Program/Effort information
Objectives
Assessment of whether objectives are achieved
Overall evaluation of the programs/efforts successes
Discrimination in the workplace is a subtle obvious social issue that is pervades our society, but not addressed as a dysfunction. It would appear that normal to refuse an applicant due to their ethnicity, sexual orientation gender or merely the perception of the person conducting the interview. Importantly, it exits also as hindering an employee’s promotional opportunities for reasons other than his/her performance. Rather it could be persons’ cultural orientation or simply dislike from administration due to their specific biases. This presentation addresses workplace discrimination and what programs have been adapted to deal with the issue.
Sociology: Individual Essay-Workplace Discrimination
Introduction
Philosophers have described discrimination as an act of segregation. In the American culture it has been associated with Jim Crow laws during that era when African Americans were segregated due to their race or ethnic identity being people of African descent, black skin with curly hair. Theoretically, however, Rubin and Hewstone (2004) have constructed theories describing three types of discrimination prevalent in modern societies. They emerge from realistic conflict and social identity theories.
These theorists contend that self- interest is the motivating factor contained in realistic competition. The focus is securing material resources such as food, land, customers as it pertains to an in-group culture. Importantly, social competition emerges from a personal desire for self-esteem and achieving a positive image for the in-group by dishonoring the out-group. The philosophy lies in an assumption that there are limited resources and since this is so only the in-group must benefit from what is available. Consensual discrimination coincides with a motivation towards accuracy in terms of need clarification. It is expected to reflect stable legitimate intergroup status hierarchies. Particularly this refers to high status groups, which deliberately discriminate against those who are not within that category or class (Rubin and Hewstone, 2004).
Workplace discrimination involves deliberate attempts to harass an employee by withholding promotion, withdrawing or overloading duties, removing compensations and termination. This is executed for no other reason than to keep the in-group satisfied and the out-group punished. Research has revealed that political discrimination has been the worst in world history. The assumption is that the dominating part of the population rules (Pager, 2007) As such, when laws are designed by the state and federal that foster discrimination there is very little hope of resolving the issue at any level within the society without a protest or revolution. One such situation is when apartheid exists in a country.
United Nations has made a public statement regarding any form of discrimination to define it by saying that “discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection’ (United Nations, 2012). This author acknowledges that discrimination in the workplace is a serious social issue. However, programs have been designed to limit the extent to which it occurs. Three programs/efforts will be embraced in this discussed as it relates to interventions that have been instituted to deal with workplace discrimination in society.
Program/Effort information
Program/Effort-1
The first program/effort that would be addressed in this documentation is a federal program that provides some measure of security for those discriminated in the work place. Ruth Mayhew (2012) made reference to programs aimed at racial discrimination in the work environment. Mayhew (2012) contends that the most disruptive force limiting productivity and inhibiting performance levels in the work environment across America was racism. Since a company’s reputations can become irreparably damaged efforts have been made to reduce the incidence occurring within these companies. As such, astute guilty businessmen have attempted to design workplace programs that reduce racism by making discrimination a priority issue on their agenda to modify the image (Mayhew, 2012).
The structure of these programs embodies training. A recommendation of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is that employers orient employees regarding unfair employment practices and laws designed to prevent discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Companies where racial discrimination exists are targeted for this intervention making training mandatory. Employees’ legal rights to fair practice in the work place are exposed and they are sensitized to incidences that would make this visible (Mayhew, 2012).
The focus is sensitizing employees to the truth that they do not have to accept racial discrimination in the workplace because it is unlawful. This is an effort organized by the EEOC targeting employers and employees’ education regarding what constitutes racial discrimination practices in the workplace; how to avoid it and the consequences if found guilty. The organization offers guidance and onsite training for employers and employees to foster a fair industrial climate free of racial discrimination. Texas Workforce Commission collaborates with EEOC in providing guidance; supportive materials for ongoing education and training (Mayhew, 2012).
