The Ethics of Job Descrimination

JOB DICRIMINATION: IT’S NATURE

Discrimination is happened because of diversity influence in our life. The root meaning of the term discriminate is “to distinguish one object from another,” a morally neutral and not necessarily wrongful activity. However, in modern usage, the term is not morally neutral; it is usually intended 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. Discrimination in employment must involve three basic elements: (1) it is a decision against one or more employees that is not based on individual merit; (2) the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, false stereotypes, or some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the employee belongs; (3) the decision has a harmful or negative 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 form of discrimination can be constructed by distinguishing the extent to which a discriminatory act is unintentional and institutionalized. First, a discriminatory act may be part of the isolated (no institutionalized) behavior of a single individual who intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of personal prejudice. Second, a discriminatory act may be part of the routine behavior of an institutionalized group, which intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of the personal prejudices of its members. Third, an act of discrimination may be part of the isolated behavior of a single individual who intentionally and knowingly discriminates against someone because the individual unthinkingly adopts the traditional practices and stereotypes of the surrounding society. Fourth, a discriminatory act may be part of the systematic routine of a corporate organization or group that unintentionally incorporates into its formal institutionalized procedures practices that discriminate against women or minorities.

DISCRIMINATION: IT’S EXTENT

How do we estimate whether an institution or a set of institutions is practicing discrimination against a certain group? We do so by looking at statistical indicators of how the members of that group are distributed within the institution. A prima facie indication of discrimination exists when a disproportionate number of the members of a certain group hold the less desirable positions within the institutions despite their preferences and abilities. Three kinds of comparisons can provide evidence for such a distribution: (a) comparisons of the average benefits the institutions bestow on the discriminated group with the average benefits the institutions bestow on other groups, (b) comparisons of the proportion of the discriminated group found in the lowest levels of the institutions with the proportions of other groups found at those levels, and (c) comparisons of the proportion of that group that holds the more advantageous positions with the proportions of other groups that hold those same positions.

The argument mustered against discrimination generally fall into three groups:

1. Utilitarian Arguments; which claim that discrimination leads to an inefficient use of human resources.

2. Rights Arguments; which claim that discrimination violates basic human rights.

3. Justice Arguments; which claim that discrimination results in an unjust distribution of society’s benefits and burdens.

Discriminatory Practices

Regardless of the problems inherent in some of the arguments against discrimination, it is clear that there are strong reasons for holding that discrimination is wrong. It is consequently understandable that the law has gradually been changed to conform to these moral requirements and that there has been a growing recognition of the various ways in which discrimination in employment occurs. Among the practices now widely recognized as discriminatory are:

1. Recruitment Practices. Firms that rely solely on the word-of-mouth referrals of present employees to recruit new workers tend to recruit only from those racial and sexual groups that are already represented in their labor force.

2. Screening Practices. Job qualifications are discriminatory when they are not relevant to the job to be performed.

3. Promotion Practices. Promotion, job progression, and transfer practices are discriminatory when employers place White males on job tracks separate from those open to women and minorities.

4. Conditions of Employment. Wages and salaries are discriminatory to the extent that equal wages and salaries are not given to people who are doing essentially the same work.

5. Discharge. Firing an employee on the basis of race or sex is a clear form of discrimination.

Sexual Harassment

Women, as noted earlier, are victims of a particularly troublesome kind of discrimination that is both overt and coercive: They are subjected to sexual harassment. Although males are also subjected to some instances of sexual harassment, it is women who are by far the most frequent victims. For all its acknowledged frequency, sexual harassment still remains difficult to define and to police and prevent.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

To rectify the effects of past discrimination, many employers have instituted affirmative action programs designed to achieve a more representative distribution of minorities and women within the firm by giving preference to women and minorities. In fact, affirmative action programs are now legally required of all firms that hold a government contract. The heart of an affirmative action program is a detailed study (a “utilization analysis”) of all the major job classifications in the firm. The purpose of the study is to determine whether there are fewer minorities or women in a particular job classification that could be reasonably expected by their availability in the area from which the firm recruits. The firm appoints an officer to coordinate and administer the affirmative action program, and it undertakes special efforts and programs to increase the recruitment of women and minorities so as to meet the goals and timetables it has established for itself.

