What do you think is the most demotivating part of Harper’s job?
Harper is unmotivated because Jose is no longer her supervisor. She isn’t connecting with her new boss David. Haper’s workload has also increased, affecting her work and personal life balance. She feels overworked and unappreciated and considers leaving the job she loves.
If you were an HR manager meeting with Harper’s supervisor, David, what advice would you give to help David re-engage Harper?
If I were an HR manager meeting with harpers supervisor David, I would advise that he award Harper with bonuses for her loyalties. In addition, I would inform David to get to know his employees outside of work and reassure them that they are a team and that he values them. I would also advise David to distribute the workload evenly amongst the employees and allow them to leave early some days.
What would be the downside of losing Harper as an employee?
The downside to losing an employee like Harper would be losing an employee who is qualified and maintains corporate performance. Unfortunately, Harper’s knowledge and skills are difficult to replicate because of her time working there. In addition, hiring a new employee is more expensive and time-consuming for the company’s resources.
What makes Ray Kroc and the brothers different from each other?
The difference between Ray Kroc and the brothers is the willingness to take risks on new ideas. Ray Kroc saw the business opportunities that would pay off. As a result, Ray remained persistent and took McDonald’s to a new level. However, the brothers stayed dedicated to trying various strategies within their main restaurant to improve. They put all their focus and attention on what they had already. However, when it came down to opening new locations, they didn’t believe it was possible to keep their values and integrity in all chains, unlike ray, who sought trustworthy leaders to run the restaurants.
2. Do you think the McDonald’s brothers did the right thing by selling out to Ray Kroc? Did Ray Kroc give the brothers a good deal?
I think the McDonald’s brothers did the right thing by selling out to Ray Kroc because he made Mcdonald’s as big as it is today. Ray Kroc also saved them financially, and they woulMcDonald’sbably gone bankrupt. However, the brothers had to comprise many of their traditional way of doing things to reach that level of sices. The brothers received some of the money from their contract with Ray Kroc. So I wouldn’t say it was a good deal because ray Kroc took over their idea as his own.
3. How did the local store franchisees make money?
The franchisees made a profit at the restaurants by running them independently. They held Mcdonald’s standards while implementing their own ideas, for example, the powdered milkshakes.
How did Kroc make money? How was that different than the franchisees running the local stores?
Ray Kroc charged the franchisees a monthly rent for the land needed to run the Mcdonald’s location. As a result, Ray generated a higher revenue, more remarkable than the 1.4 percent he earned from running the local store franchisees.
Does this film change your view of McDonald’s?
The film did change my view of Mcdonald’s from a business lens. It was interesting to see their history and how it came to be the way it is today. Although I don’t support the unhealthy foods Mcdonald’s promotes, I admire their success. From the beginning, they’ve made it their mission to deliver fast and cheap meals.
In modern society, a company must make it a priority to honor its social responsibilities and maintain sustainable business practices. As I am constantly working out, I look for the comfiest pieces to wear, and the brand Skims has become my top choice. The rising shapewear and lounger wear brand has taken over the internet. Collections selling out within minutes prove that founder Kim Kardashian has significant influence. In 2019 when the brand first launched, Kim received loads of criticism for its original name, “kimono.” Many viewed this name as cultural appropriation; to keep the public happy, they relaunched as Skims.
The brand has failed to provide relevant information on its ethics and sustainability. Skims vaguely states that it is “committed to the highest ethical standards and legal compliance in all aspects of its business and product supply chain. the brand also states that it only works with suppliers and vendors who it believes in and shares its commitment to sustainability, accountability, and transparency”. However, this statement doesn’t cover the details of the company’s environmental impact and labor conditions.
The company claims to provide its warehouse and factory workers with fair wages, safe environments, and healthy working conditions. However, seven former staff members have accused Kim of withholding wages, refusing to pay overtime, and not giving them meal breaks. Although The former employees were her gardening and maintenance staff, it gives consumers an insight into the business moguls’ business practices and what it may be like for workers abroad.
Skims has made efforts to remove the plastic and non-recyclable materials from its packaging and replace them with recycled paper boxes and compostable, eco-friendly bags. However, critics worry that the company is greenwashing; the term greenwashing means that a company deceives its customers into thinking its products and organization policies are environmentally friendly. The film package states in bold, “I AM NOT PLASTIC,” on the front and a number 4 logo. Changing Markets Foundation, which is a non-profit organization with a “mission to expose irresponsible corporate practices and drive change towards a more sustainable economy,” explained that the triangular logo — a recycling symbol — inside which the number ‘4’ appears indicates that the packaging is made from type-4 plastic, or low-density polyethylene (LDPE). This contradicts the packaging statement of I am not plastic, which consumers are typically unaware of this information.
I recommend that that company becomes more transparent with its values. The truth will come out either way, so it’d be wise for them to explain themselves firsthand instead of people finding out on their own. If they want people to continue supporting them, they must honor their social responsibilities. The all-inclusive brand should consider including more information about how, where, and by who its items are produced, also the materials used, so consumers are not in the dark.
Hello, everyone; my name is Scarly Descardes. I am 18 years old and have been at Bmcc for two semesters. My major is digital marketing. In my free time, I enjoy doing yoga and reading. My BMCC email is: SCARLY.DESCARDES001@stu.bmcc.cuny.edu
