Ms. Onika Maraj s Personality Essay - 1603 Words

The subject of this psychobiography is Ms. Onika Maraj or more commonly known as Nicki Minaj. Nicki Minaj is a Rapper and Singer who was born in Saint James, Trinidad and Tobago on December 8, 1982. Nicki Minaj had a tumultuous childhood moving from Saint James to Queens New York at a young age. Along with the difficult move early on in her childhood she also suffered the effects of having a parent addicted to drugs and alcohol. This coupled with his anger issues lead to her suffering the devastating loss of her childhood home and possessions. She however, would overcome that and continue on in life to achieve the success she has today. In order to hone her skills Nicki Minaj would spend much time dedicating herself to her craft in an effort to reach success. Nicki Minaj’s personality can be best characterized through the sex and gender theoretical perspective. This theoretical perspective states that men and women’s personalities tend to differ from one another at various points based on how women and men are treated in society. This theoretical perspective discusses how men and women’s behavior differ and how this behavioral difference can be attributed to how society views the sexes. Sex and gender has had a large impact on society as a whole which in turn has had an impact on Nicki Minaj’s personality. This has effected how Nicki Minaj views herself as a whole and also has put into perspective how society views her which allows her to be more aware of herself. Working in

How Cleanliness Can Influence Life of Kazi Zawad Badruddoza Free Essays

Whereas the cleanliness is relate well to the aspects in our life. There is some reason why cleanliness is important to our life. Cleanliness influences our health, controlling our mood and then keeps the relationship with our friends. We will write a custom essay sample on How Cleanliness Can Influence Life of Kazi Zawad Badruddoza or any similar topic only for you Order Now The clothes and the pants which we wear must be clean so that no more germs that can affect allergy like irritation. The food and the drink which we consume must be clean from microbes to prevent risk of illness like stomach ache, diarrhoea and many more. Then, the objects around us it should be clean from dust so we not experience the respiration illness. With kept our cleanliness so that our life must be healthy. Another reason we must watch cleanliness because the cleanliness can controlling our mood. Cleanliness makes us feel fresh and comfortable. A clean room makes us feel freshness because all of the objects are clean and free of dust so that the air is fresh. Its floor is clean so there are no bacteria or microbes and we can do the activities without worried about hygiene problem. Cleanliness can be regarded as personal or environmental. These habits ensure that a person would stay fit and healthy for a long time so you will not be force to use those anti aging treatments or some sort of surgery. These habits help us in developing an ideal and healthy life style which makes our lives even more delightful and joyous. Lesser effort would result in more success if a person has healthy mind and a healthy mind can only exist in a healthy Cleanliness is one of the good qualities. It is a part of our civilization. A man of dirty habits is far from civilization. So, with the progress of civilization man cleans himself more and more. He cleans his body. He cleans his mind and heart. He cleans all his action and manners. He cleans his soul. This will lead him to the highest form of civilization. But on the cleanliness of body, depend all other cleanings. Hence, cleanliness is considered so important. How to cite How Cleanliness Can Influence Life of Kazi Zawad Badruddoza, Essays

Law for Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Law for Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd. Answer: The contract for service and contract of service though may sound similar but are not the same as each other. In a contract of service the relationship between the parties is that of an employee and an employer. On the other hand contract for service is of an independent contract, the relationship that exists between them is that of an independent contractor and an engager. Though this might seem straightforward however there still remains confusion as to differentiation between the two. As has been stated by the, then, Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the case of Sammartino v Mayne Nickless Toleration of an amorphous contractual distinction being used to shield arrangements that are not materially different, serves to encourage anomalies in the operation of the [applicable] regulatory regime (Sammartino v Mayne Nickless, [2000]). The central issue has been highlighted by AIRC in categorizing the relationships in a work environment, the fact that there still does not exi st a practical and accepted legal test for distinguishing the employees. Though the operation of legislations related to workplace both the State and Commonwealth are tied to their being a relationship of employment between the parties, while the main concern of the proposed Independent Contractors Bill 2006 is the independent contractors conduct (Creighton and Stewart, 