This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
I would like to express my thanks to the School of management studies which gave me such a beautiful opportunity to study on the topic ETHICS IN JOB DESCRIMINATION. On the submission of my project report I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Mrs. Shavina Goyal (Lect. SMS, Punjabi University, Patiala) for helping me and taking active
interest throughout the project. She was always available, correcting mistakes, intelligently directing me to proper sources of information advising to aim for simplicity, brevity, clarity and accuracy. I am indeed thankful to her for her valuable guidance. I would also like to express my thanks to my friends who helped me on every stage. Without their help the project could not be completed.
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION CHATER 3 THE ELEMENTS IN ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION CHAPTER -4 PRESENT SCENARIO OF ETHICS OF JOB DESCRIMINATION CHAPTER-5 CASE STUDIES ON ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION
WHAT IS ETHICS Ethics refers to a system of moral principles a sense of right and wrong, and goodness and badness of actions and the motives and consequences of these actions. As applied to business firms, ethics is the study of good and evils, right and wrong and just and unjust actions of businessmen. Ethics is a body of principles or standards of human conduct that govern the behavior of individuals and groups. Ethics arise not simply from man's creation but from human nature itself making it a natural body of laws from which man's laws follow. Ethics is a branch of philosophy and is considered a normative science because it is concerned with the norms of human conduct, as distinguished from formal sciences such as mathematics and logic, physical sciences such as chemistry and physics, and empirical sciences such as economics and psychology.
Ethics is seen as an individual’s own personal attitude and a believe concerning what is right or wrong, good or bad. It is important to note that ethics reside within individuals and that organization doesn’t have ethics. People have ethics. Consequently, its definition and understanding varies from person to person. These are not absolute, but are relative. Ethical behaviors are in the eye of beholder. What is right or wrong is a personal individual matter, but is still influenced by socially accepted norms. Right, and proper and fair are the ethical terms. It expresses a judgment about behavior towards people they felt to be just. Ethics are useful tools for sorting out the good and bad components within complex human interactions. Business ethics does not differ from generally accepted norms of good or bad practices. If dishonesty is
considers to be unethical and immoral in the society, then any business man who is dishonest his or her employees, customer’s shareholders, or competitors is unethical and immoral person. Businessmen should not try to evolve their own principles to justify ‘what is right and what is wrong’. Ethics refers to accepted principles of right or wrong that govern the conduct of a person, the members of a profession, or the actions of an organization. Business Ethics are the accepted principles of right or wrong governing the conduct of business people. Ethical decisions are those that are in accordance with those accepted principles of right and wrong, whereas and unethical decision in one that violates accepted principles. This is not as straightforward as it sounds Managers may face ethical dilemmas, which are situations where there is no agreement over exactly what the accepted principles of right and wrong are, or where none of the available alternatives seems ethically acceptable Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice, virtue, etc.
“Ethics” refers to the moral values that govern the appropriate conduct of an individual or group. “Ethics” speaks to how we ought to live, that is, how we ought to treat others and how we ought to run or manage our own lives.
Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers, professionals, and so on.
Ethics refers to a system of moral principles a sense of right and wrong, and goodness and badness of actions and the motives and consequences of these actions. As applied to business firms, ethics is the study of good and evils, right and wrong and just and unjust actions of businessmen. Ethics is a body of principles or standards of human conduct that govern the behavior of individuals and groups. Ethics arise not simply from man's creation but from human nature itself making it a natural body of laws from which man's laws follow. Ethics is a branch of philosophy and is considered a normative science because it is concerned with the norms of human conduct, as distinguished from formal sciences such as mathematics and logic, physical sciences such as chemistry and physics, and empirical sciences such as economics and psychology. Ethics is seen as an individual’s own personal attitude and a believe concerning what is right or wrong, good or bad. It is important to note that ethics reside within individuals and that organization doesn’t have ethics. People have ethics. Consequently, its definition and understanding varies from person to person. These are not absolute, but are relative. Ethical behaviors are in the eye of beholder. What is right or wrong is a personal individual matter, but is still influenced by socially accepted norms. Right, and proper and fair are the ethical terms. It expresses a judgment about behavior towards people they felt to be just. Ethics are useful tools for sorting out the good and bad components within complex human interactions. Business ethics does not differ from generally accepted norms of good or bad practices. If dishonesty is considers to be unethical and immoral in the society, then any business man who is dishonest his or her employees, customer’s shareholders, or competitors is unethical and immoral person. Businessmen should not try to evolve their own principles to justify ‘what is right and what is wrong’. Ethics refers to accepted principles of right or wrong that govern the conduct of a person, the members of a profession, or the actions of an organization. Business Ethics are the accepted principles of right or wrong governing the conduct of business people. Ethical decisions are those that are in accordance with those accepted principles of right and wrong, whereas and unethical decision in one that violates accepted principles. This is not as straightforward as it sounds Managers may face ethical dilemmas, which are situations where there is no agreement over exactly what the accepted principles of right and wrong are, or where none of the available alternatives seems ethically acceptable
It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT
Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices. Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, but many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.
Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face.
Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to address new problems.
Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard.
Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.
THE MAJOR PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS ETHICS
No discrimination should be done on the basis of caste ,color , and religion, The polices should be fair and transparent Proper provision of safety should be provided by the company to the employees. There should be proper honesty, loyalty, and integrity in the employees. The company’s resources should not be utilized by the employees for their personal usage. Company should provide better environment condition Information about employee’s personal lives, health, and work evaluations should be kept confidential. Regular measurement of employee satisfaction should by company. To neither give nor take any illegal payment, remuneration, gift, donation, or comparable, benefits to obtain business or favors. To comply with all regulations regarding preservation of the environment. Employee should report to management any actual or possible violation of code or an event that could affect the business or reputation of the employee’s company.
WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION?
What is discrimination?
Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group that is taken in consideration based on class or category. The United Nations explains: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection." Discriminatory laws such as redlining have existed in many countries. In some countries, controversial attempts such as racial quotas have been used to redress negative effects of discrimination. Term discriminate is refers to distinguish one object from another, that is a morally neutral and not necessary wrongful activities. However, in modern usage, that term is not morally neutral; it is usually intended to refer to the wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit, but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude.
Discrimination in employment must involve three basis elements, there are: It is a decision against one or ore employees that is not based on individual merit, such as the ability to perform the job. The decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, false stereotype, or some other kind of morally wrong. The decision (set of decision) has negative impact on the interests of the employees, such as it can cause loss the job.
There are forms of discrimination
A discrimination act may be part of the isolated behavior of a single individual who intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of prejudice. A discrimination act may be part of the routine behavior of an institutionalized group, which intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of the personal prejudice of its members.
A discrimination act may be part of the isolated behavior of a single individual who unintentionally and unknowingly discriminates against someone because the individual unthinkingly adopts the traditional practice and stereotype of the surrounding society.
A discrimination act may be part of the systematic routine of a corporate organization or group that unintentionally incorporate into its formal institutionalized procedures practices that discriminate against woman or minorities.
We can estimate whether an institution or a set of institution is practicing discrimination against a certain group by looking at statistical indicators of how the members of that group are distributed within the institution. A prima facie indication of discrimination exists when a disproportionate number of members of a certain group hold the less desirable position within the institutions despite their preferences and abilities.
There are three kinds of comparisons can provide evidence for such a distribution Comparisons of the average benefits the institutions bestow on the discriminated group with the average benefit the institutions bestow on other groups. Comparisons of the proportion of the discriminated group found in the lowest levels of the institutions with the proportion of other groups found at those levels. Comparisons of the proportions of that group that holds the more advantageous positions with the proportions of other groups that hold those same positions.
There are the arguments mustered against discrimination generally fall into three groups: Utilitarian arguments, which claim that discrimination leads to an inefficient use of human resource. Rights arguments, which claim that discrimination violates basic human rights. Justice arguments, which claim that discrimination results in an unjust distribution of society’s benefit and burdens. Today, many businesses have done the affirmative action, which can reduce the effects of past discrimination. This action is designed to achieve a more representative distribution of minorities
within the firm by giving preference to minorities. Moreover, this action is legally required in employment. Valuing and managing a diverse work force is more than ethically and morally correct. It’s also a business necessity. Work force demographics for the next decade make it absolutely clear that companies which fail to do an excellent job of recruiting, retaining, developing, and promoting the women and minorities simply will be unable to meet their staffing needs.
THE ELEMENTS IN ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION
The elements in Ethics of Job Discrimination
The discrimination in employment must involve three basic elements. First, it is a decision against one or more employees that is not base on individual merit, such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legitimate qualifications. Second, the decision derives sorely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, false stereotypes, or some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the employee belongs. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the interest of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay.
Discrimination: Utility, Right, and Justice. Utility The standard utilitarian argument against racial and sexual discrimination is based on the idea that a society’s productivity will be optimized to the extent that jobs are awarded on the basis of competency (or merit). Discriminating among job applicants on the basis of race, sex, religion or other characteristics unrelated to job performance is necessarily inefficient and, therefore contrary to utilitarian principles. Right No utilitarian arguments against racial and sexual discrimination may take the approach that discrimination is wrong because it violates a person’s basic moral rights. Kantian theory, for example, holds that human being should be treated as ends and never used merely as means. At minimum, this principle means that each individual has a moral right to be treated as a free person equal to any other person and that all individuals have a correlative moral duty to treat each individual as a free and equal person.
