Desjardins5e ppt ch11

CHAPTER ELEVEN: DIVERSITY AND DISCRIMINATION

Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved.

Introduce a range of ethical issues raised by a diverse workforce

Explain workplace discrimination Distinguish between equal opportunity, affirmative action,

and preferential treatment Explain the ethical basis of equal opportunity and

affirmative action Examine the ethical arguments for and against preferential

treatment in the workplace Examine the issue of workplace sexual harassment

11-2Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved.

Chick-fil-A is a U.S. fast-food restaurant specializing in chicken sandwiches Founded in the 1940s by the Cathy family outside Atlanta; the

southern U.S. remains its market base The Cathys have always said their business philosophy is

deeply shaped by their religious beliefs Part of the corporate purpose is "To glorify God by being a

faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us.”


In 2012, Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A president and CEO, created a major controversy when he publically denounced people who advocate for same-sex marriages

Chick-fil-A had also supported groups opposed to gay and lesbian rights through its WinShape Foundation WinShape had donated millions of dollars to groups opposing

legalization of same-sex marriage


Cathy’s comments against same-sex marriage were made when four U.S. states had same-sex marriage proposals on the November election ballot and just two months after President Obama announced his support for the legalization of same-sex marriage

Elected officials in Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia pledged their opposition to any expansion of Chick-fil-A in their cities

Protests and demonstrations were held at Chick-fil-As across the United States


Prominent Republican critics of same-sex marriage spoke out in defense of Cathy and Chick-fil-A

Cathy publically defended his comments Chick-fil-A’s corporate response was more muted:

The company issued a statement that said: “Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”


Based on data from the 2010 Census, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics concluded that: “Today’s labor force is older, more racially and ethnically

diverse, and composed of more women.” “These trends are expected to continue to shape the future

of the workforce.” The percentage of every race and ethnicity in the U.S.

workforce other than white males will grow during the period of 2010-2020

White males have not comprised the majority of the U.S. workforce since the 1970s


Yet an increasingly diverse workforce has not translated into increasing diversity in managerial positions, equality of wages and benefits, or positions of power and prestige

True equal opportunity does not yet flourish within business institutions


Consider the mixed record on workplace equality for women: The number of women in the labor force has grown to 48%

Women own 40% percent of all businesses and hold 43% of executive, administrative, and managerial positions

Between 1970 and 1990, the percentage of women physicians more than doubled from 7.6 to 16.9%

Between 1973 and 1993, the percentage of women lawyers and judges increased from 5.8 to 22.7%


Yet women remain clustered in lower-paid and lower-status jobs, are relatively absent from higher-paying blue-collar and management positions, and still are paid lower wages than men Women, in general, hold less than 5% of all senior level

positions in major corporations Women still make only 77 cents to every dollar a man

makes In 1993, white women earned 70.8% of the salary of white

men Black women and Hispanic women were paid 63.7% and

53.9%, respectively


The situation for minority workers is as bleak, and was made worse by the 2008-2010 recession

The black unemployment rate in 2011 was double that for whites


An increasingly diverse workplace means Greater opportunities

Greater diversity provides management with opportunities to improve worker quality by finding employees with a wider range of talents, experiences, and abilities

Greater challenges A diverse workforce will likely experience similar situations in which

differences among genders, ethnic groups, and cultures can create significant barriers to an efficient and peaceful workplace


Do employers have any responsibility to intentionally aim to increase the diversity of its workforce?

Is the case for diversity merely a business case of improving the labor pool and better serving customers, or is it also an ethical case of have a duty to do so?

What ethical responsibilities, if any, does an employer have to employees who are from backgrounds different from the employer?

Should an employer be free to exclude diverse people from its workplace?


It is easy to forget that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was politically a very controversial measure that required significant changes in American society

In the 21st century, commitment to equal treatment for each individual, providing each person with equal economic opportunity, is about as strong an ethical consensus as exists, at least in North America, Europe, and throughout much of the rest of the world


All individuals deserve equal moral standing.

Passive nondiscrimination implies that business has an obligation not to discriminate in any of its activities.


