Welfare

Human Resource Officers and Managers play a special role in a company or establishment whether it is a school, bank, factory or a firm. They are the ones who screen the aspiring employees of the company. The Human resource officers are the judges in the company whether an applicant has the qualities fitted for the vacancies in their companies. Nowadays, according to the article I have read, there are many changes that happen in the positions of the employees, their roles and their functions in the group.

It noted that the changes undergone by the HR officers are not as grand as the other positions of the company. The changes that have gone with the HR officers may not be that big, but the article stated that the company or corporation, no matter how big or small it is must have at least an HR officer in order to have better communications with their heads regarding business matters. I think HR officers are designed to be the bridge of the heads to its subordinates. The HR officers must have the qualities like expertise in the communication strategies, managerial skills and the like.

HR Managers are now involved in the planning of the organization, setting marketing preferences and also for conducting leadership trainings and programs that will enhance its members and employers to the fullest regarding their works in the industry. There has been a problem to the increasing cost rate of the benefits for employers. Years after years, the benefits that the employers are receiving are getting more expensive, such as for health services and the like. In the present times, the HR Managers must act on it in order to preserve the budgets and assets of the companies they are in.

Since employers already know that there are benefits while they are working, it is wrong to cut or halt the benefits they are receiving. Moreover, they might organize a union that could harm the existence of the company. Therefore, there should be ways in order to prevent such things to happen. Also, it is the duty of the HR Managers to help in the brainstorming of the ways to minimize the harm or should we say remove the harm for the company by the increasing benefits that the employers receive.

From the article “The Chief Human Resource Officer”, it can be said that the demand for high quality human resource officers are really needed. The existence of these kinds of people will contribute to the increasing innovations of the companies in the world and might as well lead the company to new working skills that are essential in the workplace. Another article I have reviewed was from “America’s Retirement: Voice” says that there really is an increase of the benefits that employers received such that of the health insurance benefits which is 8.

6% and the pension plans that are occupying the 4. 6% of the total compensations cost. Thus, the benefits mentioned are only for government employers. It said that the two major benefits received by retiring employers already exceeded other benefits that other employers receive such as with the paid sick and vacation leaves, and the other insurances issued for those employers who are not retiring. On the other hand, the private sector’s employers receive more benefits in their health insurances that comprise the 5.

9% of their payments and the other one is the Social security contributions that in turn get the 4. 9% of the total compensations. Since these benefits are really high, this is now, according to the article, local government officials tend to observe and give focus on it. I can see that the rise for the benefits for the employees happen because the old workers give higher quality product than the work and product of the younger ones. I remember one of my professor’s sayings that “Quality is measured by age” which may be true in this aspect.

Older people might have gotten so many experiences that they already developed the skills that make them assets of the company. Moreover, the older workers only had the capacity to be of good quality since they have been in the company for years and they experience working in the company with or without the innovations. They are more flexible than the younger ones, so the company will of course give them high recognition and importance. The report says that there was a plan of the private sector employers to control the benefits that the retirees are receiving.

Their target year was 2003. They already modified their DB (Defined Benefit) plans in order to cater their employers still the benefits they deserve however in a controlled manner. In figure 5 of the report, the graph shows the decline of the DB plans, which is really big. It was a big decrease of the given benefits and they already achieved something out of their planned controlling of the benefits. I think employees are given the privilege to have check – ups once or twice a year in order to detect whether or not they are still fit for the job.

Many are already provided health care opportunities and insurances to avoid much leaves and incapacity for the work. Also, the health care insurances might give the option for the employers and employees to avail of the different supplemental foods that could help strengthen the employers. Indeed, HR managers are assets to a company. Even though from one report, I have read that quality HR members are not that easy to be found, and is a problem of some small businesses, it is really needed to have an HR manager with a star quality.

I think one way of managing the rising costs of the benefits employers receive is to select a highly recommended HR Manager who can facilitate the dealings of the problem. An HR manager that will give good strategies to solve the problem is in demand with this kind of situation. References Gaylen N. Chandler. Human Resource Management, TQM, and Firm Performance in Small and Medium-Size Enterprises. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 25, 2000. Retrieved 10 December 2007 from http://www. questia. com/googleScholar. qst;jsessionid=HdHXPtqRjpHmJQTb6Qy0HHS1MV14B3nmgqh2dqZ4v7FY26fb8xKP! -1609856024?

docId=5002378696 The Chief Human Resource Officer. Retrieved 9 December 2007 from http://www. heidrick. com/NR/rdonlyres/91911795-CDC1-4DDD-A820 A6C88D9058BF/0/HS_TheCHRO. pdf Public Sector Retirement. Retrieved 10 December 2007 from https://www. nrsservicecenter. com/content/media/retail/pdfs/REI_report. pdf – Measuring and Benchmarking Benefits. 2004. Retrieved 10 December 2007 from http://www. google. com/url? sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. iqpc. co. uk%2Fbinary-data%2FIQPC_CONFEVENT%2Fpdf_file%2F4019. pdf&ei=aBldR-2BMYGQgAOk-oC8DA&usg=AFQjCNHX2AxRSau5d9qDHYrSJ1UcaZJW1w&sig2=6a7qJMFG4gHhw4oArdRL4Q

Local authorities have a duty to work under the Children Act 1989 and Children act 2004 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need and have an obligation of ensuring that children in need of protection in their areas are protected from significant harm. Policies which safeguard schools must develop a range of policies which ensure the safety, security and well-being of their pupils. These will set out the responsibilities of staff and the procedures that they must follow. Policies may be separate or incorporated into one health and safety policy, but they must include sections which cover the following issues of:

● safeguarding and protecting, and procedures for reporting ● e-safety
● bullying, including cyber-bullying

The department for Education (DFE) issues guidance for local authorities and schools:

Legislation and guidance

The legislative framework for the child protection system in England is the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004. The Department for Education issues guidance to local authorities. The current guidance is working together to safeguard children: a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children (HM Government, 2013). Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) use this guidance to produce their own procedures which should be followed by practitioners and professionals who come into contact with children and their families in that particular local authority area.