Affirmative Action as Compensation

Arguments that defend affirmative action as a form of compensation are based on the concept of compensatory justice. Compensatory justice implies that people have an obligation to compensate those whom they have intentionally and unjustly wronged. Affirmative action programs are then interpreted as a form of reparation by which White male majorities now compensate women and minorities for unjustly injuring them by discriminating against them in the past.

The difficulty with arguments that defend affirmative action on the basis of the principle of compensation is that the principle requires that compensation should come only from those specific individuals who intentionally inflicted a wrong, and it requires them to compensate only those specific individuals whom they wronged.

Affirmative Action as an Instrument for Achieving Utilitarian Goals and Equal Justice

A second set of justifications advanced in support of affirmative action programs is based on the idea that these programs are morally legitimate instruments for achieving morally legitimate ends.

The major difficulties encountered by three utilitarian justifications of affirmative action have concerned, first, the question of whether the social costs of affirmative action programs outweigh their obvious benefits. Second, opponents of these utilitarian justifications of affirmative action have questioned the assumption that race is an appropriate indicator of need.

Although utilitarian arguments in favor of affirmative action programs are quite convincing, the most elaborate and persuasive array of arguments advanced in support of affirmative action have proceeded in two steps. First, they argue that the end envisioned by affirmative action programs is equal justice. Second, they argue that affirmative action programs are morally legitimate means for achieving this end.

Implementing Affirmative Action and Managing Diversity

Opponents of affirmative action programs have argued that other criteria besides race and sex have to be weighed when making job decisions in an affirmative action programs. First, if sex and race are the only criteria used, this will result in the hiring of unqualified personnel and a consequent decline in productivity. Second, many jobs have significant impacts on the lives of others. Third, opponents have argued that affirmative action programs, if continued, will turn us into a more racially and sexually conscious nation.

The success or failure of an affirmative action program also depends in part on the accommodations a company makes to the special needs of a racially and sexually diverse workforce.

The honest Canteen overview in Indonesia

The honesty canteen is one of popular program in Indonesia, the objective of this program are want to increase the honesty of human and to create a good person with honestly. The program start by Komisi Pemberantas Korupsi (KPK) RI, now start to be followed in Sulawesi Selatan and other province in Indonesia. The system of this canteen and the traditional canteen it’s very different. In the honest canteen, there is no one who keeps and serves the customer. But, the content of the canteen still secure and save. In this canteen, we can enjoy choosing everything we want to buy and if there have any cash back, customer can take that by their self. Most of the program opened at the schools in Indonesia for remember “fight against to corruption day” on December 9^th 2008.

The honesty canteen is media to generate the value of honesty to the young generation. It is also media for accustoming student-self to “be honest to their self”. The existence of honesty canteen very important to practice and train the students to be more honest in order to they understand how to be honest which begin from small act. But, it is also necessary controlling and monitoring. Without that, the honesty canteen program will be fail. For long-term idea, this honesty canteen may anticipate corruption act to the future generation.

Unfortunately, this program also faces some problem like income of honesty canteen decrease than canteen as usual. It is caused there are students pay less because just miscount when they buy the food or soft-drink and even sometimes they just take the foods and do not pay, other problem is money-back for the students frequently is not available there.

Outside of all of that, the honesty canteen provides benefit to the students. They attempt to be more honest to their self and their environment. They will be more responsibilities, and respect that honesty are one of important thing in their life. Honest canteen, self services, that is not impossible if we want to apply that in our life. But before that we need to prepare our mentality on that program. We should to prepare our society with the good education, we should to tell to our children that good or bad, ethics or un ethics. If we success to lead our children Indonesia will be a country that doesn’t have any corruption any more.

ETHICS AND HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

The purpose of this topic is to present ethical dilemmas that face the workers, Ethics at work and human resource management is about our relationship with other and with our organizations. Recent research supports a slow of earlier finding that “companies that place employees at the core of their strategies produce higher long term return to shareholder than do industry peers.”
In developing a response to these concerns and influence, one might consider the role of emotion in the workplace. Though a relatively new area of research studies and evidences that management can have a significant impact on the emotion of their workers, and this impact can greatly affect productivity and loyalty as well as perception of fairness, care, and concern

