Leave Of Absence Policy Sample: Fill & Download for Free

Has the NRA ever defended a black person who defended themselves with a gun?This again?The NRA is not a legal defense or counsel foundation or organization. The NRA only provides marksmanship, safety and range training, in addition to their activity as a relatively small lobbyist group. Yes, small, especially when compared to the lobbying power of the heads of the real estate, investment, banking and pharmaceutical industry lobby groups.The NRA does not defense, and typically does not even comment, on individual cases or people who fall into the category of being victims or perpetrators of violence and criminal activity, with the few commentary typically occurring after a conviction is secured.The premise of this question, and those like it is: “The NRA does not defense black people with guns, and therefore all NRA members are racist.” This is a whole cloth untruth, and no matter how much anti-gun people repeat it, that does not make it true.It is easy to pull up videos of people with NRA hats and logos saying stupid things, even racist things, or even LaPierre himself saying stupid things that can be interpreted as racist, though I would argue one would have to remove context to create an accusation of racism.Context is often the enemy of the plea to emotions, after all.Anyone who believes that random Youtube videos of random people is representative of an entire group, does not understand statistically significant sampling.The claim, however, remains in the popular media that the NRA is racist, hates black people, and has no interest in defending their rights to own guns. There is the myth that the NRA provides legal defenses for gun owners, which is a bald faced lie by some, and that the NRA flourishes on black community violence.Aside from my rebuttle to these things that the NRA advocates for changes to the law to favor gun owners, all gun owners, there is also one other small problem with the claim that the NRA does not care about black people, and does not want to hear their voices.That problem is one of the NRATV’s most popular commentators:Colion NoirAuthor is 'confused' black man supports NRAColion Noir is a commentator for the NRA who has been making political commentary since 2013, and has been making videos as an NRA commentator for over 4 years now. In my opinion Noir is a great commentator largely because he has a degree in Political Science, as well as J.D. of law. He understands the law pertaining to firearms in a way that few people do, but also has the innate ability to present his understanding to an audience in an affable and positive way. Several other commentators are somewhat standoffish, or come across as psudo-military and unapproachable. Noir, on the other hand, always seems to me like someone whom I could relate to, and was more likable.Colion Noir has also at times talked openly about black men killed by police, most notably that of Philando Castile, who was shot by police while in legal possession of a firearm. Colion’s commentary about the Castile case, once a verdict was delivered, appeared to be sideways to what the official NRA statement had been, which was noncommittal but supportive of the right to own and carry firearms, regardless of race.But still the NRA was accused of being racist because they didn’t ‘say’ anything about Philando Castile.I mean they only had a paid commentator, who has worked for them for years, and also is a younger black male, who spoke out on the topic with a direct tone to the covert racism of the matter, as well as the gun rights.But I guess it doesn’t count as ‘saying anything’ unless the white man in charge says it?Meanwhile there has been consternation that Colion Noir is pro-gun and a member of the NRA at all. There has been criticism to the effect that a black man should not be a conservative or a member of the NRA, as linked in the video above. That was a Huffington Post commentator who posted their confusion initially, before hastily deleting their comment on twitter, but not before Colion Noir saw it and replied.Things of that nature happen not infrequently, and typically it ends up being left leaning people who seem to think they know what is best for everyone when it comes to guns and crime. Not just black people, but everyone. So that anyone who does not fit into their scheme of how things should be is either an idiot or an enemy.However they, as evidenced by the Huffington Post commentator, are ‘confused’ when someone they consider to be a ‘poor unfortunate souls’ group does something that is not in line with their scheme.In this case if a black man is also pro NRA and pro conservative.Reducing people down to gross generalizations and stereotypes is bad policy and practice, as it only leads to conflict and misinformation. It also has some nasty backlash when people do not ‘know their place’ as it were.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/23/whats-up-with-all-those-black-men-who-voted-republican-georgia-governors-race/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.41e3dc59ac78My gross overgeneralized summary of the above article is this: “How can these black men not know what is good for them? How could they even possible vote for a republican? Are they sexist? Don’t they know the republican party is only about white politics? They must have voted for the republican because they either hate illegals or were tricked by the promise of wealth and jobs.” Again, gross overgeneralization, but not inaccurate.Any time someone does something outside of what they are ‘expected’ to do, there is backlash. The amount of that backlash can tell us how much society is putting generalizations and stereotypes onto people based on their broad characteristics, such as race in this instance.Yes, expecting black men to vote the way we ‘think’ they should, then getting upset after the fact, is what would actually be defined as racism. This is because the expectation was based on assumptions of race, and the hostility after the fact is based on the conflict with the stereotype not being true in all cases. It is in much the same vein as the ‘How could a woman vote against Hillary?’ is a sexist, and very stupid, statement.So I have demonstrated twice here negative reactions to assumptions based on race. A Huffington Post commentator as an example of a negative reaction to a black man being an NRA member, and a Washington post article that is shocked black men would vote for a republican and posits as to why they would do such a thing.The NRA does not typically comment on individual cases, and when the NRA does, it is typically after the case has been resolved in court. The NRA does not provide defense or counsel legally, and has never attempted to push legislation focused on rights-by-race. By all measures, the NRA commentator Colion Noir made a public statement about the Castile case after a verdict was determined, and it recognized race, the problem of bias in policing, and the way that the rights of americans are being infringed upon with an unfair balance of power against blacks.Colion Noir said all this, and the NRA said nothing. They did not punish him, make him retract his statement, take away his air time, give him a ‘leave of absence’ or anything else. They just let him say it.The NRA allowed their commentator to say his mind, to speak as a known representative for them, and they did not punish or praise because he was doing exactly what is in line with the NRA ideals.Now, how many media outlets can you think of who have punished their employees for saying something that rocked the boat? Even saying something on their own time, or own social media account? How many reporters or employees have said something innocuous, but unpopular, and suddenly found themselves out of a job? Enough, anyways, to illustrate that it is common practice for media companies to expect their employees to be a representative at all times and places.The NRA is not in the business of defending anyone who defends themselves with a gun, man, woman, black or white. They are in the business of defending and lobbying for the 2nd amendment, in order to ensure that people have the tools and ability to defend themselves with a gun.Lawyers are the ones who defend someone after a shooting, not the NRA.Claiming anything to the effect of ‘the NRA hates blacks and is racist,’ is just factually untrue, and foolish, which I hope I have demonstrated.Thank you for the A2A.

