Workplace Equality Legislation in the European Union - Essay Example

Pros and Cons of Workplace Equality Legislation Installed By European Union Ever since 1957, when gender based inequality was pledged to be abolished from workplaces in the European Union through the Treaty of Rome, Europeans have seen many changes occur in the field of workplace equality policies. Has there been significant improvement in the condition of the underrepresented classes in European workplaces after this move by the EU? Recently, the European Union again reemphasized upon this aspect of equality in the workplace and modified the workplace equality legislation to give everyone a fair chance in performing at their jobs. While the reasons of this move are pretty obvious, exact tenets of the approach used by the European Union are hard to emulate in other countries due to the complexity of clauses presented in the legislation. What are the reasons that led to this move? What are the changes that the EU introduced? What are the limitations of these changes? What is the possible global impact of the EU policies? In order to understand this, we must delve into the details of the changes brought in by the European Union recently. For a country to grow and experience financial and economical prosperity, it is very important that each and every individual in the community has a role to play in contributing towards the infrastructure of the country. For this to happen, any individual located in any part if the European Union should ideally have all the chances to take up a job he desires and serve the country using his specific skillsets. It was this ideology that prompted the government to set up such legislation initially. In due course of time, several amendments came up to reduce gender bias and racist discriminations in the workplace. Amongst prominent incidents that led to further upheaval of the policies in this legislation, we find the following to be of utmost importance and to have led to anti-discrimination laws to be more completely defined in recent times. Surprisingly a lot of schools in different parts of the European Union had students of Romanian backgrounds, most of whom were victims of discrimination whether at school or in society. Children abused at workplaces were also found in these rehabilitation schools. This observation and the plight of descendants of Gypsies, brought out the need to abolish discrimination at elementary levels, by introducing laws that governed much more than just racial discrimination at workplace. The beginning of enforcing such a law however, was best done when workplace discrimination was addressed. Not many noticed during the establishment of anti-discrimination laws based on gender that women who belonged to discriminated races were victims of multiple discrimination. Such intersections of discriminatory behavior are detrimental to the society and therefore warrant the need to add multiple discriminatory redressals in unique case laws applicable at different workplaces. Although people have been provided with equal opportunities of employment in the European Union through the application of anti-discrimination laws on the 90s, it has been observed that while at the job, people face racial discrimination at points of supply of goods and services and are denied the basic rights to equal eligibility for procuring such supply. While enforcement protocols have been clearly defined, it has been observed that most of the cases wherein discrimination has been reported occurred due to the lack of timely action by enforcement officials which also include team managers and security officers. Case laws established prior to 2000, were mostly based on reports that handled unidirectional anti-discrimination cases (Rubery, 2002, p.521). The creation of laws that would be applicable for multiple discriminatory reports and cases became important as multiple discrimination reports were observed. While the fight with gender bias continues legally from as early as 1957, other aspects of discrimination and inequality made it compulsory for the European Union to recognize and address new cases and case laws that would govern the redressals (Stratigaki, 2002, p.42). It comes as no surprise that just like in the early nineteenth century when women were underrepresented in the labor market women are pretty underrepresented in the reports of discrimination as authorities fear excessive legal action (Blackett & Sheppard, 2003, p.423). Another aspect of inequality seen in workplaces is based on racial discrimination which although is pretty absent now, but still has instilled an invisible line from the school lives of Romanian and German students. Europe has tried to take the bull by its horns by providing a parallel approach to gender mainstreaming for women. On one hand, the government has used positive actions that support women and help them both outside and inside the workplace. These actions include allowing more women in power and leadership roles, special concessions in child care and affirmative actions and immediate punishment for violence against women. On the other hand, the European Commission uses mainstreaming principle in every EU policy to ensure women come up in society. The Article 119 requires employers to pay men and women equal fees and positive actions refer to actions taken by legal experts to support women and their situation at the workplace which is disadvantageous right from beginning due to a predominant patriarchal society (Rees, 1998, p.29). Many countries like Germany and Italy have provided excellent rehabilitation for students who have faced discrimination, while Italy has abolished discrimination at workplace completely (Bettio, 2002, p.69). This was observed in 2000, and through a suitable article, the European Union introduced abolition of inequality practices for members of all genders, races and classes. However, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Multiple and intersectional discrimination: By 2006, the European Union noticed the growing number of cases of multiple discrimination wherein occurrence of more than one discriminatory element worsened the level of inequality at the workplace. Mostly seen amongst women who complained of unequal treatment at work, women belonging to races considered inferior by color or class, were further subjected to unequal treatment. While America noticed a growth in awareness amongst African-Americans, the European Union noticed similar fractions in Romanian populations who needed rehabilitation more than any other section of the society. It also needed to concentrate on multiple gender and location based biases operating on individuals, and therefore, introduced multiple articles that talk of intersectional discrimination. Redress mechanisms in discrimination cases were found to differ from case to case and from county to county for the simple reason that parts of legal amendments made in the laws were not known by practice to legal experts addressing and representing these cases on inequality (Walby, 2004, p.15). Therefore, there was a growing frustration amongst people since adequate redresses was not being achieved in these cases and could cause more frustration in the repressed society. Court law that provides sanctions in discrimination cases differed from state to state. It was very important for the European Union to introduce a homogenous set of laws for the European Member States (27), the Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Turkey, Norway and Leichtenstein (Falkner, 2005, p.67). This way populations which were previously dependent on special laws and anti-discriminatory