King Henry V and King Richard III Essay Example for Free

King Henry V and King Richard III Essay Henry V and Richard III depicted how two very different men rose to power and assumed the throne of England. Henry was an intelligent, driven young man who sought to reconstruct the civil war ravaged kingdom after the death of his father. Shakespeare presented Richard as a corrupt, sadistic villain who cared nothing for the English people except that they knew and feared his absolute authority. Both men, though, possessed the same focus and determination, which made the comparison and contrast of these two plays that much more drastic. When Henry V came to power, he knew he was responsible for gaining the trust and respect of both the English court and the common man. In order to end wars within the country and regain political stability, Henry decided to lay claim to his land in France. In response to this, the French prince Dauphin snubbed Henry, which launched him into action. With the support of the English people behind him, Henry gathered his troops and planned to invade France. Henry did away with those who plotted against him and his mission and set sail for France. With his tremendous resolve and leadership, the English victoriously fought their way through France despite terrible odds. The English forces were urged to remain focused on the task at hand, and all those who disgraced the kingdom were severely punished. Looting, spying and the like all resulted in death at Henrys command. With the same dedication, however, he took into consideration the concerns of the common soldier and in prayer he gained the power to fulfill his leadership responsibilities and rally his troops. After the English forces defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt, while outnumbered five-to-one, the opposition finally surrendered. Henry was able to secure peace negotiations and meanwhile married Catherine, the daughter of the French king. Thus, Henry had successfully united two kingdoms. The reign of King Richard III differed greatly. In order to reach the throne,  he secretly plotted to usurp the kingship from his brother Edward and, likewise, to destroy anyone else who posed a threat. Shakespeare described Richard as evil and manipulative, but also brilliant, cunning, and persistent. He was born physically deformed and as a result was very bitter toward those around him, and greatly resented their normalcy and happiness. This hatred translated into tremendous drive and served as motivation as well as justification for most everything he did. Richard began his journey to the throne by marrying a noblewoman, Lady Anne, simply for political reasons. He then took every opportunity that arose to speed Edwards illness and death, including the execution of another brother solely to cause grief and clear the path to the title. When Edward finally died, Richard was temporarily rewarded control of the kingdom until Edwards sons were of age to rule. Richard then searched out and executed those noblemen who had remained loyal to the princes, along with the boys powerful relatives on their mothers side. The heirs and Queen Elizabeth, their mother, were left unprotected and vulnerable. After Richard campaigned and all but assumed his role as king, the boys were murdered. The people of England already despised Richard and feared his tyrannical rule. When Richard found himself without support and facing a possible challenger to the throne, he decided to murder his wife in order to marry his niece Elizabeth. This marriage to Edwards daughter would cement his position as king. Queen Elizabeth, however, had sided with the French challenger, Richmond, and had secretly given him her daughters hand in marriage. When Richmond and his forces invaded England, Richard was killed, just as he had been warned in dreams the night before by the ghosts of all those he had murdered. Richmond was the crowned King Henry VII and vowed peace in the restless kingdom. Both Henry V and Richard III possessed the determination to reach the throne and rule England. Henry introduced himself to the kingdom as a relenting force, in power to protect and provide for the common man. He took his role very seriously and thus became a hero in his kingdom, while instilling fear in the hearts of the opposition. Richard, though, saw his dreams crumble before him as he selfishly and insanely used all those around him as a sort of tool for his acquisition of power. England as a whole rejected him as a leader, and saw no promise for the kingdom under the reign of a power-hungry tyrant. Henry sought to rebuild and England and bring back to it prosperity, and therefore gained the love and respect of the English people. Richard cared only to tend to his own selfish interests and was, as a result, overthrown by his enemies. The fate of there two men seemed to have been determined by what motivated them and with which characteristics they utilized in ruling the kingdom of England.

