Essay On Employee Motivation Free Writing Sample

In the society, we live in currently, the rate at which employees get depressed is rising. There is an urgent need to ensure that the employees have a good working environment. The environment is inclusive of how the employees are treated by their superiors. Employers need to learn and embrace the need for employee motivation in their places of work. This essay aims at addressing employee motivation as a whole and its benefits.

Companies and other sectors that need a workforce to run their operations must value their workers. The workers are a crucial part of any firm as no work can occur without them, and therefore, superiors must respect them. They have to feel that their worth is recognized and appreciated by their employers. Employers have to know how to recognize their workers’ work as it is one significant way of motivating the laborers. Trainers can take the Employers through a training system targeting how they handle their workers (Sabbagha et al., 2018). It will significantly improve how the workers perceive their tasks and undertake them. They will be more willing to work than in situations where they appear to be forced to work.

Scholars should not ignore the need for employee motivation to be included in the study of human resources. The unit is crucial as it is undertaken by any person who wishes to lead people or manage a firm. Incorporating employee motivation issues in such a unit will go a long way in ensuring that the managers and leaders are qualified and know how to treat workers. When set out in such a manner, managers will take the issue of employee motivation with more seriousness as it deserves (Haryono, 2020). The managers will understand better the need for conducting such practices in their firms. A way of grading the students of human resources based on who understands the topic of employee motivation will challenge the students and make them more attentive and thirstier to learn about it. The better they know it, the more effective the implementation will be.

How an employer treats their staff determines whether they will remain working for them or move to new places. When one is not satisfied or feels undermined, one will always want to look for a better place (Sabbagha et al., 2018). It is human nature to influence each other, and one person quitting the job could lead to hundreds of others following. To curb these, the management must ensure that they are satisfied. The complaints raised should be attended to in due time to make sure that the workers have an easy time as they work. When everybody feels at ease, things run smoothly, and tension is completely done away with for good. Tension can tamper with the quality of one’s work and affect the firm’s overall performance.

One most important way of motivating employees is by paying them well and giving them reasonable allowances. With the current economy, people need jobs to sustain themselves and have something to save. The introduction of house and transport allowances in places of work will help the employee significantly save some cash as the employer has catered for some parts. It is evident that companies with these allowances in place attract more employees and retain them for a long time because they motivate them well with good pay. When the people come in large numbers to be employed, cases where laborers are overworked, are rare. Overworking can be led to hating the job and having a bad attitude towards it which will affect performance negatively (Sabbagha et al., 2018). On the other hand, where there is job satisfaction, the attitude towards work is positive, and work is done well; hence there is the growth of the business and retainment of workers.

The management of any firm must know the academic qualifications of every person working for them. It makes it easy for the company to conduct training and promotions. It can sometimes even be used to determine the amount of salary that one is paid. The aspect of training employees makes them optimistic as it shows them that the company has a plan to be with them for an extended period. A person cannot be trained and then offloaded in a short period as it will be a waste of resources. Promotion is crucial for employers as it shows them that the management recognizes their work. It will motivate them to work even harder in the posts they have been assigned, contributing to the general productivity of the farm (Lăzăroiu, 2015). management can promote them based on their academic qualifications or the time of service they have offered to the firm as it increases the experience. Employees’ salaries need to be improved whenever the company makes profits to appreciate their work and encourage them to put in more effort.

Employees are the primary unit of a firm, and they experience challenges just like any other unit. The management should always ensure that systems deal with solving issues experienced by these people. A system that begins by collecting complaints, articulating them, and delivering solutions to the workers should be implemented. The workers will be at more ease to raise their issues, and employers will make their environments better according to their suggestions. Most workers usually fear sharing their problems with their bosses directly; therefore, they work under conditions in which the job satisfaction levels are deficient. Human Resource mainly undertakes to ensure that all workers are working under the best conditions (Hanaysha & Majid, 2018). It has significantly helped firms’ growth as productivity is directly proportional to workers’ contentment with their environment.