Downsizing
In a speech to the Ethics Officers Association, John Challenger suggested that we should consider planning, timing, and notice, impact and stakeholder perceptions. Challenger argues the decision regarding downsizing should be made by a representative group so that all stakeholder interest can be considered and to earn the trust of those who will be impacted. Since employees should be kept aware of business condition, the need for downsizing effort should not come as a great surprise.
When a firm decides to downsize, as with any other termination, it is critical to lessen any unnecessary impact and to allow the individual to depart with dignity. As inevitable as downsizing may seem during downturns in the economy, some firms have survived decade after decade without any layoffs. HO DO THEY DO IT?
• Trust
• Commitment
• Low cost
• Decrease work hours
One firm, Nucor, has not layoff a worker in 20 years. However, the firm maintains a three-day work-week with an average wage of $8 per hour. When large contracts come in, it expands to a seven-day work-week and $22 per hour wage. Other firms have entered into agreements with their workers where the firm promises not to terminate workers for reason of the economy as long as the workers agree to lower wage or decreased hour during ought period.

Discrimination
After four decades of anti-dissemination laws on the books, one might be hard pressed today to find discrimination remaining in the workplace. Unfortunately, this is far from the case. In fact, thought overt act of discrimination might be decreasing, cover forms of discrimination are still at play. For instance, in certain research, University of Chicago scholars Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Millainathan found that there remains discrimination simply on the basis of one’s name.
Additional studies reinforce these findings that bias on the job is also common. Rutgers School professor Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen conducted a study in 2002 that concluded that about 2 million workers were affected by intentional discrimination in 1999. Within those numbers, about 20.000 employers were found to be “hard core” discriminator, employing below average of women and minorities for 10 years. Their numbers were so low that the Blumrosens found that there was only a 1% chance that discrimination occurred randomly.
When any employment decision is made, discrimination exists. In fact, employers can, should and do discriminate based on perfectly acceptable grounds. You wouldn’t find it strange or wrong for a business to require a human resources degree for applicants to a position as vice president of human resources.

Diversity
Diversity refers to the presence of differing culture, language, ethnicities, races, affinity, orientation, genders, religious sects, abilities social classes, ages and national origins of the individuals in a firm. Ninety percent of employees in U.S. business believe they have a diverse workforce where they work. This is not surprising since the pool of eligible and interested workers is becoming more and more diverse, as well. It is estimated that, by 2010, only 20% of the workforce will be white, able bodied men under 45.
Where individuals from different backgrounds are bought together for the first time, and where negative stereotypes previously ruled interactions between these two groups, sensitivity to he potential for conflict in necessary. The cost of ignoring diversity is high, not only in terms of ensuring the greatest productivity, creativity and other performance based measure, but also in term of legal liability.

Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action is remedying past wrongs and preventing the same in the future. In following an affirmative action plan, employers consciously take positive steps to seek out minorities and women for hiring and promotion opportunities
, and they often employ goals and timetables to measure progress toward a workforce that is representative of the qualified labor pool.

Affirmative action efforts arise in two ways:
1. courts may order the implementation of affirmative action after a finding of wrongful discrimination,
2. Employers may voluntarily adopt affirmative action plans.

Affirmative Action in Practice
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber is perhaps the clearest Supreme Court statement to date about the permissible boundaries of affirmative action. Weber, a while male, challenged the legality of an affirmative action plan that set aside for black employees 50% of the openings in a training program until the percentage craft workers in the plant equaled the percentage of blacks in the local labor market . Weber was denied entry to the training program. The federal district court and the federal court of appeals held for Weber, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Therefore, under Weber, race-conscious affirmative action remedies can be permissible. Several qualities of the Steelworkers’ plan were instrumental in the Court’s favorable ruling:
1. the affirmative action was part of plan
2. the plan was designed to “open employment opportunities for Negroes I occupation that have been traditionally
3. The plan was temporary
4. The plan did not unnecessarily harm the rights of white employees.

Therefore, affirmative action in situations like that in Weber does not constitute unlawful reverse discrimination. The employer has discretion to choose among equally qualified candidates, provided the decision is not based upon unlawful criteria.