2016). There is however, nowhere, an attempt of defining either the term independent contractor or the term employee. beyond the meaning that it holds under common law. It is essential thus to always keep turning to common law for determining the nature of relationship of work between the parties. There is no single conclusive test that exists in when it comes to the classification of relationship which as mentioned by the AIRC is the central problem when it comes to defining relationships. The control test was the traditional test that was used for determining whether there existed a employer employee relationship. It depended on how and to what extent the control was exercised what was essential was the actual exercise and the degree of control (Pittard, Naughton and McCallum, 2003). This control test however, is no longer useful and has eroded over time as in may modern situation the skill of the employee exceeds the employers expertise (Creighton et al., 2016). Thus there may be a significant amount of autonomy that is given to the employee for the exercise of these skills. There is in practice a multi factor approach that is used by courts. In other words there is no one test that determines the relationship but the totality of the situation is observed by the court. Though, control is essential there are other elements apart from control which are observed (Sappideen et al., 2016). In the case of Performing Right Society Ltd v Mitchell and Booker (Palais de Danse) Ltd the factors which are considered in connection with determining the work relationship between the band and the defendant as had been disclosed in writing by the parties where that, of regular working hours indicated employment; fixed employment period though inconclusive suggested that there was employment; dictation of place of work though inconclusive suggested that there was employment; demand of exclusivity of service indicated employment; right of dismissing summarily for breach of reasonable requirement or instruction this is associated traditionally with employment; dominant, detailed and continuous control on everything including the music that was to be played indicated employment (Performing Right Society Ltd v Mitchell and Booker (Palais de Danse) Ltd, [1924]). These factors were weighed and it was opined that the band was an employee. The court in reaching this opinion stated that It seems, however, reasonably clear that the final test, if there be a final test, and certainly the test to be generally applied, lies in the nature and degree of detailed control over the person alleged to be a servant. The traditional emphasis being placed on control was apparent in this case. There were however, other factors which were being considered.common law There, however, has been a change in this test and the High Court in the case of Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd placed into perspective the control test stating that though the fact that control existed is significant however, it is not the only criteria for gauging whether the relationship is of an independent contractor or an employee (Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd, [1986]). It was regarded as merely an indicator and reinforced this point by stating that Control is not now regarded as the only relevant factor. Rather it is the totality of the relationship between the parties which must be considered. In this case the multi indica test was highlighted by the High Court wherein it stated that The existence of control, whilst significant, is not the sole criterion by which to gauge whether a relationship is one of employment. Other relevant matters include, but are not limited to, the mode of remuneration, the provision and maintenance of equipment, the obligation to work, the hours of work and provision of holidays, the deduction of income tax and the delegation of work by the putative employee (Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd, [1986]). It further stated that It is 'no longer sufficient to consider only the extent to which the employer may exercise control (whether actual or the authority to do so) over those sought to be characterised as employees'. However, it must be noted that in most cases it is still appropriate to apply the 'control test' in the first instance because it remains the surest guide to whether a person is contracting independently or serving as an employee (Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd, [1986]). This approach that the High Court adopted was confirmed further in the decisions of Vabu and Sweeney. In the case of Vabu the High Court decided ultimately that the courier was Hollis v Vabu employee thus making Vabu liable vicariously for the negligence of the courier. The High Court in determining Mr. Holliss claim disagreed with the conclusion that was reached by court of appeal and stated that too much of an emphasis was placed on the maintenance and ownership of the bicycles by the courier and providing of their own equipment (Hollis v Vabu, [2001]). The indica that was referred to by the court for determining the relationship was that there was no or little control which the couriers had regarding the performance of their job; a uniform was required to be worn by the couriers presenting