The
issue of discrimination at work has been discussed at length in many forums
with key stakeholders being the government agencies and the employees in the
various organisations. Discrimination is an unpleasant experience for the
victims who in most cases tend to be weak and vulnerable and this has prompted
countries around the world to come up with legislation to counter it (Wrench,
2007). In the UK, the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,
religion, sex, gender, disability, and others. The emphasis is to promote
diversity and equality in the work place. Discrimination based on gender is
perhaps one of the earliest forms of discrimination with many tending to doubt
the potential of women to execute certain tasks (Wrench, 2007). However,
remarkable achievements have been made in cutting down on the discrimination
with enhanced vigilance in the promotion of women rights as well as
entrenchment of anti-discrimination policies into law.
Despite
these legal provisions, discrimination is evidently going on albeit through a
more sophisticated approach. Managers intending to discriminate against a
person will avoid citing their views on the sensitive aspects such as gender or
religion and find a subtle reason that is more relevant to the job
requirements. A survey conducted in the UK in 2007 indicate that gender
discrimination against women is still prevalent with statistics indicating that
employers tend to avoid women of childbearing age, especially the pregnant ones
(BBC News, 2007). Wal-Mart is among the companies that have come under
criticism in the recent past over what is viewed as a systematic approach of
compensating women lower than their male counterparts (BBC News, 2007). Allegations
of discrimination are also rife among Japanese companies operating in the UK
and the USA with race being the factor in question (Hendra and Kleiner, 1998). This
is despite the fact that the UK and the USA are among the countries with the
strongest stance (in form of legislation) as far as discrimination at the work
place is concerned.
This
paper examines the question of discrimination at the work place with an aim to
determine whether legislation is effective in tackling the practice in
organisations.
Discrimination
is in most cases as a result of the imposition of personal viewpoints in the
management practices of organisations (Lewis and Gunn, 2007). Different people
have different preferences as shaped by their experiences in different forums.
For instance, persons from societies that are predominantly masculine tend to
have a negative attitude towards women and their potential at work. These
viewpoints would normally be maintained even where evidence points to the
contrary. Personal opinions on class and race also tend to lead to
discrimination in what analysts would call the employer bias (Wrench, 2007). These
would normally be associated with viewpoints on how societies perceive
different sections.
Discrimination
on race can be based on a number of fronts including perceived levels of
diligence, intelligence, class and loyalty. This disparity is especially most
notable among Japanese companies. A survey conducted on Japanese companies
operating in the USA reveals that over 80% of the managerial staff is of
Japanese origin (Henra and Kleiner, 1998). The converse is true in American
companies operating in Japan with about 70% of the managers in such companies
being of Japanese origin (Henra and Kleiner, 1998). This face of discrimination
can be explained by the societal viewpoints among the Japanese where loyalty is
viewed as sacred. In the Japanese society, collectivist viewpoints that make
people want to belong to a team or a given group over long periods of time have
largely been translated into organisations with most Japanese tending to work
for much longer than their western counterparts in single organisations. In the
West, emphasis on career tends to be more emphasised and employees tend to
change jobs with a higher level of frequency. It is perhaps this viewpoint that
informs the Japanese organisations’ open preference for Japanese employees. One
would argue that it would not amount to discrimination where length of service
is considered as one of the yardsticks for determining how to promote
employees. However, there have been numerous cases where employees of Japanese
origin have been favoured despite being lacking in experience and skills.
Racial discrimination is not unique to Japanese organisations alone. In the UK,
a survey indicated that Bangladeshi women were 30% less likely to find
employment than the white women in a study conducted to establish the extent of
discrimination In the UK market (Equality Review, 2007).
One
of the companies that have been on the limelight over their discrimination
based on gender is Wal-Mart which has been criticised over its treatment of the
women working for it (Wal-Mart, 2010). The company was sued by 1.6 million of
its female employees and former employees who decried unfair treatment in their
jobs. In their suit, the employees presented as part of their evidence
statistics on compensation packages for employees which showed that women were
paid lower than their male counterparts. The analysis which was based on the
Drogin report established that women would work for the company for about 10
years before being elevated to a managerial position as opposed to their male
counterparts who would work for only 8 years (Drogin, 2003). Moreover, only 14%
of the management level staff is women: a complete contrast of statistics when
considered that cashier staff is comprised of over 90% women (Drogin, 2003).
