Hiring  Firing And  Discrimination    Unit 4  D B
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Hiring Firing And Discrimination Unit 4 D B

  • 1,108 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Career
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,108
On Slideshare
1,108
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Hiring, Firing, and Discrimination<br />Carla J. McCoy<br />Unit 4 Discussion Board – Business Ethics<br />American InterContinental University<br />January 26th, 2009<br />When it comes to Affirmative Action programs, Reverse Discrimination, and Criteria of comparable worth, I feel that the intentions were good, but the fine details need a lot of work. Actions have also taken place once this was developed and created which have caused other views between people that are debatable and controversial. Some people think here in America that Racism is dead and long gone, but they are mistaken. America has a very long way to go when it comes to Racism and Discrimination. Some people feel that having Obama as President will change those views, but I personally feel it will take more than having one African American President to do such. Each topic is listed below separately. <br />Affirmative Action throughout a 45 year time frame in history has been both praised and looked down upon. President Kennedy introduced Affirmative Action back in 1961 with high hopes to redirect the persistence of discrimination in spite of civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees which later on, President Johnson enforced and developed for the first time. President Johnson asserted “We seek not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.” What Affirmative Action policies ensured was that blacks and other minorities had the same opportunities as whites have. Some of those opportunities include salary increases, school admissions, scholarships, promotions, career advancement, and even financial aid. Affirmative Action was created in hopes that discrimination would end and every human being would have an equal opportunity to obtain these opportunities once the “Level playing field” was equal for all humans, but it was beginning to reverse itself. Liberals in most cases understand the injustice of Affirmative Action because of the simple fact that black employees were able to keep their jobs while white employees with seniority were laid off. (Brunner, B., 2000-2008)<br />Reverse Discrimination became a big issue that started out with a man named Allan Bakke who was a white male and had been rejected two years in a row by a medical school. By the time the late 70s arrived there were flaws in the policy regardless of its good intentions. The medical school that had rejected Allan Bakke two years in a row was accepting less qualified minority applicants because they set aside and reserved at least 16 places for minority students to join when in my own personal opinion they shouldn’t have reserved any places for minorities, they should have just accepted people as they were no matter what culture they were from, until all the spaces were full. Minorities also had a separate admissions policy from everyone else which doesn’t turn out to be such an equal thing, especially when white men stepped out and began a backlash against affirmative action. What happened based on these facts is that the Supreme Court outlawed inflexible quota systems in affirmative action programs but at the same time upheld the legality aspects of affirmative action, all because Allan Bakke was discriminated against unfairly. What’s happened here is that Conservatives began to see that this was basically shutting opportunity out to white people that were qualified where it was allowing Minorities who were unqualified to get a free ride on the American system, among seeing some Minorities who were unqualified that were actually enjoying playing the role of the professional victim, and they resented this idea. (Brunner, B., 2000-2008)<br />Criteria of Comparable Worth is a strategy that has attempted to correct past injustices, but is also complex. In the 70s school bussing was an issue, where in the 80s it was affirmative action. There is also the battle of male vs. female battle within the working field that advocates review quite often. Take women for instance who are unable to support themselves and their families that end up being forced to accept public assistance all because the wages of underpaid workers (women’s jobs) have not been brought up to the same level of wages as the comparable workers (men’s jobs). (Brunner, B., 2000-2008) Another thing to look at is Washington State in 1981 when Judge Jack E. Tanner found that Washington State had actually discriminated against women by employing them in large numbers but underpaying them. Women made up 70% of jobs back then. Back pay was ordered in the estimate of approximately half a billion dollars. Back in 1964 Congress passed the Equal Pay Act which requires equal pay for the same work. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964 prohibited employers from discriminating against women. However, in the 80s those regulations were shown not to be effective due to women only earning 59% as much as men do. Let’s look at the differences here though that has been considered. Wage differences between men and women are not different because women are inherently less productive than men, but rather because women are less educated, have less skills, and women are higher risks for employers because when it comes to females vs. males, Men do not leave their jobs to have children (although some do take time off when their wife ends up having problems in the hospital, which is all based on circumstance of each case) Men are less likely to leave work to care for children where women will. Men are less likely to move due to their spouses being forced to relocate, where women will. The Department of Labor has reported that Men also stay longer at their jobs than women do, by 77-100 %. Men also are (generally) stronger than women and often work in jobs that are higher at risk for physical harm. This increased risk command higher wages. (Walker, D., 1984)<br />After reviewing this information I can honestly say that this is untrue. My Mother worked for W.T. U (West Texas Utilities Power-plant) for as long as I can remember. She had the same education if not higher than most men she worked with, She never left her job to have a child ( I had already been born), She never had to leave work to take care of me, she relocated when asked to yes (but she WAS the unmarried female) and she did stay at her job for more years than some men lasted, and although she may not be as physically strong as some men, her job was high risk for physical harm so she got paid equal to what some other men got paid and even more than other men. She’s retired now and living comfortably and is proud of her past work history, and I’m proud of her. My Mother has been a great Inspiration to me personally and she has always taught me that no matter what I wanted to be in this world that I could. So these statements up above do not hold true for all men vs. women. (McCoy, C., 2009) <br />Affirmative Action Time Line (Milestones)<br />Citations<br />Brunner, B., (2000-2008) Affirmative Action History (A History and Timeline of Affirmative Action) Infoplease, retrieved at http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html<br />Walker, D., (1984) Policy Analysis Value and Opportunity: The Issue of Comparable Pay for Comparable Worth Cato Institute, retrieved at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa038.html<br />References<br />Electronic Resource: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html<br />Electronic Resource: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa038.html<br />