As a high-level manager tasked with the responsibility of deciding whether the company should start manufacturing shoes in Indonesia, I would use this opportunity to enhance the company’s image and at the same time, increase its profit margins. To do this, I wouldn’t pay women shoemakers $40 per month. Instead, I would propose to the company to pay the local workers $120 per month, twice the minimum wage set for workers in Indonesia and better than the currently highest salary paid by an employer. This monthly compensation is a win-win decision for the company on top of benefiting the local workers. By paying twice the minimum wage, the company will:
-
still make thousands of savings in labor costs, making profit rise; $120 is just a day’s labor for a worker in the U.S.
-
put the company in a very good light and will probably make it one of the best employers in Indonesia; and
-
better the lives of thousands of people by providing high wages for women workers.
The company should not be too greedy in its pursuit to maximize profits. Even if it’ll pay $120 per month, it will still make about $2880 in savings per worker. By learning to be generous, it will become an industry model and will keep the loyalty of its workforce.
People Often Tell EssayLab professionals:
I’m don’t want to write my essay. Because I want to spend time with my boyfriend
Specialists propose: Find Brilliant Papers For Sale Here
a) Gerritt claims that the company owes him $800. Instead of bringing the case to court, he went to the general manager to demand for his back wages. Being unsuccessful at getting the manager to agree with him, Gerritt was threatened to be thrown off the property and as a last resort he took some tools with him when he left. What Gerritt did is called conversion and is classified under intentional tort. Conversion is the act of taking away possession of another’s property without legal basis. He took the tools in exchange for the money he claims owed to him. Even if he thought it was only a just exchange, it does not free Gerritt from liability for taking the tools in that manner. What he could have done is to file a suit against the company. However, since the usual judgment in cases like Gerritt’s is to make him pay for the tools he took, then what he needs to do is to prove that the company really owes him back wages. If he can’t, Gerritt would need to pay for the tools or return them to the company.
b) If the mechanics threw Gerritt off the property, the company won’t be liable for assault and battery. Generally, merchants have the privilege to apply physical force to ensure that their business establishments are protected from intentional mischief. The general manager viewed Gerritt’s behavior as a cause for alarm when he refused to leave the property after being ordered to do so. Being in charge of the place, it is his call how to drive away trespassers on the company’s property. Also, Gerritt’s behavior could have turned threatening and the talk going nowhere, making the manager decide to take a more forceful action.
Ling’s Market can definitely be held liable for the back injury that Kim suffered as a result of falling on the wet floor. Stores are responsible for the safety of their customers once they are inside the premises. The manager knew that weather conditions are bad and as a result water would probably accumulate in the door. He didn’t do anything about it, not even posting a sign that should warn customers to be extra careful.
The store, as an extension of the manager, committed negligence under tort law and will have to pay for the costs that Kim incurred because of her injury. Kim fell on water that had already accumulated on the floor as previous shoppers come and go. She was probably hurrying to get out of the wind and rain and in doing so, didn’t notice the puddle. If that were the case, Ling’s liability would probably be lower than a hundred percent of the total damages.
Capece should stop using ‘The Velvet Elvis’ service mark because it is committing trademark infringement. Although the mark was not previously registered, yet, it caused confusion among customers. Witnesses invited to trial said that they first believed the bar to be connected with Elvis Presley. Based on trademark law, the standard used to test for infringement is whether there is a chance for confusion. Not only did Capece use the word ‘Elvis’ as the bar’s name, but he also gave the establishment an Elvis Presley theme through promotional activities, the interior décor, and its music. Elvis is a very strong mark that automatically brings to mind the artist. No one would think of any other person when the name is used in products or services. As described in the case, customers were indeed confused, satisfying the basic condition for trademark infringement.
Works Cited