How employees are treated is likely to affect the people they serve. Mistreatment of an employee will set them in a bad mood and breed a lousy attitude and environment for work. If one is working in an outlet store, the chances of talking badly to clients are very high as their moods are not right. The same applies to teachers when their bosses undermine them and pour their frustrations on the students, which is incorrect. Students will receive unnecessary punishments and fail to understand what is being taught. The motivation of workers also works the same way as workers will treat their clients with the kindness their superiors accord them.

The act of motivating workers does not only help in building them, but it also ensures the growth of businesses. When laborers are inspired, they do good work, and productivity is guaranteed, and it is a win-win situation for both parties. Motivation should be encouraged and embraced by managers across the globe.


De Sousa Sabbagha, M., Ledimo, O., & Martins, N. (2018). Predicting staff retention from employee motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Psychology in Africa28(2), 136-140.

Hanaysha, J. R., & Majid, M. (2018). Employee motivation and its role in improving productivity and organizational commitment at higher education institutions. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business, 6(1), 17-28

Haryono, S., Supardi, S., & Udin, U. (2020). The effect of training and job promotion on work motivation and its implications on job performance: Evidence from Indonesia. Management Science Letters, 10(9), 2107-2112.

Lăzăroiu, G. (2015). Employee motivation and job performance. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, (14), 97-102

Employee Safety Collective Bargaining Agreement University Essay Example


According to International Labor Organization (ILO), collective bargaining is a tool utilized but trade unions, employers, and organizations to advocate for fair wages while improving working conditions for the employees. Accordingly, these collective bargainings are vastly driven by aspects related to working time, occupational health and safety, wages, training, and equal treatment (ILO, n.d). Occupational health and safety, as generally understood, entails reducing physical, mental, or social health risks that can adversely impact firms. To mitigate the extensive risk impact, many firms adopt safety measures, including the wearing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) by employees to protect them from harm, including adverse weather conditions, when performing official duties. In this regard, therefore, this paper focuses on developing a collective bargaining agreement between the trade union and employer to improve working conditions (increasing employee safety).


In a pre-existing collective bargaining agreement relating to employee safety, the firm and the union agree upon certain aspects that the employer should meet to ensure employee safety. These agreements included the employer providing PPEs to the employees after every two years. While this holds, new complaints from the employee show possible hitches with PPEs supplied by the company. These complaints include PPEs getting wet, thus calling for new pair which is not provided, PPEs provided are worn out or inadequate, and inadequate cold gear. From a personal opinion, there should be no set amount/limit that the management should pay for new boots, jackets, and cold-weather jeans. However, this is achievable only if the company ensures top-notch quality PPEs are adequately supplied for employees, guaranteeing at least two years of service and waterproof features. However, to ensure uniformity and PPE universality, no employee should be allowed to choose their own designs for boots or gear, which will help the firm minimize costs.

Company X-Management (Employer) recognizes that the employees request steel-toed boots every few months. However, the management perceives the employees to be taking advantage of the agreement. The employer does not provide sufficient evidence supporting how employees are taking advantage of the agreement. Additionally, the employer argues that some employees were requesting cold weather gear even though some do not perform outside functions in winter. This is evidence proves the possibility that some employees were taking advantage of the agreement. Compared to the robustly evidenced positions from the employees, employers’ arguments did not stand a chance. Employee arguments revolved around boots and gears getting wet, which could have been a result of poor quality or worn-out PPEs, and inadequate replacement supply, inadequate cold weather gear supply. To curb this, the employer should purchase the PPEs from one vendor to ensure quality for all boots and gears.

