Equal Employment Opportunities Legislation - Term Paper Example

 EEO Legislation Table of Contents EEO Legislation 1 Table of Contents 1 Chapter 1 - Introduction: Equal Employment Opportunities Legislation 2 Chapter 2 - The EEO Legislation 4 Chapter 3 – Objectives of the Equal Employment Opportunities Legislation 9 Chapter 4 – Impact of the EEO Legislation 10 Chapter 5 - Conclusion 12 References 13 Ebo, B. L. (1998). Cyberghetto or cybertopia?: race, class, and gender on the Internet. Westport: Praeger Publishers. 13 Bibliography 14 Burstein, P. (1994). Equal employment opportunity: labor market discrimination and public policy. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. 14 Chapter 1 - Introduction: Equal Employment Opportunities Legislation The concept of Equal Employment Opportunities Legislation (EEO Legislation) was framed between the mid 1950s and early 1960s in order to ensure indiscriminate employment prospects among the youth of a nation. There had been a large number of instances globally, especially profound in secular nations like the USA, where employees and mostly subordinates were ill-treated by their bosses due to a difference in a variety of inherent factors that basically one has no control upon. These discriminations came in the form of preference given to a certain group of people at the workplace while others, equally efficient lagged behind in terms of job opportunities or wages. But these discriminations resulted to a discontentment among the miserable employees that eventually was reflected in their work. Various researchers found that people who were discriminated against became less productive in their work, despite their being equally efficient. Moreover, this unjustified prejudice also hampered the psychological setup of the people who were subjected to such behavior. This ongoing saga of loss and discrimination was brought under the spotlight by the media of many secular nations that eventually led the domestic government of many such nations to implement rigorous steps in the form of some stringent laws, against such practices (Bohlander & Snell, 2009). The idea was contemplated in the USA by the government formed under President Lyndon B. Johnson that subsequently led the President to sign the Executive Order 11246 that prohibited all the employers to show favoritism in the workplace on account of race, sex, creed, religion, color, nationality or physical state of the employed, permanent or contractual. In other words, the legislation was aimed to guarantee fair and unbiased treatment at the place of work. This order was nothing but the Equal Employment Opportunities Act, which covered a large number of aspects to act as a shield against any sort of workplace malpractices. The legislation comprised of a number of laws, of which three most important in order of their dates, were – 1. The Equal Pay Act (1963) 2. The Civil Right Act (1964) and 3. Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). Though all the laws framed under the order were of equal importance and were aimed at reducing the prejudice that prevailed at the workplace, the three laws mentioned above were of prime importance and were supposed to take care of the widest aspects of employer dominance. Chapter 2 - The EEO Legislation The three basic laws which comprised of the EEO Legislation Act, mentioned above are discussed in brief as under – 1. The Equal Pay Act (1963) The Equal Pay Act often abbreviated as EPA, was passed on June 10, 1963 and was aimed to put an end to discrimination at the workplace in terms of payment of wages on account of the gender of the employee. It was in fact the first federal law that voiced concerns against employee discriminations. The American economy although considered as one of the most advanced nations in the world, often treated their women in a comparatively inferior way from a number of respects. One of the most common and prominent grounds of mistreatment was through offering lower wages to the female employees than their male counterparts. The Status of Women Commission formed during the governance of President John F. Kennedy found that this discrimination owing to the sex of the employees were unprofitable from the following grounds – Employees needed a minimum remuneration to compensate for their labor and efficiency and to maintain their health spent in doing the office jobs. A low pay, especially one on grounds of discriminatory activities, is discouraging for the employees. It leads to a decline in the living standards of the employees and eventually, a fall in their capacity to work due to a lack of appropriate reimbursements. Due to a lack of proper compensation, the female employees who are perhaps equally efficient are often discouraged to do their work, and thus a maximum utilization of labor resources is prevented. Discrimination among the employees with a large group often neglected on account of an external factor like gender, often leads to a lot of labor disputes, thus creating a chaotic environment unfit for official work. Any discrimination leading to a difference in pay leads to a disturbance in the commercial process and thus is a serious constraint to market competition. In order to correct for these misdoings, the Commission recommended the Congress to adapt some stringent legislations and this resulted to the implementation of the Equal Pay Act, that made provisions for the wages of women to be raised rather than that of men to be reduced. However, this law allowed for a difference in pay on the basis of seniority, merit, jobs where earnings are based on the quantity and quality of work accomplished or any other factor other than the sex of the employee (Meiners, Ringleb & Edwards, 2006). 