Justice A second group of no utilitarian arguments against discrimination views it as a violation of the principle of justice. John Rawls argued that among the principles of justice that the enlightened parties to the “original position” would choose for themselves is the principle of equal opportunity. “ Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are attached to offices and position open to all under condition of fair equality of opportunity. Discrimination violates this principle by arbitrarily closing off to minorities the more desirables offices and position in an institution, thereby not giving them an opportunity equal to that of others. Arbitrarily giving some individuals less of an opportunity to compete for jobs than others is unjust, according to Rawls. Affirmative Action Program Affirmative action programs designed to achieve a more representative distribution of minorities and women within the firm by giving preference to women and minorities. Affirmative action programs, in fact, are now legally required of all firms that hold a government contract. The heart of an affirmative action program is a detailed study of all the major job classifications in the firm. Affirmative Action as Compensation Arguments that defend affirmative action as a form of compensation are based on the concept of compensatory justice. Compensatory justice implies that people have an obligation to compensate those whom they have intentionally and unjustly wronged. Affirmative action programs are then interpreted as a form of reparation by which White male majorities now compensate women and minorities for unjustly injuring them by discriminating against them in the past. The difficulty with arguments that defend affirmative action on the basis of the principle of compensation is that the principle requires that compensation should come only from those specific individuals who intentionally inflicted a wrong, and it requires them to compensate only those specific individuals whom they wronged.
PRESENT SCENARIO OF ETHICS OF JOB DESCRIMINATION
NATURE OF JOB DISCRIMINATION
We often find people debating on these words “justice,” “equality,” “racism,” “rights,” and “discrimination”. Till now we have discussed in depth the words “justice,” “equality” and “rights”. In this lecture we will discuss about “racism” and “discrimination”. Lets understand what is the hue and cry all about. First of all lets understand the meaning of these words: Racism: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races or, Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race. Discrimination: The root meaning of the term “discriminate” is “to distinguish one ob-ject from another,” a morally neutral and not necessarily wrongful activity. However, in modern usage the term is not morally neutral. It is usually in-tended to refer to the wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude. This morally charged notion of “invidious” discrimination, as it applies to employment, is what is at issue in this chapter. In this sense to discriminate in employment is to make an adverse decision (or set of decisions) against employees (or prospective employees) who belong to a certain class because of morally unjustified prejudice toward members of that class. Discrimination in employment thus, must involve three basic elements: 1. First, it is a decision against one or more employees (or prospective employees) that is not based on individual merit such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legitimate qualifications. 2. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, from false stereotypes, or from some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the employee belongs. 3. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay.
Types of discrimination • Racism • On the basis of Gender • On the basis of Age • On the basis of Religion • On the basis of disability • On the basis of National origin.
Present Scenario of Job Discrimination
Although many more women and minorities are entering formerly male dominated jobs, they still face problems that they would characterize as form of discrimination. In 1993, for example, ABC sent a male and female, Avnish and Neelam, on an “experiment” to apply in person for jobs several companies were advertising. Avnish and Neelam were both trim, neatly dressed college graduates in their 20s, with identical resumes indicating management experience. Unknown to the companies, however, both were secretly wired for sound and had hidden cameras. One company indicated in its help-wanted ad that it had several open positions. But when the company recruiter spoke with Neelam, the only job he brought up was a job answering phones. A few minutes later, the same recruiter spoke with Avnish. He was offered a management job. When interviewed afterwards by ABC, the company recruiter indicated that he would never want a man answering his phone. Another company had advertised positions as territory managers for lawn-care services. The owner of that company gave Neelam a typing test, discussed her fiance’s business with her, and then offered her a job as a receptionist at $6 an hour. When the owner interviewed Avnish, however, he gave him an aptitude test, chatted with him about how he kept fit, and offered him a job as territory manager paying $300 to $500 a week. When the owner was later interviewed by ABC he comments that women “do not do well as territory managers, which involves some physical labor.” According to the owner he had also hired one other woman as a receptionist and had hired several other males as territory managers.
The experience of young Avnish and Neelam suggest that sexual discrimination is alive and well. Similar experiments suggest that racial discrimination also continues to thrive. In 1993 researchers at the Urban Institute published a study in which they paired several young black men with similar young white men, matching them in openness, energy level, articulateness, physical characteristics, clothing, and job experience. In the same way, young Hispanic males fluent in English were matched with young Anglo males. Each member of each pair was trained and coached in mock interviews to act exactly like the other. Each member of each pair then applied in person for the same jobs, ranging from general laborer to management trainee in manufacturing, hotels, restaurants, retail sales, and office work. In spite of the fact that all were equally qualified for the same jobs, blacks and Hispanics were offered jobs 50 percent fewer times than the young white males. The root meaning of the term “discriminate” is “to distinguish one object from another,” a morally neutral and not necessarily wrongful activity. However, in modem usage the term is not morally neutral: It is usually in-tended to refer to the wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude. This morally charged notion of “invidious” discrimination, as it applies to employment, is what is at issue in this chapter. In this sense to discriminate in employment is to make an ad-verse decision (or set of decisions) against employees (or prospective employees) who belong to a certain class because of morally unjustified prejudice toward members of that class. Discrimination in employment thus, must involve three basic elements. First, it is a decision against one or more employees (or prospective employees) that is not based on individual merit such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legiti-mate qualifications. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, from false stereotypes, or from some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the employee belongs. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay.
Forms of Discrimination:
Intentional and Institutional Aspects A helpful framework for analyzing different forms of discrimination can be constructed by distinguishing the extent to which a discriminatory act is intentional and isolated (or non institutionalized) and the extent to which it is un-intentional and institutionalized 1. Isolated and Intentional Discrimination A discriminatory act may be part of the isolated (non institutionalized) behavior of a single individual who intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of personal prejudice. In the ABC “experiment” described, for example, the attitudes that the male interviewer is de-scribed as having may not be characteristic of other company interviewers: His behavior toward female job seekers may be an intentional but isolated instance of sexism in hiring. 2. Institutionalized and Intentional Discrimination Second, a discriminatory act may be part of the routine behavior of an institutionalized group, which intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of the personal prejudices of its members. The Ku Klux Klan, for example, is an organization that historically has intentionally institutionalized discriminatory behavior, and, in India, for example, The Muthut Finance group prefers Keralites for any post in their company. 3. Isolated and Unintentional Discrimination Third, an act of discrimination may be part of the isolated (non institutionalized) behavior of a single individual who unintentionally and unknowingly discriminates against someone because he or she unthinkingly adopts the traditional practices and stereotypes of his or her so-ciety. If the interviewer quoted in the ABC experiment described, for example, acted unintentionally, then he would fall into this third category. 4. Institutionalized and Unintentional discrimination Fourth, a discriminatory act may be part of the systematic routine of a corporate organization or group that unintentionally incorporates into its formal institutionalized procedures practices that
discriminate against women or minorities. The two companies examined in the ABC; experiment, for example, described organizations in which the best-paying jobs are routinely assigned to men and the worst-paying jobs are routinely assigned to women, on the stereotypical assumption that women are fit for some jobs and not for others. There may be no deliberate intent to discriminate, but the effect is the same: a racially or sexually based pattern of preference toward white males. Historically, there has been a shift in emphasis from seeing discrimination primarily as an intentional and individual matter, to seeing it as a systematic and not necessarily intentional feature of institutionalized corporate behavior, and back again, in some quarters, to seeing it as an intentional and individual matter. During the early 1960s, employment discrimination was seen primarily as an intentional, calculated act performed by one individual on another. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, seems to have had this notion of discrimination in mind when it stated: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer 1. To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or 2. To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual’s race, color, sex, or national origin However, in the late 1960s, the concept of discrimination was enlarged to include more than the traditionally recognized intentional forms of individual discrimination. By the early 1970, the term “discrimination” was being used regularly to include disparities of minority representation within the ranks of a firm, regardless of whether or not the disparity had been intentionally created. An organization was engaged in discrimination if minority group representation within its ranks was not proportionate to the group’s local availability. The discrimination would be remedied when the proportions of minorities within the organization were made to match their proportions in the available workforce by the use of “affirmative action” programs.
Job discrimination based on race and gender
How do we estimate whether an institution or a set of institutions is practic-ing discrimination against a certain group? By looking at statistical indicators of how the members of that group are distributed within the institution. A prima facie indication of discrimination exists when a disproportionate num-ber of the members of a certain group hold the less desirable positions within the institutions in spite of their preferences and abilities. Three kinds of comparisons can provide evidence for such a distribution: 1. Comparisons of the average benefits the institutions bestow on the discriminated group with the average benefits the institutions bestow on other groups; 2. Comparisons of the proportion of the discriminated group found in the lowest levels of the institutions with the proportions of other groups found at those levels; 3. Comparisons of the proportions of that group that hold the more advantageous positions with the proportions of other groups that hold those same positions. If we look at American society in terms of these three kinds of comparisons, it becomes clear that some form of racial and sexual discrimination is present in American society as a whole. It is also clear that for some segments of the minority population (such as young college-educated black males) discrimination is not as intense as it once was. Average Income Comparisons Income comparisons provide the most suggestive indicators of discrimination. If we compare the average incomes of nonwhite American families, for example, with the average incomes of white American families, we see that white family incomes are substantially above those of nonwhites. Contrary to a commonly held belief, the income gap between whites and minorities has been increasing rather than decreasing. Since 1970, in fact, even during periods when the real incomes of whites have gone up, real minority incomes have not kept up. In 1970 the average income for a black family was 65 percent of a white family’s average income; in 1994 the black family’s in- come was 63 percent of the white family’s income. Income comparisons also reveal large inequalities based on sex. A comparison of average incomes for men and women shows that women receive only a portion of