regulations to enjoy equality in society, were covered under a homogenous legal set-up which allowed them to raise their voices against discrimination and bias at the workplace. Although one might hate to say this, the European Union has been correctional in its mode of redress to workplace inequality. The corrections never seem to hit jackpot as newer challenges come up everyday showing the incompetency of old rules. The regulations set up initially were half effective and based on inadequate research. While mere setting up of these rules did not help initially, extensive reviews, amendments and updates have brought more power to the rules and given the common people reason to trust the regulations today (Dickens, 1999, p.16). The growth in this direction has been slow, which is not something that the European Union can afford to have since after the Recession it needs fast economic growth and active empowerment of all sections of the European society. Analytical approach is good only as long as the numbers come in at top speed. Much of the research and analysis undertaken around workplace inequality stems from efforts of students, journalists and government officials, which fulfill only part of the requirement. Public awareness and reporting of the cases on inequality and furthermore addressing of inequality issues first hand by responsible conduct is the other half which needs to be brought into the picture. Analysis is therefore, incomplete as occasions where individual efforts have helped fight the social malady whether in schools or workplaces have not been recorded. The European Union’s approach has been very slow and therefore, the frustration seen in common people has been growing since countries like the United States has been able to bring justice to many complaining races in its states, while European Union was still collecting evidence and statistics. Such slow growth is detrimental to a society (Cichowski, 2001, p.114). Multi-dimensional approach to handling workplace inequality has come into the European picture only recently. Discrimination observed at the intersection of the races and gender elements is a fact that has been existent since a very long time. However, setting up laws to address and cover such cases has happened only recently, which again is an aftereffect of slow research in this field. Laws being set up today are sometimes devoid of statistical back up, wherein test runs and records are missing to show that the legal set-up will ultimately help the common man fight discrimination against himself (Zippel, 2006, p.14). Lack of statistical evidence of success of these laws may lead to more updations and corrections in future, which not only slackens overall growth but is a great loss of procedural energy. The European Union stands as an example for many countries that are developing and want stability within its states. With the introduction of the workplace inequality legislation, the Union has pioneered the cause of addressing a very important aspect of discrimination in society, namely inequality in the workplace, the modus operandi of setting up the legislation has been exhaustive and large and therefore, for other nations to copy the model and set up similar rules in their lands is a difficult proposition (Pollack & Hafner-Burton, 2000, p.432). Given the slow speed, the lack of multi-dimensional approach and deep research, countries will need to develop their own algorithm to avoid the mistakes that the European Union made in setting up and fine tuning the legislation There are a couple of limitations to the workplace inequality legislation development, establishment and updating process that has been adopted by the European Union. Firstly, the European states have an easy-to-monitor population that is demarcated by a finite number of races. Countries in Russia and Asia have more racial diversity and therefore, using the European Union’s approach would not be ideal for them. Given the per capita income and population of the European states, it is easier to locate, monitor and predict reports than it is possible in other countries (Grosser & Moon, 2005, p.333). Therefore, overpopulated countries like China and India will not be able to emulate this model as set by the European Union, easily. Within the European Union, it has been observed that under-reporting has ruined the quality of statistical data obtained over decades. From discrimination towards women to racial oppositions, many reports are not brought to court or are missed due to a tendency to reduce records of misconduct and showcase growth and social stability (Alter & Vargas, 2000, p.464). While the European Union does show an impressive reduction in crime rates, the fact that there has been under-reporting ruins the happiness that such a news brings to common people of the states. The same holds for racial inequality. In many countries, laws related to racial discrimination and gender bias apply on individuals above a certain age. In European Union, age is no bar and the legislation applies to all, although the focus is on workplace equality. Thus, the workplace equality legislation provides a sneak peek into the efficacy of the legislation system in the European Union. And we see that in spite of concrete reasons that require the EU to take immediate steps, the EU has been slow and has stumbled from disaster to disaster, setting a poor example on the worldwide platform. With its slow growth and under-reporting issues, the chances of completely abolishing inequality in society seem to be low in recent future, but the steadiness of growth in research and legal action promises a steady removal of these elements of inequality from workplaces and the society. References: Alter, K. J., & Vargas, J. (2000). Explaining variation in the use of European litigation strategies European community law and British gender equality policy.Comparative Political Studies, 33(4), 452-482. Blackett, A., & Sheppard, C. (2003). Collective bargaining and equality: Making connections. International Labour Review, 142(4), 419-457. Bettio, F. (2002). The pros and cons of occupational gender segregation in Europe. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, S65-S84. Cichowski, R. A. (2001). Judicial rulemaking and the institutionalization of European Union sex equality policy. The institutionalization of Europe, 113-36. Dickens, L. (1999). Beyond the business case: a three‐pronged approach to equality action. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(1), 9-19. Falkner, G. (Ed.). (2005). Complying with Europe: EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states. Cambridge University Press. Grosser, K., & Moon, J. (2005). Gender mainstreaming and corporate social responsibility: Reporting workplace issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4), 327-340. Pollack, M. A., & Hafner-Burton, E. (2000). Mainstreaming gender in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 432-456. Rubery, J. (2002). Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the EU: the impact of the EU employment strategy. Industrial relations journal, 33(5), 500-522. Stratigaki, M. (2004). The cooptation of gender concepts in EU policies: The case of “Reconciliation of Work and Family”. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 11(1), 30-56. Walby, S. (2004). The European Union and gender equality: Emergent varieties of gender regime. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 11(1), 4-29. Zippel, K. S. (2006). The politics of sexual harassment: A comparative study of the United States, the European Union, and Germany. Cambridge University Press. Read More