Discrimination refers to the ability to make unfair or unequal distinctions.- Job-relevant criteria- Preferential hiring or treatment

Is a company’s hiring preference of employees’ family members a violation of equal opportunity?


Utilitarians: An employer should make hiring decisions based primarily on the ability of the candidate to perform the job efficiently and skillfully, taking other consequences into consideration.


When all other things are equal, employers should enjoy a wide latitude in their hiring decisions.


Suppose a manager hires a person from his or her alma mater from among a pool of equally qualified candidates.

Has the manager done anything wrong by discriminating on the basis of personal preference rather than job-relevant criterion?


Four decades after the Civil Rights Act, there remains widespread unequal treatment throughout the economy

Equal opportunity alone has not solved many of the problems it was designed to address


Affirmative action refers to any policy or action, aimed at securing a more equal workplace, going beyond simple legal access or passive nondiscrimination, that does not alter the standards or qualifications for employment.

It does not refer to a quota system.


Reflect on the language used in social debates…there is a lot of misunderstanding and ambiguity used in these discussions.


Equal opportunity refers to the commitment to legal access regardless of gender, race, or ethnic background.

Policies described as color blind or gender blind are examples.


Affirmative action refers to any positive steps taken to alleviate unequal treatment that moves beyond passive nondiscrimination.


Preferential treatment refers to policies that go beyond affirmative action by seemingly changing the job standards in an effort to hire more women and people of color.


What are the various forms that preferential hiring might take?- giving preference to previously disadvantaged candidates- actively identifying members of previously disadvantaged groups in the pool of applicants and giving them preference in hiring decisions


What are the various forms that preferential hiring might take?- hiring members of disadvantaged groups with only minimal consideration given to qualifications (quotas)


Do preferential policies violate the rights of white males?

If preferential policies do violate the rights of white males are there other ethical considerations that would override this violation?


Deontological arguments:- Preferential policies are unjust because they violate the rights of white males.- Preferential policies are just because they compensate people for harms they have suffered.


Utilitarians:- On balance, preferential policies produce either beneficial or detrimental results.


Many arguments have been offered to support or refute the ethical legitimacy of preferential hiring- the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case involving the University of Michigan Law School


The Supreme Court ruled that diversity can be a compelling state interest in admissions to state educational institutions.


Deontological arguments white males could make:- merit argument- preferential treatment violates the white male’s right to be treated with respect

Deontological arguments in support of preferential treatment- a means for compensation for past harms- presently disadvantaged people should be granted preference as a means to secure equality in the workplace


The Merit Argument Is this argument a reasonable requirement of justice? Are the qualifications used to establish merit fair and

open to all? Is there some reasonable way to determine and

measure qualifications so that we can decide who is the most qualified?

Does race or gender serve as a job qualification?


For the first issue, assume that a fair and objective determination of qualifications can be made Can we say that this person has earned the job, or

deserves it in such a way that if they are denied the job, an injustice has been done?


For the second issue we need to ask, to what degree are the qualifications fair and open to all? The answer is ambiguous.


For the third issue, is there a fair and reasonably objective way to determine qualifications? Qualifications as accomplishments Qualifications as predictors Qualifications in comparison to present employees

There seems to be no objective way.


Finally, might job candidate’s gender or ethnic background function as a qualification for a job? Bakke v. Regents of the University of California

A reasonable conclusion would seem to acknowledge the possibility that being a woman or a person of color can make a positive workplace contribution


The Principle of Equal Treatment Preferential treatment policies deny white males the

equal respect and consideration that is their due. This argument is at the heart of reverse

discrimination.


First, hiring policies that prefer women and people of color are ethically different from similar policies that gave preference to whites and males

Whatever else, white males are not now and never will be victims of similar systematic mistreatment


Nevertheless, that individuals are denied a job on the basis of gender Race Ethnicitythat seem irrelevant and over which the job candidate

has no control, is prima facie wrong – a violation of a right to equal treatment.


Some defenders of preferential policies distinguish between violating someone’s rights and overriding those rights for a more pressing ethical goal.