them as emanation of Vabu before the public; the dangers to the pedestrians was known to Vabu presented by the couriers however, there was a failure to adopt any personal identification by public of individual couriers by any mean; couriers finances were administered by Vabu there was no scope o ffered for bargaining the remuneration by the couriers and there was limited scope for the couriers to undertake enterprise of their own (Collins, 2010). Therefore the fact that the couriers were required to supply equipment and transport on their own was not determinative (Riley, 2007). In this case departing from the judgment of the majority it was found by Justice McHugh that the worker was neither an employee nor an independent contract, however, there would be vicarious liability on the employer for the conduct of the worker. The view that was expressed by him that this case was not such wherein the definition of independent contractor or employee should be expanded for including couriers/worker roles. According to him the couriers were neither employees nor were they independent contractors. His honor instead stated that there was an opportunity which was provided by this case for adapting the vicarious liability doctrine to fit better the workplace environment in the modern times (Stewart, 2015). It was stated by him It is true that the couriers employed by Vabu are neither employees nor independent contractors in the strict sense. But there is no reason in policy for upholding the strict classification of employees and non-employees in the law of vicarious liability and depriving Mr Hollis of compensation. Rather than expanding the definition of employee or accepting the employee/independent contractor dichotomy, the preferable cause is to hold that employers can be vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of agents who are neither employees nor independent contractors. Thus stating in this case that the worker who defaulted was neither an employee or an independent contract, but should have been probably categorised as the employers agent, thus nevertheless making the employer negligent under vicarious liability. In the later decision of High Court in the case of Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd there were similar considerations that arose where the majority rejected the wider application of the vicarious liability principle which was advocated in Vabu by McHugh J. It was held in this case by majority that Boylan was not liable vicariously for the mechanics actions because he 'did what he did not as an employee... but as a principal pursuing his own business or as an employee of his own company pursuing its business'. The majority in its joint judgment stated that The wider proposition that underpinned the argument of the [plaintiff], that if A 'represents' B, B is vicariously liable for the conduct of A, is a proposition of such generality that it goes well beyond the bounds set by notions of control (with old, and now imperfect analogies of servitude) or set by notions of course of employment.Those bounds should not now be redrawn in the manner asserted by the appellant (Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd, [2006]). This opinion was dissented by Justice Kirby who stated that the changing social scenario was to be kept in mind which were affecting the employments economic activities or in contemporary Australia quasi-employment. If reliance was placed on the recognized exceptions, which is quite narrow, then the rule in general discussed, there would be a liability that Boylan would have towards the plaintiff based on the fact that the mechanic represented as an agent of the party who was sued, performing the functions of the party and advancing the economic interest that it has, as part of its enterprise effectively (Burnett, 2007). It is also important to mention the test of economic dependence, this test although has not received much support from the courts, it may still be essential for considering when determining if an individual is an independent contractor or an employee (Lawlor and Willey, 2017). This test requires that there should be an examination in the economic relationship of the practical reality rather than scrutinizing the terms in details on which the engagement of the worker was done formerly. It is is only if the worker is in business on their account or is operating as an 'independent economic unit' (Price and Neilsen, 2009). It can be stated that in Hollis v Vabu the High Court was leaning towards this test when discussing on the matters relating to the engagement of the courier left the courier with limited scope of engaging in a business enterprise of its own. A clear example of this can be viewed in Gray Js judgment in the case of Re Porter: A party may be described as an independent contractor, and the contract may even provide expressly that he or she is at liberty to provide services to other persons, outside of the contract. The reality may be that economic considerations dictate that work will only be accepted from the other party to the contract... In such circumstances, there is no particular reason why a court should ignore the practical circumstances, and cling to the theoretical niceties. The level of economic dependence of one party