Interest-Based Bargaining Vs. Distributive Bargaining

Interest-based bargaining works as a process aimed at addressing current labor-management issues. This approach implements integrative bargaining as a way to develop mutually beneficial solutions for the employees, the union, and the employers. Solutions to the prevailing problems are established through a partnership with the union and the employees on the one hand and the employer on the other. Ultimate solutions developed in the process are mutually beneficial to the parties. Using this approach allows the union and employees to work to find the solution while eliminating the bias of the need to acquire the most resources from the agreement (Leavy, 2015). Unlike interest-based bargaining, which emphasizes on win-win situations, distributive bargaining advocates for a win-lose situation. As a process, it involves dividing up the pie of value during the negotiation resulting in one party losing to the other. In most cases, distributive bargaining is used by employers when resources are fixed or limited, and there is a mutual realization that there are no further resources that can be fetched—simply, the pie cannot be expanded further; thus, one side wines while the other loses given the resources at the disposals (Spangler, 2017). Interest-based bargaining is the best-suited approach in the scenario under consideration as it will leave both the employer and the union (and employees) in a binding mutual agreement.

Collective Bargaining Agreement

The employer agrees to provide employees with high quality-water, proof PPEs with reasonably fitted safety clothing and devices. These improved PPE’s will improve employee protection from hazardous conditions, including hazardous adverse weather conditions when performing official duties. These PPE’s will be replaced with new ones after 2 years based on manufacturers guarantee. Worn-out PPEs before the end of 2-year periods should be returned to the company for disposal and replacement. PPE replacement after wearing out will be at employees’ subsidized cost (30% subsidy). No employee will be allowed to choose their design or type of boot, as all PPEs will be standardized. However, employees will be allowed to choose the best fitting PPE, and future replacement purchases will be from the same supplier of the company given PPEs. Employees will be allowed to carry the PPEs home to make it easier for them, and as all employees are responsible for their own PPEs sets. The union agrees to assist the employer in aggressively publicizing the benefits of the use of PPE and adhering to the established safety practices, policies, and procedures.


In developing the Collective Bargain Agreement, the arbitrator played a vital role in resolving the prevailing issues between the union and the employer. The interest-based bargaining approach was successful largely because the arbitrators helped both parties reach a mutual agreement, thus achieving a win-win situation.


ILO. (n.d.). Collective Bargaining and labour relations (Collective Bargaining and labour relations). Collective bargaining and labour relations (Collective bargaining and labor relations). Retrieved September 23, 2022, from–en/index.htm

Leavy, Z. (2015, January 1). Interest-based Bargainings’ impact on collective bargaining outcomes: Semantic scholar. Undefined. Retrieved September 23, 2022, from’-Impact-on-Collective-Leavy/c726b3f7672a119efb5c82462a2b9a56e6fbe35e

Spangler, B. (2017, February 28). Distributive bargaining. Beyond Intractability. Retrieved September 23, 2022, from

Employment Law For Human Resource Practitioners Essay Example

Have you ever considered what employment would be like if there was no law to govern the process? Well, the answer might not be positive. There would be a situation in which everyone, employers and employees alike, would do whatever they wanted without regard to whether or not it was legal. Employment laws were enacted to address workplace issues and ensure the smooth operation of the workplace for both employees and employers. These employment laws cover topics such as the employer-employee relationship, contracting, fair treatment for all, wrong and right dismissal, work-life balance, and other workplace activities. The goal of this essay is to evaluate Kelly and Michael’s case studies, identify the statutes and law that are relevant to their scenario, and provide the procedures and remedies that apply in their case.

Kelly is in a situation where she wishes to spend more time with her newborn baby. She does not want to quit her job, but rather reduce the number of hours she works per week by implementing a job-sharing program, which she sees as a better option for balancing her work and personal life. The manager of the company where she works appears to be opposed to her idea of an embarrassing job-sharing scheme. We will investigate the employment laws and statutes that apply to her situation. This will allow us to determine whether she is legally entitled to what she is requesting and whether her employer is required to comply with her request.

A number of laws exist to help employees balance their work and personal lives. The Employment Rights Act of 1996 is one of the laws. The regulation acknowledges that employees may request time off for a variety of reasons (Scottish Government, 2015).