2. The Civil Rights Act (1964) The Civil Rights Act, signed on July 2, 1964, was the first federal law under the Equal Employment Opportunities Order that aimed towards an eradication of discriminatory behavior on any grounds. The law aimed towards the establishment of equality on grounds of sex, caste, creed, color, race and nationality and thus, banishes all the major flaws in the system owing to the discriminatory grounds of the employees. Moreover, it also stated it illegal to strike back against a person who has filed a law suit against discrimination. One of the commonest of practices in the USA even years after the Declaration of Independence, was that of slavery, where people of African origin were brought in shipments from their native lands and sold to the White ‘masters’, who enslaved them and subjected them to all sorts of ill-treatment. This led to a mass movement among the African-American community and finally resulted to a Civil War. The Civil War was followed by the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln in 1863 that proclaimed the freedom of slaves. This declaration was again followed by a number of other laws and resolutions meant to protect the rights of the Black population and thus gift them with a renaissance. But some minor flaws still remained in the system, which although allowed for the provision of equal rights to the people with African origin, could not mend the ways that the American people thought about them in general since people had never been able to accept the privileges that were bestowed upon the former. These views were reflected in the behavior of the employers (mostly Whites) towards their African-American subordinates so that the black-skinned people were never able to enjoy their civil rights in the true sense. The same was experienced by the people belonging to other ethnic groups like the Chinese, who were often denied the privileges that the Americans used to enjoy (Wright, 2005). Finally, all injustice on grounds of discrimination at formal as well as public places came to an end when the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964. The Title 7 of the Act was aimed towards the abolishment of any discrimination of the employees at workplaces. This move against racial discrimination and that on account of the color of the employee was mainly stirred by Martin Luther King Jr. 3. The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) The third most important law passed under the Equal Employment Opportunities Order, that is often considered to be the most important anti-discriminating law after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was the ADA Legislation which aimed towards banishing discrimination among employees on account of some physical or mental shortcomings. The mandate establishes that any discrimination against people having physical or mental impairment cannot be deprived from accessing employment, transportation, public accommodations and telecommunication services that others without any such problems can enjoy. This law stressed on the rights of the disabled people employed in the private sector as well. Before the law was enacted and implemented, these under-privileged people could not enjoy the rights that other healthy Americans could and hence, it was often pointed out by the radicals that America had never understood the true essence of the word ‘freedom’, leading to a countrywide revolt. The Act passed by President Bush I on July 26, 1990 was thus aimed not only towards the assurance of fundamental rights to the physically and mentally disabled citizens of the nation, but to pacify the revolutionists as well (Ebo, 1998). Chapter 3 – Objectives of the Equal Employment Opportunities Legislation The Equal Employment Opportunities Legislation was aimed towards ensuring the entire American citizenship the enjoyment of their basic fundamental rights, inherent with the fact of their being a part of the American economy and irrespective of the basic differences that human beings have. The basic objectives of the Legislation could be summarized as follows – Ensuring the recruitment and treatment of employees are totally non-discriminatory in nature on grounds of sex, caste, creed, color, race and physical or mental impairments or shortcomings and only on the basis of merit and quality of the employees. Train the employees and keep open avenues for the development of their skills without distinguishing among them on the aforementioned grounds. Every employee must enjoy equal rights and should be able to access the grievance cells whenever necessary. The decisions of the management should be made in an unprejudiced manner and meant for all employees irrespective of their backgrounds. In a nutshell, the legislation was aimed to ensure that the people were provided with the right to enjoy each and every aspect of freedom and facilities at workplace that they deserved, being a part of the American economy. The government or the public sector units had already stressed upon this fact with the move initiated by President Lincoln in 1863 with the signing of the Emancipation Treaty allowing the freedom of the African slaves, soon after the Civil War in 1861. However, in order to assure that the private sector units also did the same, the term Equal Employment Opportunities was conceived during the governance of President Lyndon. The legislation emphasized upon the eradication of any kind of discrimination between the employees at workplace, be it contractual or permanent in nature. But concerns often arose among the activists about the implementation of the laws in the true sense. Like many other moves meant for the uplift of the human civilization, this move too, was often criticized initially, as a totally unmonitored one and one with loopholes to allow for any malpractices. However, with the passage of time and changes in the mindsets of the people with increased globalization worldwide, there have often been reports that say about the increasing success rates of the laws which comprise the EEO Order. Chapter 4 – Impact of the EEO Legislation The EEO Legislation was initially found to be a failure among the people with people finding it difficult to work with their ‘unequal’ colleagues at a single notice. However, with liberalization, the employers grew more and more competitive in nature and began to concentrate more on profitability and expansion of their businesses rather than being discriminate and acting on grounds of ethnicity and social superstitions. The employers needed more and more efficient people to do their work and were ready to experiment on those grounds. They needed productive people who could do their work efficiently and were even ready to pay for it as well as provide reimbursements in the form of other amenities. Thus the move to globalization proved to be the beginning of a new dawn not only for the economy but for its people as well, who had been underprivileged so far. Soon as the employers started to hire people based on their quality and merit rather than being prejudiced towards their backgrounds, the former realized their previous mistakes and gradually started banishing them one by one. This slow but steady change in the behavior of the employers resulted to a fall in the number of lawsuits that were filed against discriminations by the ill-treated people. It seemed that people were gradually shifting their base from being despotic to those of being moderators. For instance, it was found that the number of complaints filed by Federal employees was gradually decreasing from being 18,000 in 2005, 16,723 in 2006 to 16,363 in 2007. Though the fall was slight but it was enough to justify the fact that the extent of discrimination among the employees in the workplace was falling. The growing concern of the employers towards their staff was also noticeable from an increase in the amount that they had shed as compensation against lawsuits filed against them. The amount of damages being paid by the employers was $ 36.4 million in aggregate, about $ 2 million dollars more than the previous year. However, one drawback in this regard is the lack in the monitoring efforts of the EEO Commission, which makes many enlisted agencies or companies to surpass the commission’s orders and hence take advantage of the loopholes in the system. For instance, out of the 167 agencies that are enlisted with the EEOC, only 68% issued annual EEO policies for the benefit of their employees and almost 39% of the employment opportunity directors of all those companies who issue such policies, report directly to the agency heads instead of signing the MD-715 reports with the EEOC. Moreover, discrimination against women was also found to persist in some cases. For instance, the employment of women belonging to certain ethnic groups, in top federal jobs was also found to be lower in proportion to those employed in civilian jobs. Discrimination against women is also prominent in some agencies, as far as the pay scale is concerned. Chapter 5 - Conclusion The move against discrimination between employees on grounds of age, race, sex, caste, creed and physical and mental disabilities was the sole objective of the Equal Employment Opportunities Legislation, conceptualized in the 1960s at the time of the governance of President Lyndon. However, the move was found to be quite unpopular among the employers initially and was not followed properly by them. But the move of globalization resulted to a total shift in the mindset of the employers and gradually they started employing people on the basis of their merits rather than being prejudiced from other grounds. The results of this change were reflected in an increase in employee efficiency and a gradual shift of the economy to a path of success and development. Yet, one point of concern is the lack of monitoring activities on part of the EEO Commission which is why the people had been deprived since a long time. In fact, it was only because of the liberalization move that the underprivileged people got back their freedom. References Bohlander, G. & Snell, S. (2009). Managing Human Resources. USA: Cengage Learning. Ebo, B. L. (1998). Cyberghetto or cybertopia?: race, class, and gender on the Internet. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Meiners, R. E., Ringleb, A. H. & Edwards, F. L. (2006). The Legal Environment of Business (9th Edition). USA: Thomson. Wollondilly Shire Council. (2008). Equal Employment Opportunities (DHHS Publication No. GOV0039). New South Wales: Wollondilly Shire Council. Wright, S. (2005). The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Landmark Antidiscriminatory Legislation. New York: Rosen Publishing Group. Bibliography Burstein, P. (1994). Equal employment opportunity: labor market discrimination and public policy. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. Read More