Nature Of Job Discrimination

LESSON 16: NATURE OF JOB DISCRIMINATION

We often find people debating on these words “justice,” “equality,” “racism,” “rights,” and “discrimination”. Till now we have discussed in depth the words “justice,” “equality” and “rights”. In this lecture we will discuss about “racism” and “discrimination”. Lets understand what is the hue and cry all about. Points to be covered in this lecture:

• •

Racism Discrimination; types of discrimination

First of all lets understand the meaning of these words: Racism: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races or, Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race. Discrimination: The root meaning of the term “discriminate” is “to distinguish one ob-ject from another,” a morally neutral and not necessarily wrongful activity. However, in modern usage the term is not morally neutral. It is usually in-tended to refer to the wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude. This morally charged notion of “invidious” discrimination, as it applies to employment, is what is at issue in this chapter. In this sense to discriminate in employment is to make an adverse decision (or set of decisions) against employees (or prospective em-ployees) who belong to a certain class because of morally unjustified prejudice toward members of that class. Discrimination in employment thus, must involve three basic elements: 1. First, it is a decision against one or more employees (or prospective employees) that is not based on individual merit such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legiti-mate qualifications. 2. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, from false stereotypes, or from some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the em-ployee belongs. 3. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay. Types of discrimination

• • • • • • 48

Racism On the basis of Gender On the basis of Age On the basis of Religion On the basis of disability On the basis of National origin.

UNIT III BUSINESS AND ITS INTERNAL CONSTITUENCIES CHAPTER 4: ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION Present Scenario of Job Discrimination Although many more women and minorities are entering formerly male dominated jobs, they still face problems that they would characterize as form of discrimination. In 1993, for example, ABC sent a male and female, Avnish and Neelam, on an “experiment” to apply in person for jobs several companies were advertising. Avnish and Neelam were both trim, neatly dressed college graduates in their 20s, with identical resumes indicating management experience. Unknown to the companies, however, both were secretly wired for sound and had hidden cameras. One company indicated in its help-wanted ad that it had several open positions. But when the company recruiter spoke with Neelam, the only job he brought up was a job answering phones. A few minutes later, the same recruiter spoke with Avnish. He was offered a management job. When interviewed afterwards by ABC, the company recruiter indicated that he would never want a man answering his phone. Another company had advertised positions as territory managers for lawn-care services. The owner of that company gave Neelam a typing test, discussed her fiance’s business with her, and then offered her a job as a receptionist at $6 an hour. When the owner interviewed Avnish, however, he gave him an aptitude test, chatted with him about how he kept fit, and offered him a job as territory manager paying $300 to $500 a week. When the owner was later interviewed by ABC he comments that women “do not do well as territory managers, which involves some phys-ical labor.” According to the owner he had also hired one other woman as a receptionist and had hired several other males as territory managers. The experience of young Avnish and Neelam suggest that sexual discrimina-tion is alive and well. Similar experiments suggest that racial discrimination also continues to thrive. In 1993 researchers at the Urban Institute published a study in which they paired several young black men with similar young white men, matching them in openness, energy level, articulateness, physical char-acteristics, clothing, and job experience. In the same way, young Hispanic males fluent in English were matched with young Anglo males. Each member of each pair was trained and coached in mock interviews to act exactly like the other. Each member of each pair then applied in person for the same jobs, ranging from general laborer to management trainee in manufacturing, hotels, restaurants, retail sales, and office work. In spite of the fact that all were equally qualified for the same jobs, blacks and Hispanics were offered jobs 50 percent fewer times than the young white males. The root meaning of the term “discriminate” is “to distinguish one ob-ject from another,” a morally neutral and not necessarily wrongful activity. However, in modem usage the term is not morally neutral: It is usually in-tended to refer to the wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some other 11.292

invidious or morally reprehensible attitude. This morally charged notion of “invidious” discrimination, as it applies to employment, is what is at issue in this chapter. In this sense to discriminate in employment is to make an ad-verse decision (or set of decisions) against employees (or prospective em-ployees) who belong to a certain class because of morally unjustified prejudice toward members of that class. Discrimination in employment thus, must involve three basic elements. First, it is a decision against one or more employees (or prospective employees) that is not based on individual merit such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legiti-mate qualifications. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, from false stereotypes, or from some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the em-ployee belongs. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or neg-ative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay. Forms of Discrimination: Intentional and Institutional Aspects A helpful framework for analyzing different forms of discrimination can be constructed by distinguishing the extent to which a discriminatory act is in-tentional and isolated (or non institutionalized) and the extent to which it is un-intentional and institutionalized 1. Isolated and Intentional Discrimination A discriminatory act may be part of the isolated (non institutionalized) behavior of a single individual who intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of personal prejudice. In the ABC “experi-ment” described, for example, the attitudes that the male interviewer is de-scribed as having may not be characteristic of other company interviewers: His behavior toward female job seekers may be an intentional but isolated instance of sexism in hiring. 2. Institutionalized and Intentional Discrimination Second, a discriminatory act may be part of the routine behavior of an institutionalized group, which intentionally and knowingly dis-criminates out of the personal prejudices of its members. The Ku Klux Klan, for example, is an organization that historically has intentionally institutionalized discriminatory behavior, and, in India, for example, The Muthut Finance group prefers Keralites for any post in their company. 3. Isolated and Unintentional Discrimination Third, an act of discrimination may be part of the isolated (non institutionalized) behavior of a single individual who unin-tentionally and unknowingly discriminates against someone because he or she unthinkingly adopts the traditional practices and stereotypes of his or her so-ciety. If the interviewer quoted in the ABC experiment described, for example, acted unintentionally, then he would fall into this third category. 4. Institutionalized and Unintentional discrimination Fourth, a dis-criminatory act may be part of the systematic routine of a corporate organiza-tion or group that unintentionally incorporates into its formal institutionalized 11.292

procedures practices that discriminate against women or minorities. The two companies examined in the ABC; experiment, for example, described organi-zations in which the best-paying jobs are routinely assigned to men and the worst-paying jobs are routinely assigned to women, on the stereotypical as-sumption that women are fit for some jobs and not for others. There may be no deliberate intent to discriminate, but the effect is the same: a racially or sex-ually based pattern of preference toward white males. Historically, there has been a shift in emphasis from seeing discrimina-tion primarily as an intentional and individual matter, to seeing it as a sys-tematic and not necessarily inten- tional feature of institutionalized corporate behavior, and back again, in some quarters, to seeing it as an intentional and individual matter. During the early 1960s, employment discrimination was seen primarily as an intentional, calculated act performed by one individual on another. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, seems to have had this notion of discrimination in mind when it stated: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer 1. To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any in-dividual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or 2. To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for em-ployment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an em-ployee because of such individual’s race, color, sex, or national origin However, in the late 1960s, the concept of discrimination was enlarged to in-clude more than the traditionally recognized intentional forms of individual discrimination. By the early 1970, the term “discrimination” was being used regularly to include disparities of minority representation within the ranks of a firm, regardless of whether or not the disparity had been intentionally cre-ated. An organization was engaged in discrimination if minority group repre-sentation within its ranks was not proportionate to the group’s local availability. The discrimination would be remedied when the proportions of minorities within the organization were made to match their proportions in the available workforce by the use of “affirmative action” programs.

Overview

•

Racism refers to the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.

•

Discrimination (employment) is the wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude.

Activity Discuss in general the qualities that make a person suitable for a job. Why do you think we see job discrimination?

49

For useful Documents like this and Lots of more Educational and Technological Stuff... Visit... www.thecodexpert.com