Discrimination in Hiring

Kristin Clauw 

Overview

In order for a person to excel in a company and expand their career horizon they must first be hired. This may seem like common sense but for people it is the main barrier to their success. However, their lack of job offers is not due to an absence of skills or experience but rather their gender, race, or age. This kind of treatment is known as disparate impact. If the applicants are offered the job and then suffer from inequality or harassment it is disparate treatment.  Bill Lann Lee, a former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights stated “hiring discrimination is a fundamental problem; it often denies more than one employment opportunity, cutting off future opportunities as well. It is impossible to climb the rungs of a ladder if an individual cannot get a foot on the first rung.” (2011). Discrimination in hiring has been a problem for some time now and is still hindering deserving candidates from reaching their potential.

Gender Discrimination

Years ago, in American history, women were forbidden from attending college and receiving the same education as men. Things have long sense changed on this front and now men and women sit side by side in the same classes, take the same test, and graduate with the same degrees. Many times women often score higher than their male counterparts. However, they still face discrimination in the corporate world finding it difficult to obtain beneficial careers or advance to higher levels. For example, in a study of the 1,000 largest companies in the US, only 19 of the 4,000 highest paid officers and directors were women (Chein, 1999).  Even if a woman can receive a high level job they may not make as much as men in similar positions do.

One reason women face a consistent battle against men when trying to advance in the workforce is due to stereotypes.  Their “feminine” traits are seen as much less desirable than that of the “masculine” mans. Often times they are categorized as indecisive, dependent, emotional, and insecure. None of these qualities are favorable in the business world and make many firms or boards, especially those made up of mostly men, reluctant to hire women (Chein, 1999).  In recent years there have been many women who have made the climb up the corporate latter and given others hope but they are still largely outnumbered by men.

Another cause for this unfair treatment is explained by Heilman’s “lack of fit” model. This model is based on an individuals perceived attributes and the perception of the job requirement. Fitness is then determined comparing these two factors. If a good fit is found success is likely. It the fit is poor the bias sets in. This model can be applied when discussing women’s role in upper management. The perceived expectation when a woman is in these positions is failure. Therefore, the fit is seen as poor and creates a bias (Chein, 1999).  This is again caused by the stereotype that woman’s skills and personalities are undesirable in top positions.  

Affirmative action has tried to put an end to this issue but has faced heavy opposition. Even if it prevails it is not the best way to combat this treatment. The most successful mechanism is to educate people both inside and outside the workplace. In order for a stereotype to be broken people must be made aware of why it is incorrect. This can be done by updating policies, required training, and visible actions in the workplace that promote equality. 

Age Discrimination

While older applicants may have more experience they are often not chosen over those who are younger. In 1993 the Fair Employment Council (FEC) conducted a national survey to assess this discrimination. They found that it varied by location, industry, and firm success. For example, companies in the West and South had high discrimination rates than those in the Northeast and Midwest. Also, manufacturing firms preferred the younger applicants much more than the older ones (Shen 2001).  Even when people may be equally skilled and abled younger people are seen as more active, energetic, motivated and beneficial to a successful or growing company.

There are laws put in place in order to combat this discrimination. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act makes it illegal to discriminate in hiring, discharge, promotion, or treatment of persons over the age of 40. The only time it is acceptable for a company to act in this manor is when age is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Shen, 2001). The burden then shifts to the company to prove that age is in fact a business necessity. This can be difficult to prove and many times victims do win and are awarded damaged in court.

Stereotypes also play a role in age discrimination in workplace. Employers may feel that older employees may not be able to keep up or lack fresh ideas. On the contrary, older workers are more likely to stay at a job and be more satisfied with it. They are also less likely to have accidents and are just as flexible and trainable (Shen, 2001). The ways to diminish this treatment is the same as with gender discrimination. Employees must be aware of company polices as well as federal laws regarding these types of workers. They should also experience training regarding how to handle any issues that may arise from age discrimination. If people can be re-educated on this topic less discrimination will occur.

Conclusion

In the end, all people should be evaluated based on their skills, abilities, and experience rather than their demographic characteristics. The EEOC works to protect workers effected by discrimination and prevent it from being a problem in the future. With the proper education and sensitivity training there is no reason that this issue can be eliminated in the future. It is only fair that all people be given the same opportunities for employment and advancement. 

Bibliography

Chein, E., Kleiner, B. H., (1999). Sex discrimination in hiring. Equal Opportunities International, 18(5) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199607000?accountid=12924

Shen, G., Kleiner, B. H. (2001). Age discrimination in hiring. Equal Opportunities International, 20(8). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199610558

(2011). Disparate treatment in hiring remains major problem, experts tell EEOC: Employers still barring large groups of people from jobs based on race, sex, age, other prohibited bases. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Documents and Publications. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/873377977

Ethical Issues Involving Privacy of Technology Usage in the Workplace

Margaret Johnson

Privacy in the Workplace

          Job-related privacy has increasingly become a major topic for employees. Both the employer and the employee have valid opinions to what is or should be legal when it comes to privacy at the workplace. Employees feel that they have the right to shield their personal lives from their staff.  While the employer, on the other hand, believes they have the right to obtain all information needed because if an issue came up with that employee, they could be the one  held legally responsible.