Objectives
The objectives are entwined in laws and legislations passed prohibiting racial discrimination in the workplace. They include:-
Developing a written company policy against workplace racial discrimination strategies
Enforcing a zero tolerance for the issue.
Designing policies that institute penalties for racial discrimination in the workplace.
Ensuring that companies’ philosophy and values are consistent with proper corporate citizenship and transparent social responsibility (Mayhew, 2012).
Assessment of whether objectives are achieved
According to statistical data provided by labor attorney Rodney Mesriani (2011) a 2111 poll revealed that the most popular labor discrimination in the United States of America for 2011 was racial. With reference to the EEOC efforts and objectives the attorney verified that their polices seem not to be working. They have reported some 35, 890 complaints for last year alone, which was slightly higher than the previous one in 2010 (Mesriani, 2011).
Further, the attorney contends that despite legislation prohibiting these actions current data reveals the ineffectiveness of merely documenting a social issue as unlawful, with no accompanying active serious penalties to enforce the extent of violation (Mesriani, 2011). My opinion relates to this conclusion. This is exactly the case in America and around the world. It would appear that there are political reasons to legislate such policies. However, if polices are designed in a way to offer menial violation penalties, then they do not serve the purpose for which they were created. Precisely, the dysfunction remains an ill addressed social issue.
Overall evaluation of the programs/efforts successes
My overall evaluation of this program/effort is that it is just a documented fallacy. The outcome of training so far has been insufficient to curb racism in the American workplace and across nations where apartheid in the nature of Jim Crow laws have been in existence for centuries. Workplace discrimination would entail changes in attitudes towards people of color or other races.
Attitude change means developing alternative evaluations pertaining to personal belief systems and behaviors regarding a person, object or place. There are three evidences to prove that attitude change has occurred. They are compliance emerges from the consequences of non-compliance; identification initiated by in-group associations and thirdly internalization (Wood, 2000).
Internalization springs from change in values independently of any external socializing force. It could be a conversion experience towards new ways of thinking and being for the individual. However, theorist used the expectancy value theory in explaining this phenomenon to say change precedes an expectation that it would benefit the individual undertaking this adjustment (Cialdini, 2008).
If expectancy value theory were to be applied in evaluating the success of this effort, clearly it is futile in resolving this social issue. There is no incentive for compliance through harsh penalties or favorable rewards. The in-groups in most cases are those in authority and the discriminators. They do not have to identify with minorities of the working class to accept them in a work environment. There are several other variables that can be chosen for firing, hiring or no-promotion the discriminating other than race, which are all acceptable.
Program/effort 11
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is another program/effort advanced to curb discrimination in the workforce. The act embraces nine chapters being adapted from segments of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) draft. It provides protection from discrimination of over 40 age group; skin color; ancestry; religious affiliation; pregnancy; denial of family and medical care leave; disability due to medical conditions (HIV/AIDS); marital status; genetic information; nationality, sexual orientation and gender identities (California Department, 2012).
This legislation offers a comprehensive review of possible situations as workforce discrimination activities across the nation. Californians are advised to take three actions if discriminated against by workforce organizations. First they are to note the discriminatory behavior. Document all valuable information related to the discrimination incident. They must include specific data such as date of the event, the action done, and list of names of people who have witnessed the incident. In doing do, they would be creating a profile of the incident for future reference and legal subsequent legal action (US Equal Opportunity, 2012).
Secondly, the employee must consult an employment attorney. Victims are advised to recr4uit the most qualified attorneys to represent them in these cases since employers do have their representation also. They must be employment law attorneys who are knowledgeable in California racial discrimination to assert their claim ensuring receipt of appropriate financial compensations (US, Equal Opportunity, 2012).