If you are in a country like Australia where PhDs are of limited duration, your university will have published procedures and policy regarding extensions and what is likely to be seen as a legitimate reason to request an extension. The James Cook University policy, for instance, states:2.1.3 An extension to the duration of candidature will not be not automatically granted, and requires the support of the Advisory Panel , the Head of the Enrolling Organisational Unit (or nominee) and the Dean, Graduate Research and must be negotiated and approved before its due date by the Variation of Candidature Form. The requested period of extension should be a maximum of six months.2.1.4 Extensions will not normally be approved retrospectively unless compelling circumstances that prevented the timely submission of the extension request can be demonstrated, such as sudden significant onset of illness.2.1.5 Candidates requesting an extension must be able to demonstrate convincing reasons for the delay in their candidature, e.g. significant disruption through illness or accident, unforeseen and unavoidable delays in obtaining information or data required or significant alteration to the research project and must provide a Gantt Chart outline.2.1.6 The Primary Advisor is required to estimate the likelihood of thesis submission in the requested extension period and in the case of a first extension period, in a second extension period.So you need to be able to demonstrate that the delay was unforeseen and unavoidable but that there is every reason to expect that you will successfully complete your PhD if you are granted the extension. Unforeseen and unavoidable delays may involve things like:Adverse weather conditions that disrupted planned fieldwork.Difficulty and delays in obtaining required approvals for sampling, animal experiments, or research involving human subjects.Chronic illness.Unforeseen new family responsibilities (though ideally this will be covered by taking a leave of absence at the time instead of requesting an extension later),Unexpected delays in obtaining materials or access to the equipment required for your research.Unforeseen experimental issues such as contamination of samples that required the work to be repeated, or finding that the planned method was not as practicable as expected in the field.Changes in health and safety procedures that meant you needed to refurbish the laboratory or obtain new qualifications before you could proceed with your work.Unexpected issues in the quality of the data obtained from a third party that required you to spend a lot more time than expected in data processing and QC.Unexpected features of the data that meant that the originally planned methods could not be applied and you needed to spend time developing a new method to handle the data.A change in your advisory arrangements that led to a change in your methods.New research published in the literature that had dramatic implications for your work and required you to re-evaluate your methods, objectives and/or interpretation of your results.So think carefully about the real reasons for the delay and try to explain them in a way that makes it clear that the delay was unavoidable and difficult to plan for.

Personnel policies are statements of personnel of an organization and provide a broad framework within which decisions on personnel matters can be made without reference to higher authorities. It lays criteria for decision making in the field of personnel management.The following is a sample list of policies.Work ScheduleWorkday hoursLunch periodsHolidaysVacationSick TimePersonal LeaveLeave of AbsenceSevere WeatherJury DutyHiring ProceduresAmericans With Disabilities ActInterviewing job candidatesChecking referencesOffering employmentNew Employee and Internal OrientationNew employee orientation -- general informationAgency-wide new employee orientationIntern orientationNew employee and internal orientation checklistCompensationPaydaysOvertime and compensation timeClassifying employees as exempt or non-exemptSalary rangesPositioning pay within a salary rangeMaintaining competitive salary informationReclassifying positionsSalary review policyPromotional increasesWithholding salary increase due to performanceWithholding salary increase due to leave of absencePayroll Information & Timekeeping ProceduresPayroll information -- GeneralPayroll information -- Direct deposit proceduresPayroll information -- Required and voluntary payroll deductionsTimekeeping -- General discussion of non-exempt and exempt employee classificationsSupervisor's signatureBenefitsEligibility and general informationTypes of available benefitsMedical insuranceDental insuranceDisability insuranceSupervisory communicationLife insuranceConfidentiality noteRetirement planSocial securityEmployee advisory resourceWorkers' Compensation Information and ProceduresWhen there is an injury or accident on the jobWhat is covered under Workers' CompensationType of injury covered by Worker's Compensation InsuranceMedical expenses resulting from a work-related injuryResources availablePerformance Assessment ProceduresPerformance assessment cyclePerformance assessment processDealing with performance issuesDiscipline: when the positive approach does not workSeparation from employment checklistCommunications by the supervisor regarding personnel issuesCOBRA (Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act)Leave-taking proceduresFinancial ManagementBudget managementCapital expendituresSupervisor's responsibilities in maintaining the budgetOperating managementFinancial reportingSupplementary InformationDiscrimination or sexual harassment complaintsComplaints regarding programs or staffData PracticesPolicyProceduresDefinitionsSecurity of RecordsExternal releasesInternal releasesUse of dataLegal proceduresDestruction of recordsStaff access