Pros and Cons of Religious Discrimination in the Workplace - Report Example

Pros and Cons of Religious Discrimination in the Workplace Discrimination in any form is illegal. That includes discrimination against religion. An employee must be allowed to practice his or her religion within reason otherwise it would become a ground for discrimination. To paraphrase Pledger “the law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to "sincerely held" religious beliefs of employees as long as doing so poses no undue hardship on the employer, EEOC says. When that doesnt happen, EEOC said it steps in but only after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement with the employer”. Despite the unlawfulness of religious discrimination, it still however exists even in the United States. The number of complaints againt religious discrimination is even on the rise. The agency tasked to oversee labor practices in the United States, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that religious discrimination in the workplace settings have more than doubled “from a little over a decade ago, resulting in roughly $10 million in settlements. Last year, nearly 3,800 were filed” (Pledger). Despite the startling figure on how much it costs for companies to continue their discriminatory practices against religion, its end cannot yet be seen in the near future. Much of this discrimination cases against religion were against the Muslims (Greenhouse). The disadvantage of religious discrimination is not only in the cost associated with settlements when a case is filed against the company. The biggest cost that is incurred against the company in this discriminatory story is the one that cannot be easily counted which is lost productivity due to the dampened morale of employee or employees because of discriminatory practice. The court settlement and its associated costs during the litigation can easily be monitored by its receipts but opportunities lost had the worker or workers been motivated to work are not easily quantifiable (Kaminer 455). Religious discrimination is pernicious and is highly resented especially in America where practice that infringes on individual’s freedom is highly frowned upon. This could be very disadvantageous to the company in terms of image and brand because the general public will be appalled with a company’s labor practice whether the discrimination against religion is real or not. This will translate to the markets negative perception of its stock, thus, it will follow that its stock price will decline due to the negative perception of the market. When that happens, returns to the shareholders will also decline. Thus, the evil cycle will begin with shareholders leaving the company aggravating the already negative perception on the company. In the end, the company may even go bankrupt just because of the market’s negative perception of the company with its labor practice. The general patronizing public will also tend to view the product of a company which practices religious discrimination negatively. When nobody is buying or availing a company’s product or services, it will naturally follow that the company will eventually fold. This only stresses the importance of a company to veer away from any form of discrimination be it religious or any form of discrimination such as race because it will affect their ethical practice which is critical in to Corporate Responsible Management (CRM) (Ellet 89) that will have a direct impact on the market perception on the company (Fischer et al 830). Corporate Responsible Management is important because it could determine how the general patronizing public and its shareholders will receive the company which is crucial in its viability as a company. Another obvious disadvantage of practicing religious discrimination is complication with the authorities. The government is very sensitive and particular against the practice of discrimination. Even if the company will not file a case, the government will file the case against the company if it believes that a company is guilty of practicing religious discrimination (Turnbull). There are few repercussions to this, if the government has proven that a company is practicing discrimination against religion to its employees, it could fine the company severely costing the company thousands if not millions of dollars just because of this undesirable human resource practice. Worst, the government may even order the company to be locked down if the discrimination against religion is severe. In the article of Pledger at Huffington Post, Cynthia Stankiewicz, enforcement manager for the EEOC Cleveland field office stated that "in most cases, employers dont have a good valid job-related reason for religious discrimination" which meant that once a religious discrimination case is lodged against a company, it is likely to lose and it can brace itself for the added expense of settlement or fine not to mention the negative perception against the company. The repercussions of religious discrimination against the companies that are guilty of it are serious and most of the time, it is really not worth it to break the law in terms of weighing the cost against the possible benefit that can be derived from discriminating against religion. The most common complaints against religious discrimination according to EEOC is just not allowing a time off for its employees to observe the practice of its religion which can readily be addressed by taking time to listen and consider the desirable schedule to employees. This is also consistent with good management practice to listen to employees and determine their needs which in this case is religion. Taking extra time to be considerate to its employees in terms of their religious practice can already save the company money from possible litigation and settlement costs had it been insensitive to its employees. In addition, in terms of motivation and performance, this will have a tremendous impact on employees’ motivation and loyalty when they felt that the company is being sensitive to address their need to observe their religion. This will translate to increased productivity and harmonious labor and management relations which is beneficial to both parties. In this case, the company must not be tempted to break the anti-discrimination law and practice discriminatory practices just because of labor expedience. “The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to "sincerely held" religious beliefs of employees as long as doing so poses no undue hardship on the employer . . . When that doesnt happen, EEOC steps in” (Pledger) and the temporary benefit derived from disregarding the discrimination laws out of labor expedience will far outweighed by its costs. For example, companies may be tempted to compel employees to work or render overtime on their day of religious observance to meet the demands of peak season. This is just a temporary advantage or benefit to the company but its consequence will be serious. The company may be able to force the employee or employees to work despite their protest or complaints. But when the employee or employees will file a religious discriminatory case, the company can now brace for a headache, legal complications, litigation and settlement costs. As mentioned earlier, records in the EEOC showed that employees who filed for religious discrimination has a greater chance of winning the case than losing it. In this case, the profit derived from meeting the demand during the peak season can be readily defrayed by the disadvantages of being sued for religious discrimination practice. The problem will also have a ripple effect and unintended consequence. Morale among the employees will suffer and this will translate to low productivity and higher operating cost. Company image suffers as it is now touted to be a religious intolerant company and this could ultimately redound to negative perception of the market. All these problems started just because the company was tempted to discriminate against religion out of the expedience of profit. Whatever the circumstances, the company must not resort to religious discrimination out of expedience of anything. The disadvantage and negative consequence far outweighs its benefits. Works Cited Ellet, Bill (2009). Who Knew? Ethics Matter. T+D, 57(11):88-89. Fischer, March; Völckner, Franziska; Sattler, Henrik (2010). How Important Are Brands? A Cross-Category, Cross-Country Study, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 47(5):823-839. Greenhouse, Steven. Muslims Report Rising Discrimination at Work. Septemeber 23, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/business/24muslim.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all. Accessed April 20, 2012. Kaminer, Debbie N.. RELIGIOUS CONDUCT AND THE IMMUTABILITY REQUIREMENT: TITLE VIIS FAILURE TO PROTECT RELIGIOUSEMPLOYEES IN THE WORKPLACE. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 17.3(2010):453-485. Pledger, Marcia. Workplace Religious Discrimination Complaints Double Over 10 Years. April 19, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/workplace-religious-discrimination_n_1112313.html [accessed April 20, 2012. Turnbull, Lornet. Religious tension in workplace on the rise. February 15, 2007. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003566830_religiousuit11m0.html [accessed April 20, 2012]. Read More