Local Safeguarding Children Boards and children’s services

England’s 148 Local Safeguarding Children Boards are responsible for ensuring that the key agencies involved in safeguarding children work effectively together in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children at the local level. Their core membership is set out in Working together and includes local authorities, health bodies, the police and two lay members The Act also requires every local authority in England to appoint a Director of Children’s Services and to designate an elected councillor as Lead Member

The policies will propose the responsibilities of staff and the procedures that they must adhere to. All responsible adults that work at a school are responsible over the safeguarding and welfare of children the school must ensure that they have an individual who is the safeguarding officer, the safeguarding officer will have particular responsibilities for safeguarding children and for e-safety, it is very important to be aware of who the safeguarding officer is whilst working as a member of staff.

Local authorities in their education functions, schools of all kinds, and FE colleges need to have arrangements for carrying out their functions with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children under sections 175 and 157 of the Education Act 2002.

Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is defined as •protecting children from maltreatment;
•preventing impairment of children’s health or development;
•ensuring that children are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care; and
•undertaking that role so as to enable those children to have optimum life chances and to enter adulthood successfully

Statutory guidance backed up through the process of inspection, sometimes requires that services have a clear code or policy on an important issue. It is expected that local authorities will develop their own child protection guidelines, grounded firmly in the relevant law and statutory guidance, in order to support local practice. (Lindon.J, 2008, P4)

The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, which came into force in November 2006, implies very significant changes in the way that people who are employed to work with children and vulnerable adults go through the recruitment process. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act is an important part of a bigger programme of work. This programme of work extends across government departments and is designed to solve the failures identified by the 2004 Bichard Inquiry arising from the Soham murders in 2002.

Recommendation 19 of the Bichard Inquiry

Report says:
‘New arrangements should be introduced requiring those who wish to work with children, or vulnerable adults, to be registered. The register would confirm that there is no known reason why an individual should not work with these clients.’ The supervision they plan to provide will take the supervised activity out of regulated activity. Organisations will be able to obtain an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check, but not check barred list status, for supervised work that is no longer regulated activity. The supervision they plan to provide will take the supervised activity out of regulated activity. Organisations will be able to obtain an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check, but not check barred list status, for supervised work that is no longer regulated activity.

American welfare system is a supervision agenda that offers funds, health care, food, shelter, and other things that citizens want so as to stay alive. People who can receive help from these welfare programs are kids, elders, the disabled, and others who are not capable to sustain their family unit on their contemporary earnings. The welfare system of America has set off from a well-meaning program intended to sustain inhabitants who are incapable to work and afford for their children, to a program that has grow to be prolific to abolishing the continuous dependence of the beneficiaries.

The American wellbeing structure will: ? help more welfare heirs accomplish self-rule through labor ? look after children and fortify families ? allow states to inquire about new and original solutions to help welfare recipients get independence Collapse of the System It must be understand that the American welfare system, as we discern it, ought to be unchanging over an extended period of time; but regrettably this system was ineffective to do so. American welfare system was failed to achieve its objectives and in providing relieve to ordinary people.

Yet those who are “pro-welfare” are disgruntled with the mechanism in isolation. Several problems that contribute their part in the collapse of the U. S. welfare system: Administrative Overheads: The administrative expenses of all the different welfare programs are certainly soaring. It is costly to appraise cases, manage civil services, allocate benefits, watch recipients, arraign fraud, sue disagreements, and examine performance. Incomplete Coverage: Numerous people who are eligible for benefits fail to obtain them because they either do not apply or are shockingly rejected.

Even now more people are really deprived, but do not suitable because they do not fall into an apposite class. Complexity: The management of welfare is very convoluted. There are a great many initiatives. The key programs diverge by state; local liberation varies by province. There are accurately thousands of special welfare programs in the United States, covering the land like a frayed collage coverlet. The technical regulations of the crucial programs are discouraging. AFDC is so multifaceted that officials turn to review sheets to determine donations.

The parameters are too intricate to comprehend (Bernstein and Greenberg, pp. 11-13). Despite of the aforesaid dilemmas, there are further matters which were foundations for the breakdowns of the American welfare system are: ? Ineffective to keep people beyond the poverty line ? Discrepancy state regulation ? Unavailability of occupations for welfare recipients in the private zone ? Recipients have requirements that widen beyond income upholding ? Too little advantages Proposals for Improving the System

It is time for welfare system to implement policies that will construct swift and noticeable development. Programs should be formulated to cope with people cut off or on wellbeing. The trouble of a great number of brood being born into poverty must be condensed to lessen the number of people needing welfare. States powerless to locate jobs for welfare recipients in the private region must be compelled to produce community service jobs and the like to support the unwaged (Bernstein and Greenberg, p. 14).

The American welfare system will get better if it executes the following proposals: Create universal access to health care, establish a universal maternal and child health program, update the conditions for eligibility, make plans for sub-populations, enlarge economic efficiency support the family, support the society, provide greater social alternative and alleviate greater idleness insurance. Work Cited Bernstein, J. and Greenberg, M. (2001), Reforming Welfare Reform, American Prospect, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 11-14.