To Define Law, “Law is simply the body of rules governing individuals and their relationships. Most of these rules become law through a recognized governmental authority. Laws give us basic freedoms, rights, and protections” (M. Jennings, pg.3). As this relates to the workforce, the Value of Fair Treatment treads a fine line between hiring practices to diversify workforces and evoking Anti-Federal Discrimination based on race, sex, age and/or disabilities. Civil Right Act of 1964 (Title VII) forbids employers from discriminating against employees based on color religion and immutable characteristics such as gender and race.
This law applies to organizations with 15+ employees, which include employees on a federal, state and local government category.
Under the federal anti-discrimination laws, I have identified three federal forms of discrimination which if Voluntarily prohibited by the present workforce, can benefit ethically and monetarily. These three federal forms are; however, not limited to Age discrimination, Discrimination against Americans with disabilities and Equal pay discrimination. In relation to age discrimination it may cost the company more monetarily as they may have to cover more expenses medically for older employees, at the same time it could benefit a company by hiring older employees are they may be more loyal and less likely to switch jobs.
Exempting the unnecessary cost to hire new individuals because of high turnover rate. At least hiring older individuals could help create steady and continuous workflow. Like age discrimination, another federal form of discrimination is Discrimination against Americans with disabilities. It is benefits to illustrate a well-rounded organization and make everyone feel welcomed.
By hiring someone with a disability in the eyes of its community it represents social acceptance. From a monetary standpoint depending on what the disability is, the organization my must expense transportation for this employee as they may be visually impaired or physically unable to transport themselves. Thus, might create a responsibility and liability a company may not want to incur. Lastly, the most frequent divide is, Equal pay discrimination. Essentially, the Equal pay Act of 1963 was enacted to eliminate unfair minimum wage based on gender. The benefit of voluntarily prohibiting this federal form of discrimination is that it eliminates the segregation between employees. Each person gross pay is based on qualifications and work ethic and not sex. Relative to cost it prevents maximum utilization available for labor resources within that companies’ budget. Ultimately, freeing up commerce to potentially hire more talented and valuable individuals to increase production etc.
On the contrary not covered by any federal anti- discrimination law is Sexuality discrimination, language discrimination, and pregnancy discrimination. Pregnancy discrimination law overtime has demonstrated a pattern of discrimination. This Disparate treatment has resulted in women being fired in some cases for requiring and/requesting special accommodations at the height of their pregnancy. “In September, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Stephanie Hicks, who sued the Tuscaloosa, Alabama, police department for pregnancy discrimination. Ms. Hicks was lactating, and her doctor told her that her bulletproof vest was too tight and risked causing a breast infection. Her superior’s solution was a vest so baggy that it left portions of her torso exposed. Tens of thousands of women have taken legal action alleging pregnancy discrimination at companies including Walmart, Merck, AT&T, Whole Foods, 21st Century Fox, KPMG, Novartis and the law firm Morrison & Foerster.
All those companies boast on their websites about celebrating and empowering women” . In a career that Ms. Hicks is protecting & serving the community everyday and putting her life on the line while doing so, you would assume more would have been done to accommodate her. This is a prime example of why law much remain in place. We would operate in an even more corrupt world in complete chaos. The benefit of excluding pregnancy discrimination depending on the type of work could be delegating more task to pregnant women that is not physically demanding. For example, many jobs have high demand administrative task that they might be able to get more done, if there was a person delegated to focus on that. A cost benefit is that the growing number of law suits will decrease and that will save the company money long-term and increase morality.
Voluntarily adopting hiring and promotion practices that are designed to diversity a workplace is hiring Bilingual individuals. Being fluent in Multi- languages will provide leverage for many organizations to compete for business on another level. Bilinguals opens the communication barrier with people of different national origins increasing consumer base. It could cost many organizations in two ways. They could either train their current employees and provide paid resources to learn a second language and at the end reward them with a salary increase. Otherwise, they can hire externally more individuals who are already fluent in that language. It may cost to hire upfront but on the back end it has its long-term affect. People of different national origins will feel more included.
Let’s play devils advocate for a moment, what impact would it have on a company if they did not voluntarily prohibit forms of discrimination? Maybe, more lawsuit or poor company imagery? How many times have you personally heard, “that not fair” “that’s not right” which brings me to the questions what ethics is? Many have described ethics as some unwritten rule, you may agree! However, ethics is “Ethics is honesty, fairness, and justice. The principles of ethics, when honored, ensure that the playing field is level and that we earn our achievements by using our own work and ideas. Being ethical means being honest and fair in our interactions with each other, whether personally or in business”. To my understanding of this definition if a company did not voluntarily prohibit forms of discrimination it would be complete chaos. This means decreased productivity organization wise and negative reputation.
Ultimately, the employees generate revenue for the company, so if they are unhappy, feeling unappreciated, and being discriminated against the business will crash. From an ethics standpoint of ethical theories and corporate responsibilities, if the company is not applying effort for the betterment of society (i.e.) providing employment, volunteering in communities and are just capitalizing that’s undeniably wrong! In closing, I stand firmly in my final recommendations that this workplace and any other workplace should ensure all employee protections are carefully examined in the hiring process. The disability discrimination law is one of the laws that should become more significant. I’ve personally meet plenty of individuals that didn’t have use of all their limbs but, were brilliant individuals. While this may bring more corporate accountability, I would consider at least providing an option for the potential employees to have in place a third- party reliable source of transport just incase they may need it.
I was wondering perhaps if I was to become disabled today or tomorrow god forbid does that mean I’m out of a job? Benefit package as they support voluntarily operation and medical expenses, should provide more to post disabled individuals. In addition, I am also recommending adopting hiring and promotional practices designed to diversify the workplace. A company is only as strong as its weakest person, so if we can build up the team to appeals to mass population of people the company can steadily grow outside of local markets. This recommendation is not limited to multi- language individuals. We can go as far as hiring those of various sexual orientations; homosexuals, transgenders etc. and diminish as many discriminatory acts as we can. If we use one another’s special talents, we can go far!