Job Discrimination

(3) Historical and legal context of affirmative action. (4) Moral arguments for and against affirmative action.Overview (1) The meaning and forms of job discrimination. (6) The problem of sexual harassment. (5) Doctrine of comparable worth and controversy. . (2) Statistical and attitudinal evidence of discrimination.

What moral arguments exist for and against discrimination? What are the obligations of employers toward their employees regarding discrimination issues? .Introduction  Job discrimination has many variations.  Affirmative action has been one proposed remedy for past discrimination.

. rather than on individual merit. (2)The decision is based on membership in a certain group. false stereotypes.Meaning of Job Discrimination  Definition: Job discrimination occurs when: (1)An employment decision in some way harms or disadvantages an employee or a job applicant. (3)The decision rests on prejudice. or the assumption that the group in question is in some way inferior and thus does not deserve equal treatment.

 Kantians would repudiate it as failing to respect people as ends in themselves. . so utilitarians would reject it due to its ill effects on overall human welfare.  Arguments against discrimination: It involves false assumptions about a group and harms its members.Meaning of Job Discrimination  Forms of discrimination: Discrimination can be individual or institutional. intentional or unwitting.  Discrimination is also unjust.

It shows significant occupational and income differences seen in white males as compared to women and minorities.Evidence of Discrimination  Statistical evidence: Studies reveal the persistence of discrimination in American life. . Few women and minorities can be found at the very top of the business world. Research shows wide economic disparities between whites and racial minorities.

.  Widespread racist and sexist attitudes and biased institutional practices and policies come into play.  Women and minorities often find themselves measured by a “white male” value system.Evidence of Discrimination  Attitudinal evidence: Statistics alone do not conclusively establish discrimination – other elements may account for the disparities in income and position between men and women and between whites and other races.

sex. color.Affirmative Action: The Legal Context  The Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) declared racially segregated schooling as unconstitutional and helped launch the civil rights movement in the U. religion. or national origin. .S.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (later amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972) prohibited all forms of discrimination based on race.

Affirmative Action: The Legal Context  The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967 and 1978).  By the 1970s. companies contracting with the federal government were required to develop affirmative action programs. and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) further defined illegal discrimination.  They reflected the courts’ recognition that job discrimination can exist even in the absence of conscious intent to discriminate. .

. the Labor Code mandates workplace protections against discrimination based on race.In the Philippines. sex or creed but age discrimination is NOT included in the law.

.  Critics say that it has often meant illegal quotas. particularly regarding federal programs.  Many Americans now oppose affirmative action. and political opposition to it has grown greater than ever. or reverse discrimination against white males.Affirmative Action: The Legal Context  Many companies believe that they benefit from affirmative action by becoming more diverse. preferential treatment of women and minorities.

Overall a majority of the Court has upheld programs that are moderate and flexible. .Affirmative Action: The Legal Context  The Supreme Court has adopted a case-by-case approach to affirmative action. Race can be taken into account employment decisions. Programs that demand rigid and unreasonable quotas or that impose excessive hardships on present employees are illegal. but only as one factor among many.

Point: We have a moral obligation to redress past injuries. Counterpoint: People today can’t be expected to atone for the sins of the past – and why should today’s candidates receive any special consideration? .Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues  Arguments for affirmative action: (1)Compensatory justice demands affirmative action programs.

Counterpoint: Employers have the right to seek the best-qualified candidates without trying to make life fair for everybody – and disadvantaged whites are also out there.Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues  Arguments for affirmative action: (2) It is necessary to permit fairer competition. Point: Taking race and sex into account makes job competition fairer by keeping white men from having an undeserved competitive edge. .

Point: Even if racism and sexism ended. mere nondiscrimination would need a century or more for blacks and women to equalize their positions.Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues  Arguments for affirmative action: (3) It is needed to break the cycle of minorities and women locked in low-paying. low-prestige jobs. Counterpoint: Affirmative action has its costs – making everyone racially conscious and causing resentment and frustration. .

. Counterpoint: The interests of white men have to be balanced against society’s interest in promoting these programs. Point: Such programs violate the right of white men to be treated as individuals and to have racial or sexual considerations not affect employment decisions.Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues  Arguments against affirmative action: (1)It injures white men and violates their rights.

Point: If equality is the goal. too. it must be the means. . when it is not.Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues  Arguments against affirmative action: (2) Affirmative action itself violates the principle of equality. Such programs are based on the same principle that encouraged past discrimination. Counterpoint: We can’t wish the reality of discrimination away by pretending the world is colorblind.

Point: The 1964 Civil Rights Act already outlaws job discrimination. stronger affirmative action is unnecessary. . So we only need to insist on rigorous enforcement of the law.Affirmative Action: The Moral Issues  Arguments against affirmative action: (3) Nondiscrimination alone will achieve our social goals. many discrimination cases have been won before the EEOC or in court. Counterpoint: The absence of vigorous affirmative action programs halts progress.

A higher proportion of respondents experienced workplace discrimination in the Philippines (21 per cent) than in other countries in the region (15 per cent in Indonesia. .A recent survey in Asia showed that one in six respondents who were living with HIV/AIDS had been discriminated in the workplace. 12 per cent in India and 7 per cent in Thailand).

a local court has overruled this policy and held that the dress requirement imposed on female employees by the restaurant was not necessary. the owner required female employees to wear sexually revealing clothes. Responsively.In one restaurant. .

and requires employers to take workplace measures to address it. The law provides that both women and men shall be protected from sexual harassment.The governments of the Philippines and Japan recently enacted laws that address sexual harassment as a form of discrimination. .

and 2) the at-will paradigm protects the rights of .Philippines are  unable to find solid protection in the cou  because sexual orientation is not considered a suspect class by either the court system or the national government.  Many Filipinos feel that homosexuality and transgenderism are perversions. or strange lifestyle choices.  As such if Filipino LGBTs would happen to sue for their rights. the traditionally conservative Philippine court system would likely mention that:  1) LGBTs are not a suspect class under Philippine law. mental lapses.

Comparable Worth  The meaning of the comparable worth: It says that women and men should be paid on the same scale – not only for doing the same or equivalent jobs. effort. and responsibility. but also for doing different jobs involving equal skill. .

 Some say monetary reparations (retroactive payment adjustments) are due to for past work.Comparable Worth  Advocates point to statistics showing that women are in more low-paying jobs than men – and that the more women dominate an occupation. .  Opponents say that women have freely chosen lower-paying occupations.  They believe that paying women equally for a job of equal worth is a matter of social justice. the less it pays.

and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment.” . hostile.Sexual Harassment  Definition: “Unwelcome sexual advances. or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating. requests for sexual favors. or offensive working environment. (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual.

. but not exclusively.Sexual Harassment  Two forms of sexual harassment: (1)Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor makes an employee’s job opportunities conditional on the employee’s entering into a sexual relationship with. the supervisor. women) and interferes with their ability to perform on the job. (2)Hostile working environment is behavior of a sexual nature that is distressing to workers (often. or granting sexual favors to.

Sexual Harassment  The view of the law courts: In sexual harassment cases.  But what matters morally is to respect each person’s choices and wishes. the courts look to what a reasonable person would find offensive. .

and when it happened.Sexual Harassment  Dealing with sexual harassment: An employee encountering sexual harassment should: (1) Make it clear that the behavior is unwanted. consider seeing a lawyer and learning in detail what legal options are available. . who was involved. (4) If internal complaints prove ineffective. (3) Complain to the appropriate supervisor. document it by keeping a record of what has occurred. (2) If the behavior persists.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful