Gay and Lesbian Issues - War in the Workplace - Assignment Example

Gay and Lesbian Issues: War in the Workplace A persons cultural identity is largely defined by their status and position in the workplace. The job, position, company, income, and duties all combine to form our cultural identity to our supervisors and co-workers. The employee also brings a set of personal identities to the environment that also shapes the image that they project to co-workers, clients, and vendors. Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgenders (GLBTs) face a special challenge when deciding whether to openly expose their sexual orientation and risk the negative consequences that may occur as a result. Corporations face similar challenging issues when deciding how to handle the policies and work environment concerning GLBTs. Corporate pressures, individual bias, and issues of personal freedom collide in the workplace and makes corporate America ground zero in the fight for GLBT rights. The cultural identities that the worker brings to the workplace may be in the form of race, gender, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. Many of these identities are visible and readily acknowledged by the organization. Some identities, such as religion or a disability, may not be readily discernible and is left to the individual to expose or risk being discovered. Most of these identities are protected against discrimination by law. Race, religion, and gender all receive legal protection under recent civil rights legislation. An employer can not discriminate against a worker based on religious beliefs, practices, or lack of belief. However, GLBTs have no such federal legal protection. Cases involving discrimination against GLBTs have been tried under the laws against invasion of privacy, freedom of speech, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution (Beatty and Kirby 31). Though individual states and localities have passed local legislation, nearly half the population lives and works where no legal protection exists for GLBTs (Beatty and Kirby 32). This places the onus for non-discrimination in the hands of the corporation, the business, and the small business owner. One of the biggest concerns for GLBTs in the workplace is whether or not to expose their sexual orientation. Within a social group, people who have a hidden identity will be assumed to be a member of the majority group (Clair, Beatty, and MacLean 81). In a predominately heterosexual culture, the GLBT will be assumed to be straight. In most cases, coming out as an openly gay individual will result in being stigmatized by the organization. Stigmatization results when a particular characteristic of a persons identity is "...devalued in a particular social context" (Clair, Beatty, and MacLean 81). The GLBT who decides to come out and be open about their particular sexual identity risks being stigmatized or ostracized by the group and have no legal protection to turn to in case of a negative reaction. Coming out and publicly acknowledging that a person is a GLBT will have risks as well as possible rewards. The rewards can be self-fulfillment by being true to oneself, an improved sense of self, and an improved quality of life. Research by Tuten and August concluded that lesbian mothers who were outed at work experienced less conflict from their work interfering with their family life (590). However, this is done at the risk of social sanctions, loss of promotion, and possible firing. In an organization, stigmatization and the resulting sanctions are done collectively and lead to group stereotyping (Clair, Beatty, and MacLean 81). Individuals that may have an accepting attitude in other social settings may have negative feelings in the workplace. This is especially true in certain industries such as those serving children, defense contractors, the military or fundamentalist religious groups (Clair, Beatty, and MacLean 85). It is not unreasonable to assume that an openly gay negotiator for a leading weapons manufacturer may not be a companys first choice as a representative to the Air Force. It could result in loss of sales and decreased profit. In addition, outed GLBTs may set themselves up for discrimination or more sever and outward signs of hostility at work. In an effort to minimize the risk to GLBTs that are outed many corporations have instituted non-discrimination policies and diversity training in an effort to reduce the risk without diminishing the rewards of being out. While many companies have successfully embraced diversity and non-discrimination it can be a difficult path for the corporation as well as the GLBT. One problem that the corporation faces is balancing the religious freedoms of those that oppose the acceptance of homosexuality based on belief with those of the GLBT population. The current legal situation is such that an employee could claim that they will not embrace the policy or participate in diversity training based on their religious belief and could make a case for its legal acceptability (Kaplan 62). Court cases involving mandatory diversity training have found that the corporation must find a way to accommodate employees that are opposed to the policy (Kaplan 65). This allows employees to opt out of training or possibly be outspoken about their opposition. This opens the door for legal questions concerning the enforceability of the policy. The company is faced with promoting a policy that is seen as a symbol and not an effective means of promoting diversity. Corporations also face more direct resistance from consumers, workers, and clients when they openly promote non-discrimination. When the Walt Disney Company began offering health insurance to same-sex couples in 1996, they were boycotted by the Southern Baptist Convention which has nearly 16 million members (Reed and Friedman 257). If the non-discrimination policy is perceived as a symbol, the corporation may face a backlash from the very people it is attempting to protect. The Associated Press attempted to be pro-active in diversity, yet GLBT employees perceived the action as inconsequential. Hundreds of employees returned the diversity keychains issued as a symbol of diversity pride when the Associated Press failed to grant health insurance to same-sex couples (MacGillivray, Fineman, and Goldman, 80). Corporations are faced with the legal dilemmas of being able to offer a truly diversified workplace and the economic constraints of offering health insurance when the equality issue is raised. These economic and social conflicts are felt by the GLBT as well as the corporation. It has been demonstrated that non-discrimination policies can work to the detriment of the corporation. However, the policy of equality for GLBTs in the workplace may also be counter-productive for the GLBT. When Massachusetts decided to acknowledge the legitimacy of gay marriage, a leading defense contractor mandated that health insurance would only be available for couples that were married (Reed and Friedman, 257). They had previously covered any co-habitating couples, whether same-sex or different-sex out of fairness. However, with the GLBT having the option of being married they have used this progressive law to limit access to healthcare. Many couples that were unmarried were dropped from the roles of healthcare coverage to the detriment