The third action is filing a formal complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which specializes in addressing racial discrimination claims. Also, if the discrimination is beyond racial boundaries California Department of Fair Employment and Housing should receive a complaint and can assist in filing a law suit against the company or employer if it is presumed as a valid case (US Equal Opportunity, 2012).
Objective/s
The law is expected to provide protection from harassment or discrimination in employment
Assessment of whether objectives are achieved
Gary Blasi and Joseph Doherty (2009) conducted studies evaluating the efficacy of California’s Fair Employment and housing Act in its 50 year of operation. The researchers contend that the while the objectives stated 50 years ago maybe still relevant execution of the act in itself is obsolete. There are obvious mutations among motivation for discrimination 50 years ago and now in the 21st century (Blasi & Doherty, 2009).
Precisely, regarding the objective of providing protection from harassment or discrimination in employment based on specific criteria outlined in the act the researchers advance that psychology and neuroscience challenges the assumptions made by the Fair Employment and housing Act. The objective was designed based on the premise that most discrimination is individually intentional. Mutations in social behavior have revealed that social determinants forge unintentional discrimination to emerge in the work environment (Blasi & Doherty, 2009).
Consequently, the old fashioned objective has now become irrelevant for this 21st century era when there is evidence to prove that most acts of workforce discrimination today are unintended based on associating predisposing factors such as market structures and social institutions that perpetuate inequality. These variables they argue are not addressed by and the objective cannot effectively deter actions through economic sanctions established by the Act
(Blasi & Doherty, 2009). Therefore, as it stands this objective is not met.
Overall evaluation of the programs/efforts successes
Referencing Blasi and Doherty (2009) they advance that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act was very effective immediately after segregation was abolished in America. Since then there has been an evolution towards different forms of segregation and discrimination not covered by this law. These deliberate unintended strategies are designed to circumvent existing laws that protect employers from employment discrimination activities (Blasi & Doherty, 2009).
Further the researchers reveal that this effort has become obsolete. In today’s world there are more subtle ways of discrimination. These have seeped into the workforce under the guise of market structure, especially, in the advertising industry, which can openly discriminate according to color; race, sexual orientation and gender (Blasi & Doherty, 2009).
Program/Effort 111
The third and final program/effort to be discussed in this document relates to Disability Employment Discrimination efforts. To date the United States Department of Labor has issued fives pieces of legislations in the efforts to control disability discrimination in the workforce. They are the American with Disability Act; the rehabilitation Act; the Workforce Investment Act; the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act and the Civil Service Reform Act (United States Department of Labor, 2012).
The American with disability Act prohibits discrimination. People with disabilities must be treated as equal to all others and not judged by their disability. This act guarantees equal employment opportunities; access to transportation services as well as public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. Even though only two sections of pertain to employment it encompassed a number of other discriminative actions that could pre-empt employment disenfranchisement (United States Department of Labor, 2012).
Meanwhile, rehabilitation act permits financing for a number of disability-related ventures and activities. These include state vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs, independent living programs, training and research, and the work of the National Council on Disability. Federal agencies, employers/businesses contracting with federal agencies and programs receiving federal financial assistance cannot discriminate against the disabled (United States Department of Labor, 2012).
Similarly, the workforce investment act activates federal job training and employment programs by financing resources. Diverse skills are utilized in this venture. These services include vocational rehabilitation specialists, adult education consultants, welfare-to-work therapists and vocational educational interventionists. They are combined into a nationwide system known as One-Stop Career Centers. Section 188 of the workforce investment act prohibits employer from discriminating against the disabled who wish to participate in these programs (United States Department of Labor, 2012).
In the case of Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) employers who obtained federal contracts or subcontracts entered into before December 1, 2003 of $25,000 and subsequently are obligated to offer employment opportunities disabled veterans. Section 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act distinctively sanctions discrimination against veterans with disabilities in the workforce. This act entitles them to equal opportunity in the workplace (United States Department of Labor, 2012).