A major argument for preferential hiring claims that these policies are an ethically legitimate means for compensating people for harms that they have suffered.


Three issues need to be resolved to assess this argument:1. compensatory justice requires that compensation be proportionate to the harms done (equity).2. Compensatory justice requires that the person paying the compensation must be the person who enacted the harm.


Three issues need to be resolved to assess this argument:3. Compensatory justice requires that the party receiving the justice be the party that was harmed.


At first glance compensatory justice seems to compensate for harms done…

…examination of the issue reveals that the preference only equalizes the situation and returns it to the point that it would have been had the original discrimination not occurred.


Under the current conditions, young white men would argue that they did not personally harm anyone through preferential treatment…

…compensatory justice responds by denying that young white men are making the repayment – society and business is making the repayment.


Critics would argue that actual preferences go further and deny young white men equal employment opportunities…

…in response, young white men have benefited from the harms that occurred…they should not expect to receive benefits derived from them.


Critics would argue that preferences granted as a means for compensation do not compensate injured parties- the true victims of discrimination are past generations- to the extent that discrimination harms present generations, preferential policies compensate the least desiring members of these groups


Finally, critics explain that gender, race, or ethnicity may be inappropriate criteria to use in deciding preferences – economic and social class is more appropriate.


Defenders of the compensatory argument will concede that the harms to be compensated are those done to previous generations…

…but the fact that greater injury is suffered by others does not mean that the preferential hiring granted to some is unjust…other forms of compensatory justice are needed.


Finally, defenders argue that the only means available to compensate for overall discrimination is to grant individual women and people of color preferential consideration in hiring and promotions.


Defenders are challenged to specify if compensation is owed to groups or to individuals…

…if, on the other hand, criteria other than group membership is used to allocate compensatory preferences, there will be some equally deserving white males who will be unfairly ignored.


What exactly is required by the right to equal treatment?- Equality does not commit us to identical treatment.

Relevant differences can justify different and nonidentical treatment.


The equality argument would claim that real or fair equal opportunity demands that individuals not suffer the effects of undeserved and unfair disadvantages…

…through no fault of their own women and people of color suffer from an unfair disadvantage in the workplace.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964:Individuals ought not to be denied equal

employment opportunities based on such irrelevant factors as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1980 defined illegal sexual harassment Quid pro quo: when submission to sexual favors is

made a condition for employment Hostile work environment: when the overall

workplace environment is so pervaded with sexual harassment and intimidation that it creates an unfair barrier for women in the workplace


Quid pro quo harassment Threats Offers Both are forms of coercion or extortion Barnes v. Train


The word “sex” is ambiguous In one sense it refers to gender In another sense it refers to sexuality

The EEOC seems to confuse the issue when it characterizes the unlawful behavior as being only of a “sexual nature.”


In response to the ambiguity and short-comings of Quid pro quo, scholars and courts recognize the hostile work environment model.

Thus certain “verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” can interfere with a woman’s ability to work to the level of workplace discrimination.


The hostile work environment principle is problematic because it does not consider intent.

The reasonable man standard was introduced to emphasize the “unreasonable interference” with work that harassment behavior enacts.


This standard prevents allowing the victim’s perceptions to be the sole determination of harassment.

Do men and women differ over what constitutes unreasonable conduct of a sexual nature?


Another problem: the reasonable person standard is itself ambiguous.- sometimes an ideal standard- sometimes an average or normal person standard


Should we shift to a reasonable woman standard?

There are some good reasons to:- we should be alert that the “reasonable person” standard is a disguised version of “man”- when it comes to sexuality women and men perceive sexual experiences differently


But there are also reasons to hesitate in the shift of language- reinforcing a sexual stereotype- reinforcing paternalism- it may create an unfair situation for men


Even if men do not fully understand that they conduct harassment, one would ideally hold them responsible because, if they were thoughtful and reflective, they should have known better.


Date post:	29-Jun-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	oudesign
View:	162 times
Download:	4 times

Desjardins5e ppt ch11

Documents