incidents occurring or recurring in the work place. In this matter, if incidents are being reordered every time they occur, it will be easier to predict or prevent future incidents and accidents as well as monitor what it is being done in order to prevent near misses. 7. What do you think are the key aspects of health and safety legislation? The key aspects of health and safety legislation are that all workers are protected, there is a duty of care that help each worker not to endanger the health and safety of self or other colleagues and consultation with workers to discuss penalties for breaches of the legislation.

George and Lennie’s Relationship in Of Mice and Men Essay

Of Mice and Men is a novella centred on the disincentives of America during the depression in the 1930’s. The country known as ‘the land of opportunity,’ is dismissed as it became deprived and inept. Many men were itinerant workers that travelled from ranch to ranch looking for wages that would be sufficient till they moved on. These types of men were the loneliest, with no companionship. It is this transient migrant lifestyle which highlights the importance of the relationship between Lennie and George, a rarity among the other characters to be exact. George and Lennie are an unusual package deal within the novel. From the beginning Steinbeck enforces the idea of a parent –child relationship. He distinctively sets the two apart as they ‘walked in single file’ and ‘one stayed behind the other.’ From first sight, a dynamic in their relationship is established. Although they are outwardly of the same class, George is still the one if front, revealing himself as the leader. As the story progresses we can acknowledge that George does not deem himself as superior to Lennie, it is simply his duty to control and guide Lennie who is mentally inept and regarded as a ‘crazy bastard’. We can decipher from this that Lennie is in no shape to take care of him and need George to help him. Their relationship is not of a regular companionship, I regard it as a fraternal bond made over time. Lennie’s nature is almost childlike; Steinbeck describes the character in such a way so that the readers perceive him to be incapable and dependent upon George ‘Lennie, who had been watching imitated George exactly.’ Children often ‘imitate’ their guardians and some people may even believe this to be the way of development of a person. Lennie may need George to create stability for the future but Lennie’s mimicry isn’t to just fit in with the civilized world. Steinbeck implies from the innocent actions by Lennie, that he genuinely admires George. Although it seems as though Lennie is dependent on George, this is not the case. I believe that George, a stoic man enjoys the company of Lennie; however a burden he may seem. Steinbeck uses the subtlety of George who only confides in Slim to depict the pride he has of Lennie ‘he’s dumb as hell, but he ain’t crazy.’ George at times creates a softer tone of voice when talking about Lennie. The approval of Slim from George’s compliments ensures the reader that George genuinely likes Lennie. George himself refers to ranch men as being the ‘loneliest guys in the world.’ We can assume that deep down George is afraid of this happening to him, and losing Lennie. No doubt this would’ve have crossed his mind due to Lennie getting in trouble all the time. His fear is turning ‘mean’ by becoming lonely; he is after all comfortable with Lennie, being with him for most his short life. Together they both hold the aspiration of attaining the ‘American dream’ common to many men at the time to have a piece of their own land. This dream is what fuels both Lennie and George to go on. Lennie is set on ‘tending rabbits’ while George could have more freedom in general. Steinbeck places importance on these two and dream, while we believe they will be successful as the story develops. ‘With us it ain’t like that. We got a future.’ Steinbeck reveals a timeless definition of friendship. Someone who listens and that cares for you. They are reliant upon each other, as even though George conducts the ‘dream’ speech, Lennie has also memorised this dream, maybe in hope it will bring them closer to it. Their friendship is natural, for George it had always been a promise to care for Lennie, but they simply bonded over time. George even admits this ‘got kinda used to each other after a little while.’ He doesn’t describe it in abstract terms nor does he give any justifications. It is this simple statement that proves the relationship to a natural course. But we can still agree this is remarkable for them to be so close, in such a world where men do not do this. The tragedy of Lennie dying highlights the importance of the relationship. George who shot him in an act of compassion showed mercy and care. The tension Steinbeck builds in the last chapter, shows how distraught and vulnerable George become and relieving Lennie of torture and pain to come. ‘George shivered and looked at the gun’ as the tough faà §ade of George breaks we see his emotions and his contemplative actions which suggest he had valued the relationship, also springing to mind the fact that their dream is destroyed and will never be achieved. This is really the climax of the relationship where Steinbeck reveals feelings in the relationship. Steinbeck uses the thoughts and curiosity of other characters such as Slim and the bitter, avenging side of Curley to portray the relationship between Lennie and George. The support George had given Lennie from the time he was in a fight with Curley to when he kills his wife, shows the dynamics and security of the relationship. George would always look out for Lennie, as Lennie would always be protective over George. Their relationship is pivotal and underlines the main theme of friendship in the novel, which led to Steinbeck focusing so much on the friendship of the two men. The readers are aware from the beginning that this relationship is powerful and meaningful although this is not always depicted.