what men receive. A recent study found, in fact, that firms employing mostly men paid their workers on average 40% more than those employing mostly women. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. The evidence of racial and sexual discrimination provided by the quantitative measures cited can be filled out qualitatively by examining the occupational distribution of racial and sexual minorities. As the figures suggests, larger percentages of white males move into the higher paying occupations, while minorities and women end up in those that are less desirable. Consequently, although many white women have moved into middle-management positions in recent years, neither they nor minorities have yet been al-lowed into the top-paying senior management and top executive positions. Just as the most desirable occupations are held by whites, while the less desirable are held by blacks, so also the most well paying occupations tend to be reserved for men, and the remainder for women. The following table illustrates the disparities. Studies indicate that despite two decades of women entering the workforce in record numbers, women managers still are not being promoted from middle-management positions into senior or top-management posts be-cause they encounter an impenetrable “glass ceiling” through which they may look but not enter. It is some-times suggested that women choose to work in those jobs that have relatively low pay and low prestige. It is suggested sometimes, for example, that women believe that only certain jobs (such as secretary or kindergarten teacher) are “appropriate” for women; that many women choose courses of study that suit them only for such jobs; that many women choose those jobs because they plan to raise children and these jobs are relatively easy to leave and re-enter; that many women choose these jobs because they have limited demands and allow them time to raise children; that many women defer to the demands of their husbands’ careers and choose to forgo developing their own careers. Al-though choice plays some role in pay differentials, however, researchers who have studied the differences in earnings between men and women have all concluded that wage differentials cannot be accounted for simply on the basis of such factors. One study found that only half of the earnings gap might be ac-counted for by women’s choices while other studies have found it could ac-count for a bit more or a bit less. All studies, however, have demonstrated that only a portion of the gap can be accounted for on the basis of male and female differences in education, work experience, work continuity, self-imposed work
restrictions, and absenteeism. These studies show that even after taking such differences into account, a gap between the earnings of men and women remains that can only be accounted for by discrimination in the labor market. A report of the National Academy of Sciences concluded, “about 35 to 40 percent of the disparity in average earnings is due to sex seg-regation because women are essentially steered into lower-paying ‘women’s jobs.’ Some studies have shown that perhaps only one tenth of the wage differences between men and women can be accounted for by differences in their “personalities and tastes.” Similar studies have shown that half of the earnings differences between white and minority workers cannot be accounted for by differences of work history, of on the job training, of absenteeism, nor of self-imposed restrictions on work hours and 10cation. To make matters worse, several unexpected trends that emerged in the early nineties and that will be with us until the end of the century promise to increase the difficulties facing women and minorities. A major study of economic and population trends during the nineties concluded that the 1990s would be characterized by the following First, most new workers entering the labor force during the 1990s will not be white males, but women and minorities. Although a generation ago white males held the largest share of the job market, between 1985 and the year 2000 white males will comprise only 15 percent of all new workers entering the labor force. Women and minorities will take their place. Three fifths of all new entrants coming into business between 1985 and 2000 will be women, a trend created by sheer economic necessity as well as cultural redefinitions of the role of women. By the year 2000, about 47 percent of the workforce will be women, and 61 percent of all American women will be employed. Native minorities and immigrants will make up 42 percent of all new workers during this decade. Second, this large influx Second, this large influx of women and minorities will encounter major difficulties if current trends do not change. First, as we saw, a sizable proportion of women are still concentrated in traditionally female jobs that pay less than traditionally male jobs. Second, at the present time women encounter bar-riers (the so-called “glass ceiling”) when attempting to advance into top -paying top management positions. The large numbers of minorities entering the workforce will also en-counter significant disadvantages if current trends do not change. As these large waves of minorities hit the labor market, they will find that most of the new good jobs awaiting them require extremely high
levels of skill and education that they do not have. Of all the new jobs that will be created between now and the year 2000, more than half will require some education beyond high school and almost a third will require a college degree. Among the fastest-growing fields will be professions with extremely high education requirements, such as technicians, engineers, social scientists, lawyers, mathematicians, scientists, and health professionals; while those fields that will actually see declines in numbers consist of jobs that require relatively low levels of education and skills, such as machine tenders and operators, blue collar supervisors, assemblers, hand workers, miners, and farmers. Even those new jobs that require relatively less skills will have tough requirements: Secretaries, clerks, and cashiers will need the ability to read and write clearly, to understand directions, and to use computers; assembly-line work-ers are already being required to learn statistical process control methods employing basic algebra and statistics. The new jobs waiting for minorities will thus demand more education and higher levels of language, math, and