Finally, the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) embraces federal agencies regulations. It consist of a number of regulations created to promote fairness in federal personnel management of employment applications by regulating discrimination practices associated with a person’s disability (United States Department of Labor, 2012).
Objective
The objective of the disability employment act is to provide employment opportunities for the disabled through training and specialist educational programs.
Assessment of whether objectives are achieved
Analysts scrutinizing the disability act enforcement based on the objectives have concluded that the intervention has indeed raised the image of people with disability in the society forging employers to accept the disabled form the perception of their usefulness and not what appears in their body. Specifically, it was advanced that once enacted; the scope of the Act was significantly changed the way disable people were treated in society generally, by introducing a new scope of protection (Mc Tigue, 2007). In this sense it can be concluded that the objective have been met.
Overall evaluation of the programs/efforts successes
Despite discrepancies in defining disability as it relates to employment there have been notable improvements in the number of disabled people whose opportunities for employment have opened and they are active participants in the workforce. Statically, 21.9% of 2012 workforce are people with disabilities compared to 69.5% without disabilities. Unemployment figures, however, show where a larger percentage of disabled people are unemployed that people without disabilities. 12.9% of people with disabilities are unemployed compared to 7.3% without disabilities (United States Department of Labor, 2012).
While opportunities are opening there still seems to be some subtle discrimination when unemployment rates are compared. It could mean that employers tend to lay off disabled people faster than those considered abled. Also, they may tend to readily employ an abled person than one who is disabled. In the absence of any evidence based studies to provide ample proof of my assumptions they are merely speculations worth considering at this point.
Conclusions
The foregoing presentation embrace a critical analysis of three major efforts/programs designed to limit discrimination in the work force. Racial discrimination was first addressed by scrutinizing policies imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Clearly, there were legal loop holes in the design which did not address issues burning discrimination racial issues because it5 was reported that racial discrimination was the foremost workplace issue in United States of American at the present time (Papa et.al, 2007).
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act embody a wide cross section of disabilities and is a very old ordinance. Analysts have credited it for its usefulness, but advocate that there be changes in the way discrimination is defined. Market structures policies and institutions which instigate social inequality have undermined the act polices inhibiting its applicability as was intended.
Ultimately, the disability act is perceived as a worthwhile intervention offering opportunities across cultures to veterans; person born with disabilities or those inherited from accidents or disease. Statistically the unemployment rate of disabled person against abled one is comparatively highly suggestive that there is still evidence of discrimination in the workforce.
Blasi, G., & Doherty, J. (2009). California discrimination Law and its Enforcement: Fair
Employment and Housing Act at 50. UCLA LAW Rand. Center for Law and Public
Policy
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (2012). Fair Employment and Housing
Act. Retrieved 22nd November, 2012 from
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_FEHADescr.htm
Cialdini, R. (2008). Influence: Science and practice (5th edition). New York: Harper Collins.
Mayhew, R (2012). Work place programs that reduce racism and discrimination. Retrieved 22nd
November, 2012 from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/workplace-programs-
reduce-racism-discrimination-11533.html
Mc Tigue, P. ( 2007). Critiquing “disability”: The Disability Discrimination Act’s interplay with
Society. Keele University, Staffordshire, U.K
Pager, D. (2009). Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration.
Chicago. University of Chicago Press
Papa, M. Tom D., & Barry, K. (2007). Organizational Communication: Perspectives and Trends (5 ed.). SAGE
Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance:
Commentary on Reicher, Jost and Sidanius. Political Psychology. 25, 823-844.
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012). Filing a Law Suit. Retrieved 22nd
November, 2012 from http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm
United Nations (2012). Understanding Discrimination. Retrieved on 21st November, 2012 from
http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/discrim/id_8_ud_print.asp
United States Department of Labor (2012). Disability Employment Policy Resources by Topic.
Office of Disability Employment Policies. Retrieved 22nd November, 2012
Wood, W. (2000). Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol 51,
539–570.
