The military unit is plowing ahead with plans to entomb soil contaminated with radium-226, a glow-in-the-dark substance that can cause cancer, at the base and pass ownership of it to the city of Sacramento, says the Sacramento Bee in today's September 17, 2013 article by Katharine Mieszkowski and Matt Smith, "Air Force wants to put a radioactive waste dump at McClellan in the city’s hands." The soil would be entombed in Sacramento at McClellan, the former Air Force base. But entombed in what? And how long would that enclosure last before eroding through and the waste leaking out? It's like putting trouble in a box and waiting to see how long it takes to degrade or crack open from movement of the Earth, water, or oxidation.
Plans are to entomb soil contaminated with radium-226, a glow-in-the-dark substance that can cause cancer, at the base and pass ownership of it to the city of Sacramento, says the Sacramento Bee article. But the California Department of Public Health explains that California state laws don’t permit the move. Even if they did, Sacramento’s city manager says he wants nothing to do with the dump. Now that's one reason for disagreement among employees, should there even be such differing of opinion.
To solve the problem, there's always time which changes all events
Since the military wants to hand over the arena-sized dump to the city by 2019, time may have the legal opportunity to change various state regulations and elect different representatives into political offices. But city officials may be balking at such plans. If Sacramento's city manager wants nothing to do with the dump, what would you do if you were in charge of the city of Sacramento and health and safety questions arose regarding a radioactive waste dump near you?
This scenario leads into one reason why researchers elsewhere study entitlement-minded workers. What people would be entitled to in Sacramento's case would be safety and health guarantees that they won't have leakage or seepage of anything radioactive in the soil, water, or air as the years fly by to rust out or put wear and tear on anything radioactive in "entombed soil."
After all, you don't want to end up with radioactive animals occupying vacant homes in the near future. In Sacramento's situation, the entitlement refers to a choice for safety and health, which is justified entitlement. Nobody wants to be exposed to radioactive leakage in the soil. And now, in a new study elsewhere, researchers examined what entitlement-minded workers claim.
It's one thing to make a claim about safety and health red flags. After all, would you like to live near a radioactive waste dump, especially when you don't know how long the entombed waste will keep the toxins contained or when acts of nature will release the unhealthy rays into the soil? What if homes or schools in the future are built on top of radioactive waste that begins to seep through?
And its another study that focuses across the nation on workers who claim mistreatment by bosses, which is not the issue in Sacramento, where the claim is health and safety for everyone. After all, who wants radioactive waste buried in the soil of their city, and how safe is the entombment of the waste when even mountains are worn down by construction work, climate, floods, earthquakes, and other Earth or human-made changes?
So what do entitlement-minded workers claim?
Entitlement-minded workers more likely to claim bosses mistreat them, a new University of New Hampshire research shows. Employees who have a sense of unjustified entitlement are more likely to say that their bosses are abusive and mistreat them than their less entitlement-minded coworkers, according to new research from the University of New Hampshire. Researchers presented two studies that examined the effects of psychological entitlement on employees' ratings of abusive supervision and their behavioral reactions to these perceptions.
The research was conducted by Paul Harvey, associate professor of organizational behavior at UNH, and his research colleagues Kenneth Harris from Indiana University Southeast, William Gillis from the University of South Alabama, and Mark Martinko from the University of Queensland. It is presented in The Leadership Quarterly journal in the forthcoming article "Abusive supervision and the entitled employee."
The researchers found that employees who had higher levels of entitlement were more likely to claim their managers were abusive. The researchers also found that when they compared the responses of employees supervised by the same manager, entitled employees were more likely to report higher levels of abuse from their managers, even when their less-entitled coworkers did not.
People who exhibit "psychological entitlement" have unjustified positive self-perceptions and are reluctant to accept criticism that would undermine their rosy views of themselves, Harvey explains in the September 17, 2013 news release, Entitlement-minded workers more likely to claim bosses mistreat them, new UNH research shows. They can be selfish, narcissistic and believe that they deserve many more rewards and much more praise for their work than are warranted by their performance.
Harvey and his co-authors conducted two surveys for this research
The first queried 396 full-time employees about workplace abuse who, on average, had been with their company for seven years. The second survey asked the same questions as the first survey, but included additional questions for a coworker of each respondent. The second survey resulted in data on 81 pairs of employees and coworkers who had the same supervisor and who worked together for an average of about 21 hours a week.
Inaccurate perceptions of supervisory abuse fueled by a sense of entitlement by employees can be a significant problem for managers, Harvey explains. "These managers might find that any critical feedback or unpopular decisions are met with heightened abuse perceptions, impairing their ability to conduct these difficult, but occasionally necessary, aspects of their jobs," he says in the news release.
And the potential for entitlement-minded employees to take retaliatory action against a supervisor "might pose a threat to the careers and livelihoods of managers if it provokes abusive behaviors or causes employees to view legitimate managerial behaviors, such as giving constructive negative feedback, as abusive," Harvey says in the news release.
"The adage 'perception is reality' may apply in that entitled employees who believe they are abused by supervisors, accurately or inaccurately, will likely respond in negative psychological and behavioral ways," Harvey observes. "For this reason, eliminating abusive behaviors by supervisors might not completely eliminate the perception of abuse or the associated emotions and stress that can motivate retaliation by employees."