If you want to read the case please click here
1. What is your position on this issue? Provide two or three reasons to support your argument.
In my opinion, Dogs or pets must be allowed at workplace as it enhances motivation and dedication level of their owners. Moreover, owners start feeling relieved as they do not remain worried regarding their pets. Besides, it also impact positively on their moods and behaviors. Pet allowing policies must be established by companies however owners must ensure that their pets will not create distraction in their work. Furthermore, according to different surveys and studies, it has been identified that majority of the employees desire to carry their pets with them at workplace. Fans of the dogs-at-the-office policy also support that by accompanying pets, employee morale is enhanced which reduce their stress level.
2. If you were an HR manager of a company, what pet policy would you set and how would you implement it?
If I am the HR manager of the company, I would choose and implement best pet policy for the employees. Most essential ways through which we guarantee a consistent mix of our worker pets into the working environment is with our well designed Pet Policy. I would set and implement such pet policy which is directed by an assigned Pet Team of representatives, incorporating those with veterinary center and pet consideration office experience, who give direction and audits while making a protected and beneficial environment for both workers and their pets.
Furthermore, while implementing pet policy, as a HR manager I would ensure that pet proofing completion and employee notification would be done before taking pets to the workplace. Before permitting pets in the workplace, it’s essential to pet-confirmation. This incorporates joining child doors or ties, and covering up electrical ropes while employee notification includes the fun part i.e. advising workers that they are permitted to convey their darling pets to work.
3. How would you decide the case of Elizabeth Booth, and which laws would you base your decision on? Explain.
In the case of Elizabeth booth, Case Services Corporation needs to be charged according to the law of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This law includes that disable persons are liable to get reasonable accommodation by law. ADA permits the service of pets or animals for disable persons at workplace. For instance, seeing-eye dogs are allowed to accompany blind workers at workplace. However organizations like case service corporation, who do not permit their workers with disabilities to carry their pets, would surely get punished by law. In the case of Elizabeth booth, it was identified that her doctor stated that dog would help her in relieving booth stress, however in spite of that HR director of company denied to give her permission which is unlawful according to Americans with Disabilities Act.