Some of the legal reasons include civil and public duties, antenatal care, parental leave, and care for dependents (Scottish Government, 2015). The law also states that parents with children under the age of seventeen or those with disabled children under the age of eighteen can request flexible work schedules from their employer. Kelly will soon become a mother to a child under the age of seventeen. She is requesting flexible working hours so that she can care for her child. Sections 80F–80I of the Employment Act of 1996 (Rose, 2017) guarantee what Kelly is requesting, and it is thus the employer’s responsibility to provide it. Kelly’s being the administrative officer of Moore Harley Ltd means she has worked with the company for more than 26 weeks. The Flexible Working Regulations (2014), which absorbed the Employment Rights Act of 1996, provide that employees who have worked in a company for at least 26 weeks can apply for a flexible working arrangement with their employers (, 2014). The statutory regulations also provide a way through which the employee can apply for flexible working arrangements with their employer.

The use of flexible working arrangements is divided into two categories. It can be both a statutory and an unstatutory request to the employer. If an employer chooses to make the application for flexible working arrangements in the form of a non-statutory request, the application must be in writing, and applicants must state whether they have previously applied for similar arrangements, as well as the date of the application (, 2014). The applicant for the flexible working arrangement should also specify the working pattern they are seeking, as well as the date they intend to begin. Employees who apply for the arrangements should also explain how the arrangements will affect their employer and what they can do to avoid any inconveniences that may arise as a result of the arrangement (Advice for Scotland, n.d.). The applicant may also state why they are applying for flexible working arrangements without providing a reason.

In Kelly’s case, she can state that she is applying for the arrangements so that she can make care plans for her soon-to-be-born child. Her employer would understand that denying her the opportunity would be a bad thing.

The employee can also apply for a flexible working arrangement through a non-statutory application. In the case of a non-statutory application, the employee must also submit it in writing and it must be dated (Advice for Scotland, n.d). The application also requires the applicant to have planned the schedule of the flexible work arrangements and set a start date. The applicant should also explain how the flexible working arrangements will affect the company and what the organization can do to avoid being inconvenienced by the arrangements. Finally, the employee can explain why they are requesting flexible working arrangements for their employers to consider.

There are two ways to apply for flexible working arrangements: statutory and non-statutory applications. Before making the application, one should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the two options. If an employee is denied a statutory request for flexible working arrangements by their employer, they can go to the employment tribunal to claim the arrangement under the law of flexible working for employees (Advice for Scotland, n.d). If, on the other hand, the employer refuses to approve the flexible arrangement under the non-statutory request, the employee cannot file a claim with the employment tribunal. They are, however, given the opportunity to proceed to the employment tribunal if they feel discriminated against and wish to claim the flexible employment arrangement on the basis of discrimination rather than flexible employment (Advice for Scotland, n.d). Similarly, when it comes to the number of requests that can be made per year, non-statutory requests have no limit. Statutory requests, on the other hand, are limited to one application per year.

There is a policy in place that allows employees in certain situations to respond appropriately. The policy rationale is the name given to the policy. Scottish Government (2015). Employees are required to respond appropriately to applications for flexible work arrangements if they are requesting the arrangements to care for their spouse, parents, civil partners, children, or any other person in the household who relies on the employee for assistance (Scottish Government, 2015). An example of a policy rationale is when an employee requests flexible working arrangements in order to care for their sick spouse or child (Scottish Government, 2015). Kelly is one of these people, and her employer must respond appropriately to her request.

Responding appropriately to Kelly’s needs does not necessarily mean that they must accept the request made by Kelly. The organization or the employers also have grounds to access the request made by Kelly. If the organization is capable of providing good business grounds to show that it will be adversely affected by the decision to accommodate the request made by Kelly, then they can decline Kelly’s request. If Kelly feels her entitlement has been violated, she has the right to proceed to file a lawsuit against her employers. But there is a procedure that needs to be followed when filing a lawsuit with the employment tribunal. First, Kelly will need to file her lawsuit with the employment tribunal within three months of the problem happening (GOV.UK, n.d). Before making a claim, Kelly will have to inform the Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service (ACAS), which will give her an opportunity to solve the dispute with her employers through reconciliation. When the reconciliation does not work, the ACAS will provide Kelly with a certificate through which she can make a claim to the tribunal within a month.