Zapatista Prospects in a Changed Environment Essay -- Essays Papers

Zapatista Prospects in a Changed Environment 1994, from the depths of the jungle an ill-equipped army of indigenous farmers storms the state capital of Chiapas, Mexico demanding reform and a shift from neo-liberalist policy. 2002, fast-forward nearly nine years to present and the struggle of this rag-tag guerilla army continues, only the global and national environment has changed. With dramatic internal and external shifts, the hope of a resolution favoring these rebels representing the impoverished communities of southern Mexico has faded. As Mexico tested the perilous waters of neo-liberalism, a group of revolutionary farm workers, calling themselves Zapatistas, after the legendary leader of the Mexican Revolution, prepared themselves to strike out against the injustices of the Mexican government. On New Years Day 1994, the day the North American Free Trade Agreement was to be announced, they took control of the state capital of Chiapas sending a stark cry across the nation against forces of globalization. Their message resonated throughout the world, finding broad national and foreign support. The Zapatistas, under the leadership of the masked Subcomandante Marcos, positioned themselves so as to unveil the hidden side of Mexico to the world and force Mexico to face its harsh reality. Mexican leaders had worked diligently to create a guise of modernity, a picturesque vision of Mexico ready to be displayed on the world scene. As these leaders struggled to shed Mexico’s third world status, attempting to hid e the impoverished, neglected, and largely indigenous populations from public view, they further suppressed those in need of the most attention. The Zapatistas’ reality check for Mexico sent ripples throughout ... ...oston Globe 25 August 2002 sec. A6. Marcos, Subcomandante. Shadows of Tender Fury. Trans. Linda Lopez. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1995. McEntee, Marni. â€Å"Zapatistas Regain Mexicans’ Attention.† The Washington Times 16 September 1997, final ed., sec. The Americas. Ross, John. Rebellion from the Roots. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1995. Sullivan, Kevin. â€Å"Double-Edged Machete in Mexico Fight.† The Washington Post 9 August 2002 sec. A14. The Sixth Sun: Mayan Uprising in Chiapas. Dir. Saul Landau. Meridian Productions, 1996. â€Å"MEXICO-CENTRAM: Chiapas bishop leads indigenous march against PPP† EFE News Sevices 17 August 2002. â€Å"Plan Puebla Panama† Witness for Peace. â€Å"The Free Trade Area of the Americas† Witness for Peace.

Employee Turnover and Retention

Employee turnover is a ratio comparison of the number of employees a company must replace in a given time period to the average number of total employees. A huge concern to most companies, employee turnover is a costly expense especially in lower paying job roles, for which the employee turnover rate is highest (Beam, 2010). Most associates’ average employment time with them is 7 years. Some of the common reasons why employees leave their company includes employee decided to do contract work instead of fulltime, moving out of province or employee feel that their company or position is just not a good fit (Devernichuk, 2010). Employee Turnover Costs Employee turnover is a very expensive and time consuming. There are several direct cost associated with employee turnover in the company. This includes: * Separation Costs. Cost incurred for exit interview, separation/severance pay, administrative expenses, or any increase in unemployment compensation. * Replacement Costs. Cost in advertising the position vacant, entrance interviews, testing, travel/moving expenses, pre-employment administrative expenses, medical exams and acquisition and dissemination of information. * Vacancy Costs. Cost due to increased overtime or temporary employee who fill-in the vacant position. * Training Cost. Time and resources spent in training the new employee and loss of productivity while new employee is on training. â€Å"Studies have estimated direct turnover costs per employee to be 25-30% of an individual employee’s salary/benefits package, with hidden costs inflating that figure substantially† (Insight Communications, n. d. ). Reducing employee turnover rates have many advantages to the company like profitability, productivity and competitive advantages. Employee Retention Employee retention is a process in which the employees are encouraged to remain with the organization for the maximum period of time or until the completion of the project. Employee retention is beneficial for the organization as well as the employee. Many employees today leave the company or organization once they feel dissatisfied with their job or their employer. Once they feel the dissatisfaction or unhappiness with what they’re doing they will easily leave the company and switch to a different company which is not good to the employer. Employers should know how to retain its employees (Compare Infobase Limited, 2007). Employee Retention Strategies * Trust in Management. The primary factor for employee to stay in the company is the level of trust for the management. This means that the leaders should do the right thing and be truthful, treat people with respect and acknowledge their accomplishments. * Hire Wisely. Hiring is a very critical stage to avoid high employee turnover. A person who is doing the hiring process should screen the applicant wisely and if in doubt with the person, don’t hire. Career Path Opportunities. Most people are seeking for improvements; they don’t want to be stuck in one position for many years. Giving them an opportunity for advancement will likely make them stay in the company. * Treating Employees with Respect. Every individual needs to be treated fairly and with respect. * Employee Recognition. Recognizing employees is a good strategy in retention. Employees that are recognized with the hard work they did will more likely to stay with the ompany because of their job satisfaction and recognition. * Compensation. Offering above average compensation is the greatest way to retain employees. Satisfied employees with how much they make will make them stay longer in the company. Recommendations Company must be honest at the hiring process of what the benefits are and also thoroughly describe what the salary and the position is. They must explain what they expect from an employee and what the employee expects from them to avoid employee leaving. This will eliminate the feeling that their company or the position is not a good fit. Conclusion Based on the information we gathered, we have concluded that company have avoided issues on employee turnover and retained their employees as long as possible by developing effective strategies that satisfy the needs of their employees. Hiring the right people will increase retention and conducting a regular employee satisfaction survey in an organization will help reduce employee turnover rates.