This could be argued as clear evidence that the company may be having a policy
to discriminate against women. A comparison with other leading retail stores
indicated that in 2005, the proportion of management staff at Wal-Mart who was
women was 20% lower than their industry counterparts (Sellers, 2005). Other
statistics indicate that women are generally paid lower with the companies 2001
wage analysis indicating that an average woman would earn about $5,200 less
than her male counterpart annually (Wal-Mart, 2010).
Allegations
of gender discrimination in the UK are also quite common. In 2007, a report
indicated that a married woman with a child younger than 11 years had a 45%
lower chance to get a job than her male counterpart. Discrimination in the
market is even more acute for women with much younger children with the
discrimination of such women being higher than that of the disabled people. In
a survey involving over 122 recruitment agencies in the UK in 2007, it was
found that over 70% of their clients (employers) indicated that they would want
to avoid pregnant women and women of childbearing age. In a similar survey, it
was found that discrimination based on disability was being practiced with the
disabled persons being 29% less likely to find employment than their
non-disabled counterparts.
American
law firms have also been criticised heavily over what is seen as gender and
racial based discrimination (Yavasi, 2007). There have been remarkable
improvements in the labour practices in the law firms on a number of fronts.
For instance, the minorities and women in the US would hardly be able to enter
into the large law firms in the period leading up to 1970. However, the trend
appears to have changed with the current percentage of women and minorities
entering the service of large law firms being about 50% (Payne-Pikus, Hagan and
Nelson, 2010). The practice in large law firms in the US is such that after
entering as an associate and one’s potential is determined, a decision is made
on whether or not to retain them in the firms as partners. It is at this point
that allegations of discrimination arise. Only about 17% of women and
minorities entering as associates get to be retained as partners in such law
firms (Payne-Pikus, Hagan and Nelson, 2010). The same trend is observed among
Africans and Hispanic Americans whose percentage as associates is about 5% and
only about 1% gets retained as partners in the law firms. Some of the arguments
that are used in justifying the discriminatory policies have more to do with
costs to the company. This is especially the case with women whose ability to
go the extra mile appears to be compromised by their need to also concentrate
on their families. Other justifications would be based on client references
where some clients tend to prefer a certain type of persons to be their
representatives in law suits (Odeku and Animashaun, 2012). It therefore becomes
strategically disadvantageous to maintain an employee pool that may not be
popular with the niche market being served.
Another
industry where discrimination is rife is in the IT industry where age
discrimination is known to be quite high. Age discrimination tends to be seen
as a rational approach to management especially when it is considered that the
young and inexperienced employees tend to demand lower wages than their older
counterparts (Osborne, 2001). In IT firms, it is presumed that the ideal
employee is one who is a fast learner, extremely creative and flexible in their
thinking. This could be due to the rapid evolution of the industry. Older
employees on the other hand are viewed as rigid and with possession of archaic
skills that may not serve the market well in current times (Quan, Dattero and
Galup, 2008). This often prompts the creation of discriminatory policies aimed
at frustrating such employees to quit their jobs. The typical non-management
employee aged over 40 years is an unwelcome visitor in most IT firms (Quan,
Dattero and Galup, 2008). Company restructuring in IT firms where some
employees are declared redundant tends to be targeting the older employees.
Even though there could be some truths to the viewpoints that prompt such
discriminatory policies, analysts argue that it is immoral to get rid of an
employee whose contribution have greatly contributed to the success of the
organisation (Osborne, 2001). An alternative to this would be to give them a
chance in doing what they may be best at.
Discrimination
is indeed very common in organisations. However, it is difficult to eradicate
based on the fact that organisations will always have a rational way of
explaining their decisions. Only statistics can be used to indicate that
discrimination exists, and in many cases, this does not constitute sufficient
grounds to find the organisations culpable.
In
the UK, protection from discrimination in the working place was has been
contained in several laws such as the disability discrimination act, the sex
discrimination act and the race relations act (Crosby, Stockdale and Ropp,
2007). However, in view of the fact that the approach embraced by these acts
was disjointed and complicating the process of enforcement, stakeholders
clamoured for the introduction of a comprehensive bill that would promote
equality at the workplace. This led to the introduction of the Equality Act
2010 which was enacted in October 2010 (Health and Safety Executive, 2012). This
bill outlines the legislative approach that aims at protecting employees
against discrimination on the basis of age, race, disability, class, religion,
beliefs, state of health and other parameters (EHRC, 2012; Health and Safety
Executive, 2012). The legislative approach aims at ensuring that the working
environment in the UK is sanitised and that equality and diversity are promoted
in a manner reflective of the socio-cultural dynamics in the rest of the
society. Even though anti-discrimination laws in the USA are yet to be
consolidated into one Act, the seriousness with which law enforcers embrace the
issue of equality at the work place is not in doubt (Odeku and Animashaun,
2012). Numerous litigations have been filed successfully against perceived acts
of discrimination and this demonstrates the seriousness of the system to tackle
the vice in organisations. The rationale for tackling discrimination is the
creation of a sustainable community.
