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.
1 komentar:
Posting Komentar