DRUG TESTING
Whether an employer tests its employees for usage require a difficult balance between the right of the employer to protect its interest and the right of the employee to be free from wrongful intrusions into her or his personal affairs. Since the employer is often responsible for legal violation of its employees committed in the course of their job, the employer’s interest in retaining controls ever aspect of the work environment increases. On the other hand, employees may argue that their drug usage is only relevant if it impact their job performance. Until it doest, the employer should have no basis for testing.
Country singer Tom.T Hall would likely advocate drug testing as he croons, “If you hang all the people, you’ll get all the guilty.” Consider the possibilities of incorrectness presumption in connection with drug testing. For instance, in his book, Drug Abuse in the Workplace: An Employer’s Guide for Prevention, Mark de Bernardo suggests that crudely wrapped cigarettes, razor blades or eye droppers, frequent trips to the bathroom, or dressing inappropriately for the season may be warning signs of the drug use. On the other hand, it does not take a great deal of imagination to come up with other, more innocuous alternative possibilities. Yet, an employer may decide to test based on these” signs.”
In general, the following factors contribute to greater acceptance and approval by workers:
a. Program that use a task force made up of employees and their supervisor
b. A completely random program
c. Effective communication of procedures
d. Programs that offer treatment other than termination for first time offenders.
e. Programs with no distinction between supervisory and other workers.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT
One additional area of recent concern, especially in connection with the balance of power in the workplace, is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment evolved through a traditional application of Title VII: treating someone differently because of her or his gender is unlawful under Tile VII. There are two types of sexual harassment that fit within this broad prohibition:
1. Quid pro quo
Quid pro quo exists where a supervisor offers an employment benefit in exchange for sexual activity or where a supervisor refuses to give an employee deserved benefit unless she or he engages in sexual activity.
2. Hostile environment
Hostile environment exist where a work environment is severely or pervasively altered such that a reasonable person would find it offensive or abusive.

HUMAN RESOURCE VALUES IN CONFLICT
One of the key issues facing business in today’s globalizes economy is the potential for cultural or legal conflicts in connection with worldwide labor management. For the example is the case of child labor.
In developing countries children begin work at ages as young as there years. Children may work in unhealthy conditions. However, they also live in unhealthy conditions.
Unfortunately, in extreme cases, children are forced into slavery as a result of this need for work. The international Labor Organization estimates that in developing countries there are 250 million child laborers between the ages of 5 and 14, with at least 120 million working fulltime. Most children work in agriculture, service industries, or prostitution.



THE ETHICS OF DOWNSIZING
Organizations in every segment of business, industry, government and education are downsizing. The very act of forcing people to leave their employment is rife with ethics-related question. Is downsizing ever ethical?
The truth is that unless an organization was designed expressly and overtly for the purpose, it is not in business to provide employment. Jobs are the by-product of successful organizational endeavors, not their intended output.
Furthermore, downsizing is not necessarily a desperate move on the part of failing organizations. It can be, and probably should be, a strategic choice designed to serve the best interest of an organization. We should not be constrained by the false belief that current organizational effectiveness or financial success is a de facto argument against doing what is necessary to ensure continuing success. A health profit picture and downsizing are not mutually exclusive.
But is only a partial answer to the question. We have merely said that organizational downsizing is not intrinsically unethical. To answer more fully, we have to look at a number of issues. First, some definitions:
Values—this term refers to a set of beliefs. Values are how one defines what is right, fair and good. This definition applies whether we consider individual values, organizational values or societies.
Ethics—here we mean choices and the observable, behavioral manifestation of values-based decisions.
Ethical dilemma—this is a situation where every viable option requires the decisions maker to choose between conflicting values. Under these conditions, any decision under consideration will violate one or more values even it honors others.
Ethical congruence—a situation where one’s decision is consistent with, aligns with, the applicable set of value. Under these circumstances, a choice to take some action will harmonize with the decision maker’s value.

To frame the ethical issues faced by these two constituencies, we must first agree on a set of values to use a preference point. We will employ four value suggested by Kenneth W. Johnson, JD. He uses the acronym EPIC to define the values set:
E= Empathy: caring about the consequences of one’s choices as they affect others. Being concerned with the effect one’s decisions have on those who have no say in the decision itself.
P= Patience: Taking time to consider and deliberate the long-term consequences of a choice before making that choice and acting upon it.
I= Integrity: Making choice that is consistent with each other and with the stated and operative values one espouses. Striving for ethical congruence is one’s decision.
C= Courage : Choosing to do what one believes is right even if the result will not be to everyone’s liking or may lead to personal loss.

That they demonstrate empathy for all of those affected by their decision: the employees who leave and those who remain behind. That they display patience, avoiding a premature knee-jerk reaction. That the decision be based on a critical understanding of its stimuli and its consequences. That they show integrity as they strive to live according to their word and match their actions to their professions of belief. And finally that have the courage to do the right thing, even when the right thing may be the more difficult thing to do.