Social
sustainability implies the need to ensure that all members of the society live
in harmony and with access to the basic opportunities and services available in
the society. It is for the long term stability of the society where every
member is content and happy to share the environment with others (Bell and
Morse, 2012). With the changing in lifestyles, it is increasingly difficult for
people to make a living without employment, especially in the developed world.
In the olden days, survival would be possible for peasants who’d farm and
afford to make a living. However, in the modern day world, employment seems to
be the only way out and it is therefore important that the systems used in
employment guarantee the ability of all members of the society to access the
job opportunities (Bell and Morse, 2012). Eradication of discrimination reduces
chances of events such as riots and social strife and this in turn creates an
opportunity for economic growth and development in the society. Stability in
the society is the foundation needed to ensure that the economy works as it
should. It is therefore in the interest of all industry players that
discrimination is eradicated and this is the thinking that has informed the
legislation on equality and eradication of discrimination.
Despite
the clear provisions contained in the equality laws, it is important to note that
discrimination is still rife around the world. This makes it necessary to
examine whether or not legislation can effectively eradicate discrimination. Issues
of discrimination are not easy to prove in organisations. Analysts concur with
this view and hold the opinion that at the end of the day, the manager will be
able to find a perfectly rational reason for making the decisions that he/she
makes even where the motivation for such a decision may be different (Fiske and
Lee, 2008). While it is true that legislation is important in reducing the
level of discrimination in organisations, it is very clear going by the current
statistics that legislation is not enough to effectively tackle discrimination
in organisations. Companies will time and again reiterate their commitment to
equality at the workplace but statistics will always lean towards one form of
discrimination or another (Payne-Pikus, Hagan and Nelson, 2010). For instance,
it is very uncommon to find a person being denied a job and is told that it is
because of race, gender, religion or any of the grounds outlined by
legislation. In most cases, the reason would have more to do with assessed
potential, skills, experience and other ‘professional’ parameters. It’s
therefore very difficult to prove a case of discrimination under the set laws
whose rules of evidence and natural justice are applicable to any suit on
discrimination (Payne-Pikus, Hagan and Nelson, 2010). A different alternative
would be to introduce rules that outline the composition of staff in terms of
percentages for gender, race and so on. However, this approach would be too
complicated in terms of implementation. In many cases, the implementation of
the equality laws is largely dependent on the voluntary actions of the
management teams in organisations.
The
fight against discrimination is one that needs to be taken beyond legislation.
It is one that must be taken to the public court backed by massive campaigns to
shape the minds of the members of the society. For instance, the fight against
discrimination of women in the workplace has been fought since the 18th
century and has largely culminated into a situation where women are
increasingly viewed as more capable and with the ability to execute tasks that
would hitherto be viewed as beyond their reach (Fiske and Lee, 2008). The other
important factor is that of shaping the mind-set of the clientele. One of the
reasons given for large law firms discriminating against minorities is because
their markets seem to be openly biased against minorities and blacks
(Payne-Pikus, Hagan and Nelson, 2010). Some law firms admit to having had to
change the lawyers working on a case after the clients expressed that they were
uncomfortable with the firms’ choice of lawyers. The organisations therefore
find it more economically viable to employ the kind of employees that are
popular with their clients. They would therefore find all means possible to
beat the legislative provisions and provide clients with what they want. The
battle against discrimination is therefore one that must be won in the public
court before prospects of winning in the workplace can be realised (Odeku and
Animashaun, 2012). Opinions on sex, race, religion and others cannot be
eradicated through legislation. Besides, issues of cost and profitability are
still evident. Statistics indicate that childbearing mothers and pregnant women
tend to be less productive due to their need to frequently take leave from
work. Besides, leaves such as maternity leaves are compulsory and organisations
will often have no option but to incur the associated costs (Crosby, Stockdale
and Ropp, 2007). The same applies to the disabled who are generally less
productive. Profit oriented organisations therefore find discrimination to be
an easy option and they do so often without detection. Intellectuals will
always find legally accepted reasons for their decisions and discrimination may
therefore be hard to prove.
