Rally for Normative Demands and Solidarity of Workers

This research is initiated by an interesting fact that there are still many labor strikes and rallies in Indonesia. The purpose of this study is to determine: the influence of normative demands and solidarity together on job dissatisfaction of workers. This research is intended as explanatory research. Sampling method used in this research is accidental sampling. The sample consists of 100 workers/laborers who joined rallies on May 1, 2014. The results show on the indicator the amount of City Minimum Wage Rates in normative demands variable, respondents believe the amount of wages earned are still not in accordance with the provisions of the minimum wage set by the government. Participation of workers in the fight for economic security must be done in various ways including demonstrations, based on solidarity between workers in order to put pressure on policy makers with regard to labor issues. In conclusion, good normative demands in accordance with the provisions of the agreement and the strong solidarity between workers will reduce dissatisfaction. Suggestions are made on normative demands variable; review should be made on the amount of the city minimum wage rates; leave entitlements, workers social security and dismissal policies should be in compliance with the current government policy

Study data

These are the individual study characteristics, paticipant descriptors, estimates (OR), and risk of bias scores

Additional file 2: of The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

PRISMA harm checklist. (PDF 28 kb

Additional file 4: of The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

Reference lists for the excluded reviews. (PDF 365 kb

Comparison of pressure-pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation (TS) changes at week 14 and week 26 after randomization.

<p>Comparison of pressure-pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation (TS) changes at week 14 and week 26 after randomization.</p

Sensitivity analyses: Comparison of pressure-pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation (TS) changes at weeks 14 and 26 using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) imputation and complete-case population (no imputations).

<p>Sensitivity analyses: Comparison of pressure-pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation (TS) changes at weeks 14 and 26 using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) imputation and complete-case population (no imputations).</p

Baseline characteristics of the study participants.

<p>Baseline characteristics of the study participants.</p

Correlation between KL scores, Pain Intensity, and CoP Range in the medial-lateral direction during quiet standing (n = 42).

<p>Spearman (R) correlation coefficient between pain intensity immediately before each balance measurement, Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) score, Centre of Pressure (CoP) Range in medial-lateral (ML) during four different sensory conditions: (i) Eyes open and firm surface (ii) eyes closed and firm surface, (iii) eyes open and soft surface, and (iv) eyes closed and soft surface. Significant correlations are indicated by <i>p-values</i> smaller than 0.05 (*).</p

Center of Pressure parameters during quiet standing.

<p>Mean (± SEM) center of pressure parameters from the quiet standing posture during four sensory condition: eyes open and firm surface (EO), eyes closed and firm surface (EC), eyes open and soft surface (EO-soft) and eyes closed and soft surface (EC-soft). The CoP Standard Deviation (SD) and speed in medial–lateral (ML) and anterior–posterior (AP) directions are presented for the less severe (KL score 1 and 2), severe (KL score >2) groups. Significant increases in body sway during EC-soft compared with EO-soft condition are indicated (*, interaction between <i>surface</i> and <i>vision</i>; NK: <i>P<</i>0.01). Significant increase in body sway during EC compare EO condition is marked with “^#” (interaction between <i>surface</i> and <i>vision</i>; NK: <i>P = </i>0.02). Significant higher values during EC-soft compared with all other conditions (^¥, Interaction between <i>surface</i> and <i>vision</i>; NK: <i>P<0.01</i></p

Representative examples of bidimensional center of pressure (CoP) trajectory for a representative subject from the “severe” (red line) and “less severe” (blue line) group during one minute of quiet standing with eyes closed on the soft (foam) surface.

<p>Representative examples of bidimensional center of pressure (CoP) trajectory for a representative subject from the “severe” (red line) and “less severe” (blue line) group during one minute of quiet standing with eyes closed on the soft (foam) surface.</p