upon another, and the manner in which that economic dependence may be exploited, will always be relevant factors in the determination whether a particular contract is one of employment (Re Porter, [1989]). There are various indicator to the multiple indica test and the list is in no means exhaustive the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Independent Contractors Act 2006 protect the entitlement and rights of independent contractors. It states that the difference between the independent contractor and an employee can be based on various factors. There is no one single factor which could determine if an individual is a contractor or an employee. Each case has to be looked into by the courts and the decision is to be given based totally on the relationship that exists between the parties. Some of them include intention of the party as to the relationship type, capacity to exercise or exercise of control over the manner of work and work performed, work undertaken for others or not if it is exclusive working, control over work hours, if there is a set of minimum and maximum hours, if tools and equipments are provided, if it is required for the employer to work in the business premises, if the employ ee is subject to be dismissed at the employers initiation and such other indicators (Waarden, 2010). In view of the above I agree to the fact that the central issue that has been highlighted by AIRC with respect to categorizing the relationships in a work environment and the fact that there still does not exist a practical and accepted legal test for distinguishing the employees is to a large extent true. Though Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd. introduced the principle of multi-factor test where there is analysis of the terms of contract of the party for indicating whether there was an independent contract or an employer employee relationship: income tax being deducted from the salary and set days and hours of work indicate that there is a relationship of employment, whereas the ability of delegation, the maintenance and provision of equipment, payment by way of task and there being no obligation mentioned clearly for being present for work indicate a relationship of independent contractor. These indicas are then weighed for obtaining the type of contracts overall impressio n. However these indicators can lead to different results as discussed and there can be contradicting views for the application of the test and how the relationship is to be determined (Wheelwright, 2003). In Australia it has been long accepted that even when there is express intention by the parties for creating an independent contract the courts will look beyond these contractual terms expressly mentioned for examining the relationships reality. The courts in doing so are applying the principle of equity which does not look into form but into substance. However as observed above in different cases though there different responses to the principle of multiple indica that is being observed by the Australian courts there is not yet a coherent body of law which would be able to clarify these broad principles that exist (Owens and Riley, 2017). This leads to contradicting views in the modern workplace relationship for defying relationships as independent contractors or employees. References Burnett, J. (2007). Avoiding Difficult Questions: Vicarious Liability and Independent Contractors in Sweeney v Boylan Nominees. Sydney Law Review, 162(129). Collins, H. (2010). Employment Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. Creighton, B. and Stewart, A. (2016). Labour Law: An Introduction. 6th ed. Federation Press. Creighton, W., Stewart, A., Forsyth, A., Irving, M., Johnstone, R. and McCrystal, S. (2016). Creighton Stewart's labour law. 6th ed. Federation Press. Dennis-Escoffier, S. (2016). Employee or Independent Contractor. Journal of Corporate Accounting Finance, 27(3), pp.101-104. Hollis v Vabu [2001]207 CLR 21. Lawlor, L. and Willey, S. (2017). Are Your Workers Employees or Independent Contractors? Three Exercises to Help Students Accurately Classify Workers. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 34(2), pp.167-205. Owens, R. and Riley, J. (2017). The Law of Work. 2nd ed. Oxford. Performing Right Society Ltd v Mitchell and Booker (Palais de Danse) Ltd [1924]1 KB 762. Pittard, M., Naughton, R. and McCallum, R. (2003). Australian labour law. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. Price, R. and Neilsen, J. (2009). Employment law in principle. Sydney: Lawbook Co. Re Porter [1989]34IR 179. Riley, J. (2007). Employees or Contractors? Engaging Staff Following Work Choices, and in the Light of the Proposed Independent Contractors Legislation. SSRN Electronic Journal. Sammartino v Mayne Nickless [2000]98 IR 168 (at [46]). Sappideen, C., O'Grady, P., Riley, J. and Smith, B. (2016). Macken's law of employment. 8th ed. Lawbook Co. Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) [1986]160 CLR 16. Stewart, A. (2015). Stewart's guide to employment law. Annandale, N.S.W: Federation Press. Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd [2006]HCA 19. Waarden, N. (2010). Employment Law. 2nd ed. Lexis Nexis. Wheelwright, K. (2003). Labour law. Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths