Legislation for Inequality and Discrimination in Employment - Term Paper Example

Legislation can remove the more blatant abuses, but by itself can make no real impact on inequality and discrimination in employment Employment discrimination practices have been on the rise. In fact, it is a common practice in the private sector because it is individually driven organization, and the people or the employees tend to discriminate other people from working in the organization because, as a family oriented, they do not trust other people or it is because they have no appetite in equality.1 People discriminate other people because they lack intellectual wisdom, and often, as employers, they treat employees poorly because they are prejudice and stereotyping.2 Consequently, if they do not have heirs to work for them, they prefer hiring “birds of the same feather so that they can flock together.” Their organizations become an aristocracy organization, whose managerial practices are based on family relation or aristocracy heredity.3 In family oriented or aristocracy environment, children inherit jobs from their parents, uncles or aunts, relatives, etc., regardless of their personal traits, age, and degree of maturity, professional experience, technical capacity and intellectual ability.4 They can, as most people say, “learning by doing.” Family oriented environment overlooks knowledge and professionalism, technical capacity and intellectual ability. As they learn by doing, without foundations, they tend to perform, particularly in hiring of new employees or incumbents tend to be based on feelings or intuition. They based their hiring and promotion decision based on likeness. With the current practice of firms and organizations in the so-called “free market” era, cross sector collaboration has now become a norm. Government is collaborating with privative and nonprofit organizations but in the process, it is adopting the practices of the private and nonprofit sectors. Businesses are entering the government and they bring into the government their distrust of other people5 and discriminative attitude. They consider their work at the government as their private investment6 and as an employer, they discriminate people unless they know them. The practice of the aristocracy heredity is becoming a norm in public organizations as well. Consequently, public sector of England issued and amendment to Race Relation Act 1976 to cover public administration as an institution that can be taken to court by a victim due to discrimination. Public officials are discriminating their employees or future employees based on age, race, physical, education, sex, or other attributes because they too are using feelings rather than professionalism. Gavin Anthony said, as he quoted the Bible, there is nothing wrong with feelings but feelings are deceitful and desperately wicked.7 Section 19B (1) of Race Relation Act 1976 stated, “It is unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any function of the authority to do any act which constitutes discrimination.”8 Thomson Solicitors, a United Kingdom law firm, which is specialising in workplace injury, described that “people are discriminated against all walks of life because of the race to which they belong and this discrimination continues despite the fact that it is unlawful.”9 For example, Vento vs. Chief Constable. Part 2 of Discrimination in Employment and Vocational Training, under Applicants and employees, Section 710 said: (1) “It is unlawful for an employer, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against a person— (2) It is unlawful for an employer, in relation to a person whom he employs at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against that person— (d) by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment. (3) It is unlawful for an employer, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to subject to harassment a person whom he employs or who has applied to him for employment. Ms. Vento was a 31-year old woman and a mother of three children. She had joined the police force since she was 28 years old as a probationary officer. She took training to become a police officer. Although her husband supported her in her chosen career, she separated from her husband a year later, after she experienced discrimination treatment, and was legally divorced from her husband three years later. Her works were generally good and a year and a half after her separation, a series of incidents began to mount. Fellow officers criticized her conduct, blamed her personal life as the cause of her poor performance, and undermining her in unwarranted even in aggressive and demoralizing manners – worse than the treatment they gave to male officers who did not perform as well as she did.11 She coped well in the beginning but later was diagnosed with clinically depressed. She was given medication and was off the work for three months. Although she was still under medication, she returned to work only to realize that her fellow officers kept treating her in the same manner and was experience suicidal impulses. The treatment of discriminative was indeed started when the force implement the height requirement for police force. The discriminatory treatment in the force has been the main contributor to her depression. Two years before her divorced was finalized, she was dismissed from the force “on the ground of alleged lack of honesty and lack of performance.”12 The human rights tribunal dismissed her first claim on the ground of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination but later, after her appeal at Leeds, the tribunal determined that “the chief constable was vicariously liable for acts of sex discrimination leading to the termination of her services as a probationary constable.”13 However, at the end of the deliberation, the tribunal decided that she deserve compensation for an “injury to feelings.”14 The tribunal statement was, “It is unfair to say that the applicant has been put through four traumatic years by the conduct of the chief constable’s officers” 15and considered it as an aggravated damages and the compensation was for personal injuries.16 Such interpretation may be deemed to the poor technical capacity and intellectual ability of the officials at the human rights tribunal. As a result, they tend to humanize the case rather than solving discrimination issues.17 In addition, such interpretation would likely reduce the penalty because it tends to socialize or civilize the issue rather than enforcing the laws18 and hence, it may reduce the blatant abuse but it has no impact in changing the organizational practice of discrimination. Everyone may have experienced discrimination of some sort in their working life19 but it has not been so radical and visible as it is now as even the government is practicing it. There is no doubt that this experience is unpleasant rather hurtful. In the workplace, some people can show their discriminative attitude outright out of ignorant toward others because they are living in cubicles. They are so focused with things inside their cubicles that they cannot see outside the cubicles. A preacher once said, “If we are too focused, we are blinded by the sufferings of the people in our surroundings, we cannot see beyond our cubicles.” Public employers are practicing discrimination because they are living inside the cubicles. According to Thomson Solicitors, they express race discrimination in four ways: (1) Direct discrimination; (2) Race discrimination by way of harassment; (3) Indirect discrimination; and (4) Victimisation. These are occurring in different circumstances, such as in arrangements to determine prospect candidate, in terms of the type of employment offered, in refusing or deliberating omitting to offer the candidate employment, jobs promotions or training and other benefits, and in terms of dismissing the employee for unreasonable reason. BERR, Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform stated, “Unfair discrimination in employment is wrong.  It is bad for the individuals who are denied jobs and access to vocational training, who suffer victimisation or harassment, because of prejudice. It is bad for the businesses which are denying themselves access to the widest pool of talent and not sharing in the benefits - such as increased motivation, lower turnover of staff and access to wider markets - which a diverse workforce and effective equality policies can bring.”20 If it is bad for the business, it is also bad for public administration. The concept of racism has been used as a rhetoritical power to mobilize international action for political change. Multiculturalism of the people encourages the government to induce antidiscrimination laws to protect people from particular classes who do not have access to legal protection. The laws have been crafted but the impact of their application seemed to be ineffective. The anti discrimination laws are still ineffective because many, who are working in the field, particularly in public sector, are using hunch21 rather than professionalism. They emphasize on their feelings and emotions, humanize the issue, and have impaired and perverted the purpose of antidiscrimination laws. Competition has been the market political strategy, which is claimed as the tool to efficiency. However, competition has nothing to do with efficiency. Rather it generates radical evil22 and as long as competition exists, discrimination will always exist. In the free market, the government is being led to compete with private enterprises, and it too, generates the seed of evil and therefore, there are many evils in the government.23 The United Kingdom even introduced Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. These two laws represent an important step forward to tackle unfair discrimination in the UK – both in private and public organizations. Some steps have also been taken to make the antidiscrimination law effective by using diversity trainers but the trainers, on the contrary, tend to confront the participants and lead them to bring into the discussion plate the different types of discriminations in the workplace instead of solving the problem of employment discrimination.24 It could be that trainers are not properly trained or lack of qualifications in this issue. Consequently, most of the cases of discrimination in the workplace are left into the hand of human rights tribunal to solve a case of employment discrimination experienced by an employee. With lack of technical capacity and intellectual ability, the application of the discrimination or Race Relation Act is ineffective. Discrimination comes in different form. For example, direct discrimination, segregation, harassment, indirect discrimination, justification, and victimization. Direct discrimination occurs when a person discriminates other person by treating him or her less favorable and it is unlawful... treating other people unfairly, including sexual harassment.25 Segregation is when employers are segregating employees for access to training, promotion, same pay, etc. Harassment, on the other hand, has been outlawed by the Race Relations Act 1976. This Act has not been quite effective until July 19, 2003 when the government or the court decided to include race, ethnic or national origins.26 In this case, the harasser is proven to have violated the victims dignity and created an intimidation, hostility, degradation, humiliation, and offensive environment for the victim.27 Indirect discrimination, on the other hand, is if an employee applies a policy that does not necessarily indicate race but it causes disadvantages to ethnic minorities. Justification is another type of indirect discrimination of which the employer cannot prove either in writing or orally but his or her action is justifiable indicates racial discrimination. Finally, victimisation. According to the Race Relations Act, victimisation indicates that the employee has suffered from employers action of discrimination and therefore, he or she is protected by the Act. According to Sunstein employers who apply employment discrimination would likely generate a seed of self-destruction. It is a free market practice that will add cost to the company and eventually destroy it. She blamed discrimination exists because of competition. In fact, she argued, discrimination and egoistic are the characteristics of free market. And for years, blacks and women have been discriminated under this market scheme. Said Sunstein, “Employers discriminate because they do not like to associate with blacks, women and others and the persistent case of this segregation can be seen.”28 They treat them poorly because they are, as mentioned, prejudice and stereotyping.29 She also argued, free market puts pressure on firms to practice employment discrimination and it ensures that firms that do not practice discrimination would be punished rather than rewarded. It is, she said, a scheme of profit maximization of the free market enterprise. She added, in a very competitive environment, discrimination would linger on, persistent, rampant and pervasive. Firms that do not practice discrimination would perform poorly because of competition, she argued. In fact, firms are being pressured to practice discrimination and competition is intensified to enhance this practice; therefore, the market is the problem of employment discrimination – it perverts the laws. Laws alone do not support the effort to ameliorate the problem of employment discrimination or remove the blatant abuse but proper and positive training would likely reduce this symptom. Diversity training has proven ineffective because the trainers tend to dwell on differences rather than solving the problem of discrimination. Said Banton, in his abstract, the policies to reduce discrimination are generally based on diagnoses. They are implicit or explicit but the causes of the behaviour need to be modified. It is important that both sociologists and human rights lawyers to improve their communication.30 However, to make these laws effective, it is not only the lawyers and sociologists need to improve their communication but the people in the workplace should be educated to respect people and value people based on merit and professionalism rather than feelings. Employment discrimination laws aren’t seemed to be effective because officials have poor capacity and aren’t properly trained in laws. Another reason why employment discrimination law is ineffective is globalization31 and further competition.32 Downsizing, competition, and changing employment conditions increase the possibility that employees would use of personality judgment, feelings, emotions, political influences, religious values, even sexuality to influence managers decision. This makes the managers or other individuals to use preferences or they become high in feelings, emotions, and low in professionalism.33 Factor that drives employment discrimination is not only competition but also employers preferences, self-interests, self-conflicts,34 and lack of professionalism, wisdom and intellectuality. The Race Relation Act 1976 prohibits employers from discriminating employees or potential employees on the ground of race or racial discrimination, sex, education, religion, and other attributes. In Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (No. 2) (2003), the Court of Appeal decided the case was an aggravated damage or injury to feelings.”35 Injury that is considered health related, which are feelings, should be evaluated differently. 36 What should have been done to reduce employment discrimination? According Sunstein, under free market scheme, the only way to eliminate employment discrimination is intense application of laws and regulations. This is quite a challenge because lack of capacity. Besides laws is education. In fact, education has very important values in implanting the spirit of nondiscriminatory among the society not only in the workplace. Proper education is a great value to inform people about respecting other people despite their race, sex, education, religion, and other attributes. Education plays important role in shaping individuals’ behavior. It teaches them on how they should treat their employees or future employees. If you want it to change, you need a person who is expert in his own field. It is impossible to have a matter of law into the hand of a social worker. Many firms have been applying nondiscriminatory policy but they are not effective because lack of proper education. Proper education would reduce the possibility of personality in the workplace - one that emphasizes on the changing of behavior, teaches respect and equality because laws and regulations alone will make the effort of combating discrimination to be less effective. If competition causes evil and discrimination, policies and laws should be created to eliminate competition, and therefore, the antidiscrimination law would then be effecting. References Angelica, M. P. (2004). Managing at the Boundaries. Course Pack. Walden University. Anthony, G. (2007). The Refiners Fire. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 40-48. Banton, M. (1992). The nature and causes of racism and racial discrimination. International Sociology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 69-84. BERR. Discrimination in Employment – Introduction. Retrieved December 6, 2008 from http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/discrimination/index.html. Grenberg, J. (2005). The Kantian the Theory of Humility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1-75. Hemphill, H. & Haines, R. (1997). Discrimination, Harassment, and the Failure of Diversity Training: What to Do Now. Abingdon, OX – UK: Greenwood Publishing Company, 13-30. Human Rights. Retrieved December 9, 2008 from http://www.alastairhudson.com/wordsandconcepts/Human%20rights.doc. Lewis, E. Admiral Rickover: Technological Entrepreneurship. In Doig, J. W. & Hargrove, E. C. (1987). Leadership and Innovation: A Biographical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Office of Public Service Information. Race Relation Act 1976. Retrieved December 8, 2008 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000034_en_1. Smith, A. (1993). The Wealth of a Nation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Sunstein, C. R. (1997). Free Markets and Social Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 151-166. Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1031- The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. Retrieved December 9, 2008 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061031.htm#4 The Employment Law Solicitor. Race Discrimination Claims. Retrieved December 7, 2008 from http://www.theemploymentlawsolicitors.co.uk/racediscriminationclaims.php Thomson Solicitors. Race Discrimination. Retrieved December 6, 2008 from http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0850001.htm. Ward, Mummery and Jonathan Parker LJJ. Vento v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. Retrieved December 9, 2008 from http://www. oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/new/casebook/cases/.../ Footnotes: 1. Smith, S. (1993). The Wealth of a Nations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2. Sunstein, C. R. (1997). Free Markets and Social Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 3. Palmer, R. R. (1959). The Age of Democratic Revolution: The Challenge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 4. Ibid. 5. Lewis, E. Admiral Rickover: Technological Entrepreneurship. In Doig, J. W. & Hargrove, E. C. (1987). Leadership and Innovation: A Biographical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. 6. Ibid. 7. Anthony, Gavin (2007). The Refiners Fire. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association 8. Office of Public Service Information. Race Relation Act 1976. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000034_en_1 9. Thomson Solicitor. http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0850001.htm 10. Ibid. 11. Ward, Mummery & Parker LJJ, http://www. oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/new/casebook/cases/.../ 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1031- The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061031.htm#4. 18. Human Rights. http://www.alastairhudson.com/wordsandconcepts/Human%20rights.doc. 19. Thomson Solicitor. http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0850001.htm 20. BERR, http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/discrimination/index.html. 21. Lewis, E. Admiral Rickover: Technological Entrepreneurship. In Doig, J. W. & Hargrove, E. C. (1987). Leadership and Innovation: A Biographical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. 22. Grenberg, J. (2005). The Kantian the Theory of Humility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 23. Johnson, C. E. (2001). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 24. Hemphill, H. & Haines, R. (1997). Discrimination, Harassment, and the Failure of Diversity Training: What to Do Now. Abingdon, OX – UK: Greenwood Publishing Company. 25. Thomson Solicitor. http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0850001.htm. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. 28. Sunstein, C. R. (1997). Free Markets and Social Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 29. Ibid. 30. Banton, M. (1992). The nature and causes of racism and racial discrimination. International Sociology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 69-84. 31. Duane Morris, LLP. http://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/alert2360.html. 32. Sunstein, C. R. (1997). Free Markets and Social Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 33. Angelica, M. P. (2004). Managing at the Boundaries. Course Pack. Walden University. 34. Sunstein, C. R. (1997). Free Markets and Social Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 35. Employment Law Solicitor. http://www.theemploymentlawsolicitors.co.uk/racediscriminationclaims.php. 36. Ibid. Read More