of the people that the law was meant to serve. These are the unintended consequences of promoting a policy of non-discrimination through legal channels. There are also unintended consequences of promoting equality for GLBTs in the workplace through corporate policy. It would be natural to assume that a non-discrimination policy would lead to greater freedom and satisfaction in the workplace for GLBTs. They would more readily out themselves and lead to a greater quality of life and productivity. However, the non-discrimination policy may be a false sense of security for many workers who are questioning the rationality of coming out. While a non-discrimination policy offers the worker some level of social protection, it gives no level of legal protection. The worker may risk coming out in an atmosphere of hostility with a false sense that they will be protected. Research by Tejeda has concluded that hostility in work environments that have non-discriminatory policies is greater that those workplaces that do not (54). In an environment where disclosure is encouraged it is reasonable to assume that more reports of hostility will emerge (Tejeda, 54). These unintended displays of bias are the stepping stones to true equality. To further complicate the issue of GLBTs equality in the workplace is the perceived corporate cost to instituting a non-discriminatory policy. There is the issue of extending identical benefits to all couples including health insurance. While corporate spokes-groups have placed the additional healthcare cost as 5%, other research has shown it to be as low as 1.4 % (Hamrick, i, Ash and Badgett, 596). There is the additional tax burden that is incurred due to inconsistent state and federal law. If an employer offers same-sex health insurance, the benefits from the insurance premiums would be taxable under federal IRS guidelines (Reed and Friedman, 255). If an employer extends that tax benefit to the GLBT and stands the increased tax burden, it may be seen as unfair to heterosexual married couples or seen as a profit taking action that will find resistance among the stockholders. Either way, the corporation takes a financial risk in hopes that the equality will yield rewards. Further research is needed to determine the most psychologically acceptable method of bringing diversity for GLBTs into the workplace. Finding an acceptable approach that would be approved by both the religious devout and the population that may be opposed due to social or cultural concerns is a pressing concern. Currently there is little common ground. Can research find a common ground? Research can uncover the messages that are sent throughout the workplace and attempt to mold and guide a new path of workplace communications. It should be noted that most research to date has involved homosexual males and little research has been done in respect to bisexuals and transgenders. These are important avenues that deserve future attention. Research can also indicate the need or usefulness of federal law with respect to GLBTs. The economic and social implications to the GLBT and the corporation need to be carefully evaluated and worked into the framework of the law. In addition, non-discrimination policies should be evaluated to uncover the unintended consequences that may result and advise GLBTs appropriately. Non-Discrimination policies are the best indicator of a companys motives and expectations of their corporate culture. The policy is an indicator of opportunity for advancement and promotion if an employee works within the guidelines. A policy that actively promotes equality in reference to sexual diversity is the first step in creating an environment that is "gay friendly" (Tejeda, 46). Discriminatory practices that have been woven into corporate cultures may not be readily altered by the existence of a policy, but it will open the door for increased pressure to resolve the issue publicly. It would also act as a guide for future employees to gauge the temperament of the company. There also needs to be a legal resolution that protects both the rights of conservative religion and the rights of the sexually diverse employee. In conclusion, there are many competing social, political, economic, and cultural pressures that affect GLBTs in the workplace. Being outed as a GLBT may place the employee in a position of being stigmatized by the organization. They may lose the opportunity for promotion and advancement. Companies with non-discrimination policies may face difficulty when attempting enforcement under existing federal law. While local and state laws may relieve some of the risk of coming out, they may also unintentionally cause undue social risks as well as loss of benefits when not carefully analyzed. GLBTs may have an unrealistic view of the limits of a non-discrimination policy and unknowingly put themselves in a position that results in further unfair treatment. Still, there will be no rewards without the risk. Workers who openly acknowledge their sexual orientation are more personally satisfied and have less conflict in their life. This will translate to higher productivity, higher retention, as well as a companys ability to attract qualified workers. Balancing these competing forces is the challenge of human rights activists, corporations, and individual GLBTs. It is the resolution of these issues that has made corporate America the front line in the war for equality for GLBTs. Works Cited Ash, Michael A., and V L. Badgett. "Separate and Unequal: The Effect of Unequal Access to Employment-based Health Insurance on Same-sex and Unmarried Different-sex Couples." Contemporary Economic Policy 24.4 (2006): 582-99. Business Source Premier. 5 June 2007. Beatty, Joy E., and Susan L. Kirby. "Beyond the Legal Environment: How Stigma Influences Invisible Identity Groups in the Workplace." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 18.1 (2006): 29-44. GaleGroup. 5 June 2007. Clair, Judith A., Joy E. Beatty, and Tammy L. Maclean. "Out of Sight but not out of Mind: Managing Invisible Social Identities in the Workplace." Academy of Management Review 30.1 (2005): 78-95. GaleGroup. 5 June 2007. Hamrick, Michael E. White Paper: The Hidden Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits. Corporate Resource Council, n.d. 5 June 2007 . Kaplan, David M. "Can Diversity Training Discriminate: Backlash to Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Diversity Initiatives." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 18.1 (2006): 61-72. GaleGroup. 5 June 2007. MacGillivray, Elizabeth D., Michal Fineman, and Deirdre Golden. "Roundup of Employment Related News." Journal of Organizational Excellence (2003): 73-88. Proquest. 5 June 2007. Reed, Lisa J., and Barry A. Friedman. "Employer Recognition of Same-sex Relationships in the United States: Legal and Economic Implications." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 17.4 (2005): 245-269. GaleGroup. 5 June 2007. Tejeda, Manuel J. "Nondiscrimination Policies and Sexual Identity Disclosure: Do They Make a Difference in Employee Outcomes? ." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 18.1 (2006): 45-59. GaleGroup. 5 June 2007. Tuten, Tracy l., and Rachel A. August. "Work-family Conflict: A Study of Lesbian Mothers." Women in Management Review 21.7 (2006): 578-97. Emerald. 5 June 2007. Read More