reasoning skills. Unfortunately, although a significant proportion of whites are education-ally disadvantaged, minorities are currently the least advantaged in terms of skill levels and education. Studies have shown that only about three fifths of whites, two fifths of Hispanics, and one quarter of blacks could find information in a news article or almanac; only 25 percent of whites, 7 percent of Hispanics, and 3 percent of blacks could interpret a bus schedule; and only 44 percent of whites, 20 percent of Hispanics, and 8 percent of blacks could fig-ure out the change they were owed from buying two items. In recent years, moreover, an especially troublesome obstacle that working women face has been brought to light: sexual harassment. Forty-two per-cent of all women working for the federal government reported that they had experienced some form of uninvited and unwanted sexual attention, ranging from sexual remarks to attempted rape or assault. Women working as executives, prison guards, and even as rabbis, have reported being sexually harassed. Victims of such verbal or physical forms of sexual harassment were most likely to be single or divorced, between the ages of 20 and 44, have some college education, and work in a predominantly male environment or for a male supervisor. In 1992 about 5000 complaints of sexual harassment were filed with the federal government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and thou-sands of other complaints were lodged with state civil rights commissions. It is clear, then, that unless a number of current trends change, women and
minorities, who will comprise the bulk of new workers between now and the end of the century, will find themselves in highly disadvantaged positions as they enter the workforce. The various statistical comparisons that we have examined, together with the extensive research showing that these differences are not because of any simple way to differences in preferences or abilities, indicate that American business institutions incorporate some degree of systematic discrimination, much of it, perhaps, an unconscious relic of the past. Whether we compare average incomes, proportional representation in the highest economic positions, or proportional representation in the lowest economic positions, it turns out that women and minorities are not equal to white males, and the last twenty years have seen but small narrowing of the racial and sexual gaps. Moreover, a number of ominous trends indicate that unless we embark on some major changes, the situation for minorities and women will not improve. Of course, finding that our economic institutions as a whole still embody a great deal of discrimination does not show that any particular business is discriminatory. To find out whether a particular firm is discriminatory, we would have to make the same sorts of comparisons among the various employment levels of the firm that we made above among the various economic and occupation all levels of American society as a whole. To facilitate such comparisons within firms, employers today are required to report to the government the numbers of minorities and women their firm employs in each of nine categories: officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales workers, office and clerical workers, skilled craft workers, semiskilled operatives, unskilled laborers, and service workers.
CASE STUDIES ON ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION
Business Ethics: Hiring, Firing and Discrimination
Discrimination and Affirmative Action Policies The underlying evil of all affirmative action programs is that individuals are categorized by their race as one of the fundamental bedrocks of human rights is the principle that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Discrimination and persecution on the grounds of race and ethnicity are clear violations of this principle. This principle inevitably prolongs racism. So, the corporations desperately seek to present themselves as non-discriminating and careers are shattered by unjust accusations of racism. Affirmative action is a plan designed to end discrimination by guaranteeing minorities will be hired, regardless of race or gender. While our country hires such groups based upon these guarantees, the qualifications of such people are occasionally overlooked and it insists that the employer must avoid the kind of unnecessary escalation of criteria for selection and promotion which has sometimes been used to keep certain classes of people from entering the mainstream of our economic life. This aspect of the plan creates more openings for minorities; however, it also suggests that the standards should be maintained at a low to guarantee these openings. But in the case study of Julie it can be clearly seen that the company is more comfortable and productive when they don't have too much diversity with respect to racialism as part of their policy and discriminating them on the cost of ignoring one’s talent, hard-work and professional experience irrespective of his physical characteristics such as hair type, color of eyes and skin, stature etc which can be beneficial for the company. Essential Hiring Practices There are a few principles which should be followed in the recruiting and hiring process. First is to require outside testing which is to allow a competent, impartial professional interviewer to administer both paper and pencil and verbal tests. Secondly, conduct a rigorous personal interview. This includes asking general attitude questions, relating to the applicant’s understanding of the financial workings of a business and the department’s role in the business’s overall success, questions relating to the applicant’s ability to set goals and his or her
expectations about achieving goals, questions relating to specific skills required for the job, and general communications required by the job. Third is to arrange a peer group interview which encourages applicants to speak more freely and helps determine how comfortable they will be in working with their peers. Follow up with a meeting of everyone involved in the hiring decision to determine if there is a group consensus about the applicant’s suitability for work at your company. Forth is to do a background check even if it is an employee’s cousin or your competitor’s best salesperson. It’s very easy to set up an account with an investigative firm online and to relatively quickly and inexpensively find out if the applicant has a criminal record or a history of DMV problems, lawsuits involving previous employers, workers’ compensation claims, and so forth. Lastly, we can have a reference check by conducting these over the phone, but they may involve a request in writing. Reference checking is less effective than it used to be, although you may still find a few people who are willing to talk. Most former employers play it safe and verify only dates of employment and salary. Conclusion The conclusion is that remedies for intentional and unintentional discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities may pose problems. Governments are obliged to take special measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of racial groups. This includes affirmative action programs. States are also required to promote racial understanding through the education system. References 1) The legal and ethical issues involved in discrimination and affirmative action policies [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090308202213AAHkArK] 2) Five Essential Hiring Practices by Jan B. King [http://www.siliconfareast.com/hiring.htm]
DETAIL COMPARABLE WORTH
Category: Gender In October of 1999 the government of Canada agreed to pay 2.3 billion dollars to 230,000 federal workers, both current and retired, in the form of back pay with interest, to conform with the principle of "equal pay for work of equal value" embodied in Canada's Human Rights Act. The drafters of this law, enacted more than twenty years ago, noted that the vast majority of women in the workforce in Canada were clustered in a small number of "women's" jobs, such as office worker, nurse, or waitress. Women in these jobs, the drafters of Canada's Human Rights Act observed, usually receive less pay than men in predominantly male jobs, which, despite their higher salaries, are comparable to the predominantly female jobs in terms of factors such as the mental or physical demands of the job, working conditions, or educational prerequisites. To address this situation, the government of Canada organized a committee made up of employees and managers drawn from various Canadian federal government departments to develop a numerically based system for comparing predominantly male and predominantly female jobs. The committee rated a wide array of jobs in terms of four factors: educational prerequisites, job responsibilities, mental demands, and on the job working conditions. The committee determined that "male" jobs tended strongly to have higher salaries than female jobs at the same point levels. For example, a chief librarian made $35,050 while a dairy herd improvement manager made $38,766. A computer operations supervisor made $20,193, while a forestry project supervisor made $26,947. A typist made $10,531, while a sailor made $14,097. In all of the above instances the predominantly female and the predominantly male jobs were determined to have comparable point levels. The Canadian government's 2.3 billion dollar settlement has drawn strong criticism. Monte Solberg, a Reform Party member of the Canadian Parliament lamented that "[t]o come up with some concept where a bunch of bureaucrats arbitrarily decide, based on some abstract theory, that one job that women dominate is somehow the same as another completely different job that men dominate - it's unworkable." Other critics protest that the settlement will increase the taxes
in Canada, whose taxpayers already shoulder the highest tax burden among the Group of Seven industrialized nations. Defenders of the Canadian government's settlement view it as needed to rectify, what they consider, the discriminatory impact upon female workers of the Canadian government's employment compensation policies over many years. Even if the lower wages for predominantly female jobs reflect going market salary rates, say the supporters of the settlement, these market rates themselves reflect pervasive discrimination against women in the workforce. Furthermore, the supporters of the settlement contest that the settlement will have a severely negative impact upon the Canadian economy. In this regard, Daryl Bean, President of the Canadian federal service union, estimated that over 40% of the 2.3 billion would be returned as taxes to the government.
Confronting HIV Discrimination in the Workplace
As published in Human Rights, Fall 2004, Vol. 31, No. 4, p.16-19. By Hayley Gorenberg Even as the quarter-century mark in the HIV/AIDS epidemic approaches, many HIV-positive employees experience job-threatening discrimination, especially if they do not “drive desks.” Lambda Legal, the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights firm for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and HIV-positive people, has recently developed cases for an HIV-positive police officer, a medical technician, an auto glass installer, and, most famously, a talented gymnast whose discrimination claim yielded this year’s record-setting settlement in Cusick v. Cirque du Soleil. (EEOC No. 340-2003-10938.) Matthew Cusick’s job under the big top may have been unusual, but the discrimination he faced in the workplace is all too common. Lambda Legal’s national Help Desk logs thousands of calls each year, and the greatest source of complaints from its HIV-positive callers involves workplace discrimination. This article examines a few of the critical components to success in Cusick’s case. Cirque du Soleil, the premier acrobatic circus show, hired Matthew Cusick in 2002 and assigned him to the international company’s Las Vegas production, Mystère. In general health discussions with Cirque’s physiotherapy department at the beginning of his training, Cusick voluntarily disclosed his HIV status. At Cirque’s request, he twice visited doctors who assessed his HIV and judged him a “healthy athlete.” He was cleared for full performance activities with Cirque. Yet in the spring of 2003, fresh from several months of intense training, Cirque fired Cusick based upon fears of HIV transmission, claiming it was acting to protect other employees from “known safety hazards.” Shortly thereafter, Cusick came to Lambda Legal. When Cirque refused to reconsider its decision, Lambda Legal filed a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with the Los Angeles office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After the EEOC investigation supported Cusick’s allegations, conciliation talks between the parties eventually resulted in a groundbreaking settlement for HIV-related employment discrimination complaints. It included revision of Cirque’s antidiscrimination policies; ongoing, top-to-bottom antidiscrimination training for Cirque’s