The Great Compromise of 1787

The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 between delegates of the states with large and small populations that defined the structure of Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress according to the United States Constitution. Under the agreement proposed by Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman, Congress would be a â€Å"bicameral† or two-chambered body, with each state getting a number of representatives in the lower chamber (the House) proportional to its population and two representatives in the upper chamber (the Senate). Key Takeaways: Great Compromise The Great Compromise of 1787 defined the structure of the U.S. Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress under the U.S. Constitution.The Great Compromise was brokered as an agreement between the large and small states during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 by Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman.Under the Great Compromise, each state would get two representatives in the Senate and a variable number of representatives in the House in proportion to its population according to the decennial U.S. census. Perhaps the greatest debate undertaken by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 centered on how many representatives each state should have in the new governments lawmaking branch, the U.S. Congress. As is often the case in government and politics, resolving a great debate required a great compromise—in this case, the Great Compromise of 1787. Early in the Constitutional Convention, delegates envisioned a Congress consisting of only a single chamber with a certain number of representatives from each state. Representation The burning question was, how many representatives from each state? Delegates from the larger, more populous states favored the Virginia Plan, which called for each state to have a different number of representatives based on the state’s population. Delegates from smaller states supported the New Jersey Plan, under which each state would send the same number of representatives to Congress. Delegates from the smaller states argued that, despite their lower populations, their states held equal legal status to that of the larger states, and that proportional representation would be unfair to them. Delegate Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened that the small states could be forced to â€Å"find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice.† However, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts objected to the small states’ claim of legal sovereignty, stating that â€Å"we never were independent States, were not such now, and never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States and the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty.† Shermans Plan Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman is credited with proposing the alternative of a bicameral, or two-chambered Congress made up of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each state, suggested Sherman, would send an equal number of representatives to the Senate, and one representative to the House for every 30,000 residents of the state. At the time, all the states except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures, so the delegates were familiar with the structure of Congress proposed by Sherman. Sherman’s plan pleased delegates from both the large and small states and became known as the Connecticut Compromise of 1787, or the Great Compromise. The structure and powers of the new U.S. Congress, as proposed by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, were explained to the people by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers. Apportionment and Redistricting Today, each state is represented in Congress by two Senators and a variable number of members of the House of Representatives based on the state’s population as reported in the most recent decennial census. The process of fairly determining the number of members of the House from each state is called apportionment. The first census in 1790 counted 4 million Americans. Based on that count, the total number of members elected to the House of Representatives grew from the original 65 to 106. The current House membership of 435 was set by Congress in 1911. Redistricting to Ensure Equal Representation   To ensure fair and equal representation in the House, the process of â€Å"redistricting† is used to establish or change the geographic boundaries within the states from which representatives are elected. In the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all of the congressional districts in each state must all have roughly the same population. Through apportionment and redistricting, high population urban areas are prevented from gaining an inequitable political advantage over less populated rural areas. For example, if New York City were not split into several congressional districts, the vote of a single New York City resident would carry more influence on the House than all of the residents in the rest of the State of New York combined.