Kelly’s request is covered by the Employment Rights Act of 1996, the Flexible Working Regulation of 2014, and the policy rationale.

This implies that Kelly’s request should be met by her employees. It would be preferable if Kelly made her application via statutory request. In this manner, she will be able to seek legal assistance if her employer refuses her request for flexible working arrangements. Similarly, Kelly should make the statutory request as soon as possible so that her employers have enough time to process her request. Kelly’s boss should allow her to pursue work flexibility that works for her while also allowing her to care for her child. Because Kelly has requested a job-share scheme, the company will not be put off because operations will continue as usual because there will be someone to fill Kelly’s position when she is not present.

The case of Michael is the other scenario to be evaluated in this essay. Michael also works as a receptionist at Moore Harley Ltd. He has a medical condition that would put her life in jeopardy if he got the coronavirus vaccine. Michael is at a higher risk of contracting the coronavirus due to his position at work, particularly because he interacts with the majority of the company’s customers. Michael has asked to be allowed to continue working from home until the threat of COVID-19 has passed. His line manager appears to be opposed to Michael’s request and wants him to return to physical work in the company. We will look at the laws that protect employees from hazardous exposure to their health to determine whether Michael’s plea is valid and whether her employer is required to grant his request.

Every employee and employer benefits from a healthy workplace. Some workplaces are prone to accidents and pose health risks to those who work there. Since 1961, the Scottish government and the United Kingdom as a whole have made strides in addressing the issue of healthy and safe working conditions. The Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 was enacted by the United States government to ensure a conducive, safe, and healthy workplace (Blewitt, 2021).

This allowed employers to be held accountable for unsafe workplace conditions that put their employees’ health and lives in jeopardy. The government established the Health and Safety Executive, which is in charge of overseeing employee safety and health.

As an employee of Moore Harley Ltd, Michael is covered by the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act. Employers are required by the act to provide a healthy and safe working environment for their employees (Unison, n.d). Similarly, the employer is responsible for ensuring that the company’s activities do not endanger the lives of its employees (Blewitt, 2021). The Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 was enacted in response to an increase in the number of risks in the 1960s. Michael is concerned about her health if he returns to physical labor at the company. He claims to have medical documentation proving that he has underlying medical conditions that would put him at risk if he contracted the coronavirus. His employers are required by the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 to provide a safe working environment for him. On this basis, his employers must permit him to work from home if working physically puts his life at risk if he contracts the coronavirus.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations of 1999 require employers to conduct risk assessments in order to identify potential sources of harm to employees (Perry, 2016). The safety and health regulations were an extension of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974, but they aimed to improve employee safety in the workplace by focusing on consultation with both the employer and the employees. In the case of Michael, the organization must evaluate the source that would put him in danger. Instead of pressuring him to do physical labor, they should conduct a risk assessment first. Employers should determine whether they are doing anything to prevent the risk after conducting a risk assessment. Michael has a medical history that would put his life in jeopardy if the coronavirus caught up with him. In order to reduce the risk, the company should allow him to continue working from home rather than come to the office, where there is a higher risk of contracting the coronavirus due to his proximity to the client. In this manner, the company will have fulfilled its obligation under the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act.

The Flexible Working Regulation of 2014 is another law that, if followed, would benefit Michael. According to the regulation, an employee has the right to flexible working arrangements in the event of unforeseeable circumstances that necessitate flexibility at work (Advice for Scotland, n.d). Covid-19 was unexpected and caught everyone off guard. Michael’s health is jeopardized because he has medical issues that would put him at greater risk if he contracted COVID-19. Michael is attempting to alter his normal working routine in order to improve his health. As a result, he is entitled to flexible working arrangements from his employer under the regulation. Working from home is an option he chooses to protect himself from health risks that could endanger his life. Michael appears to be unaware that what he is requesting from his employers is flexible working arrangements. Although Michael has not used this law, it is applicable in his scenario. If Michael follows the proper procedures for submitting a request for a flexible working arrangement, there is a better chance that his employers will allow him to work from home until the COVID-19 expires.

Another act of law governs the safety and health of employees at work. The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 are the name of this act. These laws require employers to consult with their employees on workplace health and safety issues (Hammond, 1997). Workplace health and safety necessitates a shared responsibility on the part of all stakeholders. The regulation called for a room where employees and employers could negotiate or swap ideas on how to improve workplace safety and health. This includes not only the overall health and safety of the organization, but also employee safety and health consultation. As a result, Michael’s manager should speak with him and confirm whether or not what he is claiming is true. This way, Michael and his employer will reach a decision that will not jeopardize Michael’s health.

The Equality Act of 2010 is an important law when dealing with employees. It advises employers on how to treat their employees. The Equality Act of 2010 prevents employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their gender, nationality, race, disability, color, or any other distinguishing characteristic (Act, 2010). In the case of Michael, I would categorize him among those who are healthwise disabled. This is because he has underlying medical conditions that would expose him to risks if he contracted COVID-19. Michael should be able to accommodate her underlying condition as long as he is not imposing extra costs on the company. If Michael is performing well at his assigned work at home, he should also be allowed to work at home. It may amount to discrimination by his employers if we fail to accommodate him with his condition. Descrimination in the workplace would also attract lawsuits if it is proven that the organization is forcing him to work with his colleagues who do not have any health issues that would put them at risk.

If Michael returns to physical labor and contracts the coronavirus, which could endanger his life, he is obligated to sue his employers. Employers are supposed to be the first line of defense in ensuring that employee safety is taken into account in all aspects of the organization’s operations. Michael is attempting to protect himself from health risks by requesting to work from home until the coronavirus era is over. His employer could face legal action if he fails to follow the regulations of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974. Similarly, Michael’s employers will have violated a provision of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations of 1999 that requires risk assessment at work and the identification of ways to prevent these risks. Finally, Michael’s employers would have violated the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 if they refused to consult with him about his health and how working on the frontline where there is a high risk of contracting COVID-19 disease would be dangerous.

To summarize, employers must be familiar with the laws that govern them and their workplaces. As a result of the increased awareness, suits against individuals or the organization as a whole will be avoided. Lawsuits against an organization are harmful because they result in capital losses in compensation and cost the organization valuable time in legal proceedings that could have been used for productive work. Employers have a greater responsibility to keep the workplace safe and healthy. Employees, on the other hand, have an obligation to follow workplace safety and health regulations, failing which they may face legal action. As a result, it is the responsibility of everyone in the workplace, both employer and employee, to do their part to make the workplace a better place for all.

Reference List

Act, E., 2010. Equality act. The Stationary Office, London.

Advice for Scotland, n.d. Flexible working – how to make a request. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 20 April 2022].

Blewitt, A., 2021. Health & Safety at Work Act 1974.

GOV.UK, n.d. Make a claim to an employment tribunal. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: <> [Accessed 20 April 2022].

Hammond, N., 1997. Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996. Journal of the Royal Society of Health117(3), pp.192-193., 2014. The Flexible Working Regulations 2014. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 20 April 2022].

Perry, P., 2016. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. In Risk Assessments Questions and Answers: A practical approach (pp. 37-47). ICE Publishing.

Rose, E., 2017. Workplace temporalities: a time-based critique of the flexible working provisions. Industrial Law Journal46(2), pp.245-267.

Scottish Government, 2015. Supporting worklife balance: NHSScotland PIN policy. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 20 April 2022].

Unison, n.d. UNISON Scotland Health and Safety Law Tips. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 20 April 2022].