employees worldwide; a minimum of two years of compliance monitoring by the EEOC; compensation for Cusick’s lost wages in the amount of $60,000; front pay in the amount of $200,000; and compensatory damages of $300,000, the maximum available under the ADA for a company of Cirque’s size. Lambda Legal also received $40,000 toward payment for its attorney fees. The Power of Public Disclosure Public awareness exerted critical pressure throughout Cusick’s case. Lambda’s “Discrimination: The Other Side of Cirque du Soleil” public education campaign encouraged patrons to examine Cirque’s values and standards. Rather than a boycott, Lambda Legal promoted education and individual responses, ultimately sending thousands of petition signatures and messages to Cirque. One evening Cusick himself stood outside a show in California and urged some reluctant patrons to use their tickets and go inside, but to keep him in mind. At another show, local HIV activists donned clown costumes when they distributed educational flyers, attracting local camera crews and colorful coverage. Lambda Legal’s public education campaign attracted diverse allies. High-recognition performers like Nathan Lane, Bebe Neuwirth, Rosie O’Donnell, and Chita Rivera, as well as the outspoken playwright Tony Kushner, combined with medical experts to focus the spotlight. Many sports groups, including the San Francisco Fog rugby team—which pointed out that it did not exclude people with HIV even while boasting of rugby’s bloodiness—embodied the standards used by groups such as the World Health Organization, the U.S. Olympics Committee, the National Basketball Association, and even the American Academy of Pediatrics’ sports medicine specialists. All agreed that no medical or scientific basis existed to bar HIV-positive athletes from competition, or even to require HIV testing. During the hundreds of thousands of highcontact sports contests played since HIV first emerged, there has never been a single documented case of HIV transmission. Lambda’s allies helped drive its points home, especially when Cirque du Soleil began suggesting it could justify firing Cusick as protection not only for fellow performers but for members of Cirque’s audience! The presence of allied performers and athletes helped strengthen Lambda’s
case by furnishing analogous workplaces that countered efforts to “exceptionalize” Cirque as a one-of-a-kind employer that might deserve some sort of specialized standard. These allies were particularly motivated by Cusick and Lambda Legal’s clear stance that they sought policy change that would help all HIV-positive employees rather than financial compensation alone. Finally, Lambda Legal and Cusick found allies in local governments with strong antidiscrimination ordinances. San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission, after learning of the EEOC filing, brought its own complaint because the city bans contracts (such as land leases) with discriminatory employers. Had the case continued, Lambda would have investigated the triggers for antidiscrimination ordinances in other cities hosting Cirque. Advocates should more routinely explore these types of provisions in cases opposing employers who hold or seek government contracts. The power of openness was crucial to success. Cusick’s refusal to file as a “John Doe” and his willingness to face reporters helped obtain critical media coverage for the case. His disclosures were painful, of course. Friends and family who had not known of his HIV status found out via newspapers and the Internet. Ultimately, however, Cusick reaped such emotional support from those who learned of his story that he deemed it well worth the risk. In a similar vein, working toward a public settlement allowed Cusick’s case to have far greater force than a “gagged” settlement would have had. Cusick came to Lambda Legal in part because the organization strives for an impact that extends beyond the individual target of discrimination, even while it advocates vigorously for that person. Because Lambda reached a public settlement with Cirque du Soleil, it set public (if not court-sanctioned) precedent. The dollar figures alone, widely reported in the popular press and verdict reporters, caused employers and defense attorneys to take notice. The Price of Intolerance The considerable front pay award in Cusick’s case warrants mention. Late in the case, many months after Cirque fired Cusick, the company announced that it would reinstate him. Ultimately, Cusick did not accept this reinstatement, in part due to continuing hostility from Cirque leadership. Arguably, his decision could have raised a legal issue of whether Cirque’s
offer mitigated its damages. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, “In cases in which reinstatement is not viable because of continuing hostility between the plaintiff and the employer or its workers, or because of psychological injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of discrimination, courts have ordered front pay as a substitute for reinstatement.” (Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 121 S. Ct. 1946, 1948 (2001).) Rightly, Cusick’s well-considered and painful decision to reject the late-breaking offer of reinstatement did not affect his case’s success. As a settlement, the Cirque resolution did not include a punitive damages figure. However, Cirque’s actions, coupled with lack of support for its conclusions regarding the HIV transmission risk, contributed to allegations of heavy liability. Months into the case, a Cirque spokesperson made public statements such as, “We believe that twenty years of experience in this area are enough for us to determine risk.” Not so. The twenty-first century should be an age of enlightenment when it comes to HIV in the workplace. Employers must incorporate medical and scientific information into their operations rather than relying on fears and assumptions. Self-proclaimed expertise should furnish no shield. Matthew Cusick opened his life to the world to drive that point home.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.