The Success of Anti-discrimination Legislation - Coursework Example

How successful has anti-discrimination legislation been in tackling workplace discrimination for minority ethnic groups? Introduction Inequality in the workplace has been a common phenomenon for people belonging in various groups of the population. In this context, people that have passed a specific age limit or that they are of different cultural/ educational or racial background from the majority of employees in a specific organization are likely to suffer discrimination from other employees or even from the employer/ manager of the particular organization. Various measures have been introduced through the years for the limitation of the phenomenon of discrimination in the workplace; however all of these measures (or at least the majority of them) have been proved to be inadequate taking into account the current social and cultural characteristics of most of the countries internationally. The extension of the phenomenon of discrimination could be understood only through a brief presentation of the conditions that people belonging in specific groups of the population face in the workplace. On the other hand, current paper focuses specifically on the problems faced in the workplace by people belonging in minority ethnic groups. For this reason, inequality in the workplace will be examined and discussed specifically for the people belonging to these groups; no reference to other group of the population that currently faces inequality in the workplace will be made. More over, because the reference to the legislation that has been developed for the protection of the employment rights of people belonging in minority ethnic groups is necessary, a specific legal framework has been chosen as indicative example of current legislative efforts made towards the protection of the rights of people belonging in minority ethnic groups in the workplace; the legal framework chosen is that of the UK. Part one – presentation of the area of inequality among people belonging in minority ethnic groups – emphasis on the workplace The presence of ethnic minority groups in UK (as in most developed countries internationally) could be characterized as significant. In accordance with a relevant report ‘92.1 per cent of the UK population described themselves as white (though not necessarily British); the remaining 7 per cent (4.6 million) belonged to non-white ethnic minority groups’ (ESRC, 2007, online report). In other words, people that belonging in ethnic minority groups play an important role in the development of British economy – through their work in various industrial activities - their presence in various scientific fields, like the legal profession, is rather limited. The examination of the various aspects of discrimination in the workplace for people belonging in these groups will refer to all industrial and scientific activities, i.e. it will present an overall estimation of current working conditions for people belonging in ethnic minority groups in UK. A factor that could influence the evaluation of the working rights of people of ethnic minority groups (EMG) in the UK could be their living standards; these standards could be used in order to estimate primarily the level of compensation/ rewarding of these people for their work. In this context, it has been found that ‘the poverty rate for Britain’s minority ethnic groups stands at 40%, double the 20% found amongst white British people; minority ethnic groups are also being overlooked for jobs and are being paid lower wages, despite improvements in education and qualifications’ (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007, online report). In accordance with the above report people belonging in EMG in Britain face a severe problem of inequality in payment for their work. The above assumption could be developed indirectly, i.e. through the fact that if those people were appropriately compensated for their work, then their living conditions would be similar with those of the majority of employees in Britain. The fact that there is a high inequality in payment in workplace for people belonging in these groups could not be justified referring to their educational level as in many cases this one is high. But even under these terms, inequality in the workplace regarding the payment (salary, benefits) and other forms of rewarding offered to employees still continues to exist. The specific fact has been proved through the research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2007. In accordance with the relevant report ‘people from minority ethnic groups who have higher educational achievements do not receive the same rewards as those from white British backgrounds with similar qualifications’ (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007, online report). It should be noticed that despite the fact that a high percentage of ethnic minority workers in the UK have a high educational standard, they still suffer from various forms of discrimination in the workplace. This is a phenomenon occurring globally. In any developed country people belonging in the specific cultural/ racial groups tend to face discrimination in the workplace even if they are over-qualified for a particular position or even if they try hard to respond to the needs of the specific organization. Regarding the above, it could be assumed that the current working conditions of people belonging in ethnic minority groups in the UK are extremely adverse; in most cases their efforts are not appropriately recognized; inequality is a common phenomenon in the workplace; this phenomenon is not related only with people belonging in ethnic minority groups; various other forms of inequality are likely to appear in organizations globally (e.g. age or gender inequality, inequality based on physical conditions/ disability and so on). All these cases of discrimination in the workplace are not handled appropriately by legislators and employers; as a result the problem tends to be developed through the years rather than being limited. It could be noticed that inequality in the workplace could be related with the behavioural patterns offered to people from their early ages. In fact, since their early years in schools people are taught to behave differently towards specific groups of population – this phenomenon could be either direct or indirect (emphasis is paid on the fact that people of different racial/ cultural background or people with disabilities cannot be as effective in the workplace or in other areas of social life compared with the people that belonging to specific racial/ cultural categories or those that have no physical disabilities). In the case of UK it is noticed that ‘‘in Britain when we talk of Black and ethnic minorities in schools we think of underachievement, rising exclusions and low aspirations; however, research evidence shows racialized people, particularly the women, have a positive and enduring relationship with education’ (Mirza, 2006, 137). On the other hand, various plans are periodically introduced by governments globally in order to reduce discrimination in the workplace (as possible) by offering to people belonging in specific racial/ cultural background or those with physical ability increased rights regarding their entrance in a specific activity – in most cases the relevant rules refer to positions in a country’s public sector. Referring to the relevant efforts made by the British government, Hussain (2003, 312) notices that ‘in the past 4 years, the Ministry of Defence has embarked on a concerted effort to encourage ethnic minorities living in the United Kingdom to consider a career in the British Armed Forces’. However, the above efforts could not be characterized as adequate – referring indicatively to UK; however the same issue appears in all developed countries worldwide. Still the behaviour of employees and the government itself towards people belonging in ethnic minority groups remains discriminatory. In accordance with a report published by the Home Office in Britain in 2004 ‘a) Black people are six times more likely to be searched by police than white people; b) Stops and Searches under PACE of black people went up by 38 per cent, Asians by 36 per cent, ‘other’ ethnic backgrounds by 47 per cent and white by 17 per cent; c) Numbers of arrests per 1,000 population were more than three times higher for black people than for others’ (Home Office, Press Office, 2004, online article). It is clear that trust towards the people belonging in ethnic minority groups either by the state as well as by individuals has not been established yet. Extensive efforts are required in order for any proposal referring to the elimination of discrimination in the workplace to be successfully implemented in organizations across the British territory – also in developed countries worldwide. Part two - policies and approaches taken to address the inequality In order to understand the effectiveness of the measures adopted by the governments worldwide regarding the elimination (or just the limitation) of the phenomenon of discrimination (especially the racial discrimination) in the workplace, it would be necessary to refer primarily to the general framework/ characteristics of discrimination as it can be observed in countries internationally (including Britain). Various views have been developed in the literature regarding the potential forms of discrimination in the workplace. In accordance with Colella et al. (2005, 2) ‘discrimination in its most general form is the differentiation among persons for the purpose of making decisions about those individuals and can occur on the basis of legitimate factors (e.g., merit or potential to perform a job)’. From another point of view Chao et al. (2007, 678) supported that ‘within an employment framework, implicit social cognitions can be measured to determine the extent to which unconscious prejudices influence organisational behavior; human resource practices designed to minimise unfair employment discrimination may require interventions that operate at conscious and unconscious levels’. In other words, discrimination in the workplace can have many different forms, referring to various aspects of the educational/ racial/ cultural or even the financial background of employee, his/ her gender or his/ her physical abilities and so on. Because of this fact, the identification and the evaluation of the measures adopted for the limitation of discrimination in the workplace is a challenging task. On the other hand, it has been stated that the above task could be completed successfully if a series of criteria is employed: ’(a) the proportion of claimants filing under different antidiscrimination statutes differs by race; (b) the area needs theories that can explain wide variance in perceptions of events; (c) the consequences of discrimination are best viewed from individual, group, and organizational levels; and so on’ (Goldman et al., 2006, 786). The above study refers to the evaluation of the effectiveness of the relevant measures (those adopted for the limitation of discrimination) using the relevant legal provisions. In this context, the reference to the legal framework referring to the protection of employees by a potential discrimination because of their racial background would be necessary. One of the legislative texts that are mostly used for the protection of employees against racial discrimination is the Race Relations Act 1976 (referring to the case of Britain, as an indicative example). On the other hand, discrimination in the workplace can be either direct (which ‘tends to cover straightforward actions where an employee is obviously being treated less favourably because of their sex or race’ (Management and Executive UK, 2008)) or indirect (in this case it is rather difficult to identify the source/ forms of discrimination). An indicative example is the case where ‘tests are set that are above for the requirement for the post’ (Management and Executive UK, 2008). It should be noticed that in their majority cases related with the discrimination in the workplace are settled with no court intervention – however the above solution is given only if these cases are brought before the courts. The specific fact is highlighted by Shalhoub (1999) who supports that ‘corporations classified as "discriminatory" are those in which the employees won the lawsuit against the company, and/or where the company reached an out-of-court settlement with the parties involved’ (Shalhoub, 1999, 97). In other words, employees that suffer discrimination in the workplace are not likely to be compensated by the employer unless they brought their case before the courts. It seems that there is no willingness of employees to appropriately compensate employees that suffer discrimination in various organizational departments. In this context, it is made clear that the intervention of the state in the resolution of the problem is significant – the measures adopted by organizations worldwide regarding the limitation of the phenomenon of discrimination in the workplace could be characterized as inadequate and not appropriately developed. The above assumptions refer to all types of discriminations that they could possibly appear in the workplace. In Britain, an extended legal framework developed by the state ensures (as possible) the limitation of the phenomenon of discrimination in the workplace. One of the legal texts that most support the above effort is the Employment Equality Regulations – firstly introduced in October 2006. Apart from this legislative text, the following laws support the effort for the limitation of discrimination in the workplace: ‘the Equal Pay Act 1970; the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; Race Relations Act 1976; Disability Discrimination Act 1995; the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003; the The Human Rights Act 1998’ (Southampton Centre for Independent living, 2008). Other laws that are applied specifically on the cases of race discrimination are ‘a) Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; b) Race Relations Remedies Act 1994, c) Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and 1999’ (UCL, Equality Legislation, 2007). It should also be noticed that during 2008 additional amendments were made on the existed legal framework regarding the equality in the workplace – referring to the the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 Amendment Regulations 2008 that firstly introduced in April of 2008. Those amendments ‘ensure that : … b) people who bring a claim of discrimination under the regulations will be entitled to the extra time allowed by the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 to lodge a questionnaire’ (BEE, 2008). On the other hand, the relevant legislation developed in the European Union can offer to employees in all member states additional protection regarding their rights in the workplace. The specific issue has been highlighted in a relevant report where it is made clear that ‘these regulations arrived in advance of the December deadline set by the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC) which required the UK to implement national legislation preventing age discrimination’ (CIPD, 2007). Despite the fact than an extensive legal framework has been developed in Britain – as in most countries worldwide – regarding the protection of the rights of employees in the workplace it could be still doubted whether these laws are effective regarding the limitation of discrimination in the workplace. On the other hand, when successfully implemented, these rules could help toward the improvement of productivity in a country’s various industrial sectors. A relevant study that refer to the labour legislation of two European countries, Britain and France, led to the conclusion that ‘protective labor legislation historically brought increasing economic returns and expanded opportunities to women in both countries’ (Fuchs, 2005, 595). In other countries also, the above measures could lead to similar results always in accordance with the local social and cultural characteristics and the power of the government to intervene actively in the development of the inter-organizational relationships and rights. Conclusion It is made clear from the issues presented above that the discrimination in the workplace can have many different forms. Racial discrimination is just one of these forms. The specific issue is also supported by Collela et al. (2005) who refer to the following types of discrimination in the workplace ‘the formal procedures used not only in selection, appraisal, compensation, placement, promotion, training, and working conditions but also in the more informal and subtle forms of discrimination, such as social exclusion’ (Collela et al., 2005, 2). From a different point of view, it is noticed by Kadane et al. (2004, 182) that ‘the common method for measuring discrimination involves a comparison of some aggregate statistic for protected and non-protected individuals’. In other words, there are no standard methods applicable in the case of evaluation of the discrimination existed in a specific workplace/ or the organizations cited in a particular region. On the other hand, it has been proved that employee discrimination can lead to severe problems of health of the employees involved. In accordance with the study of Darity (2003, 226) ‘perceptions of racism and measured exposures to racism may be distinct triggers for adverse health outcomes’. Under the above terms and taking into account the fact that the measures taken from governments around the world have not been effective, the intervention of the international community in the limitation of discrimination in the workplace has been inevitable. In accordance with Tang (2003, 17) ‘the introduction of an International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1965 signalled the worlds commitment to end racial discrimination’. It is made clear that employers – even if they do not proceed to discriminatory practices on purpose, see Boden et al., 2002) should be appropriately enforced to offer equal chances for personal development to all employees including those belonging in ethnic minority groups. References BERR Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform http://www.berr.gov.uk/employment/discrimination/age-discrimination/index.html Boden, L., Gallizi, M. (2002) Income losses of women and men injured at work. The Journal of Human Resources: 722-757 Chao, G., Willaby, H. (2007) International Employment Discrimination and Implicit Social Cognition: New Directions for Theory and Research. Applied Psychology 56 (4), 678–688 Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, CIPD (2006) available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/default.cipd Collela, A., Dipboye, R. (2005) Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Darity, W. (2003) Employment Discrimination, Segregation and Health. American Public Health Association, 93(2): 226-231 ESRC (2007) Ethnic Minorities in the UK, online report, available at http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/UK/index39.aspx?ComponentId=12534&SourcePageId=18133 Fuchs, F. (2005) The Effects of Protective Labor Legislation on Women’s Wages and Welfare: Lessons from Britain and France. Politics and Society, 33(4): 595-636 Goldman, B., Gutek, B. (2006) Employment Discrimination in Organizations: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Management, 32(6): 786-830 Home Office, Press Office (2004) online article http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/Government_And_Police_Must_Engag?version=1 Hussain, A. (2003) Careers in the British Armed Forces. Journal of Black Studies, 33(3): 312-334 Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2007) Poverty twice as likely for minority ethnic groups: education fails to close the gap, online, available at http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/300407.asp Kadane, J., Woodworth, G. (2004). ‘Hierarchical Models for Employment Decisions’ Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 22(2): 182-200 Management and Executive UK (2008) http://www.management-executive.co.uk/advice/work_issues/discrimination.html Mirza, H. (2006) Race, gender and educational desire. Race Ethnicity and Education, 9(2): 137-158 Shalhoub, Z. (1999) Organizational Downsizing, Discrimination and Corporate Social Responsibility. Westport: Quorum Books Southampton Centre for Independent living, (2008) http://southamptoncil.wordpress.com/2006/10/05/anti-discrimination-laws-in-the-workplace/ Tang, K. (2003) Combating Racial Discrimination: The Effectiveness of an International Legal Regime, 33: 17-29 UCL (2007) Equality Legislation, available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/equalities/legislation.php Read More