Despite
the presence of numerous pieces of legislation against discrimination, the
practice is still prevalent in organisations. Evidence of discrimination is
clear in the UK with statistics indicating that organisations tend to be
unwilling to employee young women of childbearing age as well as members of
non-white races. The same can be said of the USA where evidence of gender and
racial discrimination is quite prevalent in some sectors such as the legal
professions with large law firms being among the most visible culprits
(Payne-Pikus, Hagan and Nelson, 2010). A legislative approach has been embraced
by most countries around the world where discrimination on the basis of age,
religion, disability and others have been outlawed with the UK leading the way
through the creation of a comprehensive equality act which addresses all forms
of discrimination in organisations and other forums.
Evidence
is clear that discrimination is still possible even with the existence of
comprehensive laws aimed at discouraging the vice. The law is therefore not
capable of eradicating the practice and it needs to be combined with other
approaches. Issues of discrimination go back to the core of societal viewpoints
and this makes it a cultural issue. The attitude of people towards religions,
genders, disabilities and other states of being should be refined through
social engagements. Organisations will always be able to find a rational reason
for justifying their decisions and it is therefore very difficult to prove that
discrimination is taking place. A biased manager will always be able to find a
justifiable cause for doing what they intend to do (Osborne, 2001). The
question of discrimination is therefore one that can best be dealt with at the
cultural level through aggressive societal campaigns. This is however not to
say that legislation is useless. Legislation should be present to provide the
minimum standards while influencing of people’s views is done to ensure that
all biases are eradicated or at the bare minimum ensure that people learn to
contain their personal biases when acting in their official capacities.
BBC News, 2007. Mothers
face job discrimination. (Online) Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6402933.stm (Accessed 24 August 2012)
Bell, S., Morse, S., 2012. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the
Immeasurable. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Crosby, F.J., Stockdale, M.S., Ropp, S.A., 2007. Sex discrimination in the workplace:
multidisciplinary perspectives. Malden: Blackwell publishing
Drogin, R.,
2003. Statistical analysis of
gender patterns in wal-mart workforce. Berkeley: Drogin, Kakigi and
Associates
EHRC, 2012. Equality:
Gender equality. (Online) Available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/vision-and-mission/our-business-plan/gender-equality/
(Accessed 24 August 2012)
Fiske, S., Lee, T.L., 2008. Stereotypes and
prejudice create workplace discrimination. In
Diversity At Work, by Fiske, Susan and Lee Tiane. New York: Cambridge
University Press
Health and Safety Executive. 2012. Tackling Discrimination. (Online)
Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/diversity/discrimination.htm (Accessed 24
August 2012)
Hendra, T., Kleiner, B.H., 1998. Discrimination in
Japanese organisations in America. Equal
Opportunities International, 17(3-5), pp. 92-95
Holdaway, S., O'Neill, M., 2007. Where has all the
racism gone? Views of racism in constabularies after Macpherson. Ethnic and racial studies, 30 (3), pp.
397-415
Lewis, D., Gunn, R., 2007. Workplace bullying in the
public sector: understanding the racial dimension. Public administration, 85(3), pp. 641-665
Odeku, K., Animashaun, S., 2012. Ensuring equality
at the workplace by strengthening the law on prohibition against
discrimination. African Journal of
Business Management, 6(12), pp. 4869-4900
Osborne, T., 2001. Age discrimination in the
American workplace: old at young age. Trial,
37(7), pp. 86-87
Payne-Pikus, M.R., Hagan, J., Nelson, R.L., 2010.
Experiencing discrimination: Race and Retention in America’s Largest Law Firms.
Law & Society Review, 44(3/4),
pp. 553-584
Quan, J., Dattero, R., Galup, S.D., 2008. An explorative
study of age discrimination in IT wages. Information
Resources Management Journal, 21(3), pp. 24-38
Sellers, J., 2005. Women against Wal-Mart. Christian Today Magazine 2005. Pp. 1-2
The Equalities Review, 2007. Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equality Review. (Online)
Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_02_07_equality.pdf
(Accessed 24 August 2012)
Walmart, 2010. Did
Wal-Mart wake up? How strategic management handled Wal-Mart’s reputation. (Online)
Available at:
http://www.awpagesociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Wal-Mart_CaseStudy.pdf
(Accessed 24 August 2012)
Wrench, J., 2007. Diversity management and
discrimination : immigrants and ethnic minorities in the EU (Aldershot:
Ashgate), ch.6, Diversity Management and
Anti-Discrimination pp. 115-27
Yavasi, M., 2007. Elimination of religious
discrimination at the workplace in the EU with particular reference to the UK. Uluslararasi Hukuk ve Politika, 3(10),
pp. 115-128
No comments:
Post a Comment