          There are several topics that are included in workplace privacy. These issues can range from the recruitment process, the surveillance of the employees, employee technology usages, employee's health, legal concerns, etc. For this blog, I will focus on the technology usage privacy aspect.

Technology Usage Privacy

          Since technology has increased dramatically over the years, privacy issues involving technology in the workplace have been on the rise. Employees use technology for job-related and personal reasons. Employers have established policies to avoid any concerns that may take place. Ethics plays a major role in these policies and employee concerns. The main topics I will discuss are:

·         Surveillance Privacy

·         E-mail Privacy

·         Social Media Privacy

Surveillance Privacy

          Employers have the right to be able to monitor their employees, but to what extent? Some ways that they do supervise their workers could be:

v  Checking employee e-mails

v  Measuring telephone time spent

v  Tracking content, keystrokes, and time spent at the computer keyboard

v  Placing global positioning system chips in mobile devices or company cars (Kidwell)

          Companies nowadays have power to engage in surveillance of their employees with little restriction mainly because of court decisions. This, in turn, allowed employers to regulate their staff's electronic communications more easily. Many are concerned with this little restriction that the employer can abuse this power.

          For workplace privacy in the United States, there is a privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion that has 3 elements (Kidwell). These are:

1.    A reasonable expectation of privacy on part of the employee

2.    A legitimate business purpose for the search on part of the employer

3.    The imposition (by the employer) is highly offensive to a reasonable person

®      Example: Surveillance in employee bathrooms is limited

          Companies argue that because an employee is in their place of business and is using their equipment, they have no right to do things that are not work-related so there should be no issue if they want to monitor them or not.

         

E-mail Privacy

          A main use of technology that most employees in businesses will use is their company e-mail. In American workplaces, approximately 70% of all companies provide Internet access to at least half of their company. (Synder) According to the American Management Association in 2005, it estimates that the average employee with e-mail access spends about 25% of the workday checking and sending e-mail. In a 2006 study of workplace communication technology use and misuse, it found that 79% of the respondents use their e-mail to send personal mail at work. (Synder)

          An example concerning ethics using company e-mail, is in the case Smyth vs. Pillsbury Co., 1996, the court found no intrusion of privacy when an employer fired an employee because of the content of some of his e-mail messages. It stated that the employer gave assurances that e-mail messages would not be monitored and employees would not be disciplined based on the content within them (Kidwell). Is that ethical that the employer was allowed to let him go? or was it not ethical for the employee to send an inappropriate message in the first place using his company e-mail?

Social Media Privacy

          Social Media in the workplace is another increasingly hot topic. In a report a couple years ago, it showed the amount of workers that visited sites like Facebook, YouTube, etc. was at least once per day. That is a little over half of the employees (51%). (Kobsa) Nowadays, companies are providing their employees with an enterprise social networking site, like Beehive. I would think this would help decrease the usage of general social networking sites, but may still be an issue when it comes to distracting an employee from their work.

          So the question is, should employers be able to look at the social networking sites you are involved with and hold you accountable for any negative or inappropriate things? If they are allowed, should it only be because you are accessing that content while at work?

          An example I found was a story by CBSNews in 2011, where a 24-year-old teacher from Georgia was fired because of her vacation pictures. There were pictures of herself holding alcohol in them. The principal ended up forcing her resignation. She even had her privacy settings on, but the pictures were still found. Was that ethical of the principal to fire her because of what she does on her vacation on her own personal time?

Conclusion/Opinion

          In conclusion, there are many different ways that privacy laws that involve technology usage can be viewed. The arguments by both employers and employees are valid in their own way. In my opinion, I don't necessarily like the idea of an employer going through my e-mail and computer "just cause," but I understand that at work, I'm only supposed to be doing things work-related. If I was fired for sending a personal e-mail that was inappropriate, or looking at sites that were clearly not work-related, I'd be upset but I don't believe I'd have any grounds for legal action against my former employer. In turn, it was me that had unethical actions, not the company who searched my things.

          In the case of the social networking sites, I believe it's unethical for employers to use those to hold employees accountable. If an employee has their privacy settings on, then clearly that is his or her own personal content that they are not trying to show the world. As I stated, there are many opinions one way or another on the topic of what is and what is not ethical with technology usage at the workplace.

Works Cited

CBSNews. (2011, February 6). Did the Internet Kill Privacy? Sunday Morning.

          Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-7323148.html

Kidwell, Roland. E., & Sprague, Robert. (2009). Electronic surveillance in the global     workplace: laws, ethics, research and practice.

          New Technology, Work and Employment, 24:2. Retrieved from           http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1468-         005X.2009.00228.x/full

Kobsa, Alfred., & Wang, Yang. (2009). Privacy in Online Social Networking at Workplace.

          2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering. Retrieved from           http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=528373   5&tag=1

Synder, Jason. L. (2010). E-mail Privacy in the Workplace : A Boundary Regulation     Perspective.

          Journal of Business Communication, 47:266. Retrieved from           http://job.sagepub.com/content/47/3/266

Ethics Involving Performance Appraisals

Margaret Johnson

"Ethics should be the cornerstone of performance evaluation, and the overall objective of high ethical performance reviews should be to provide an honest assessment of the performance and mutually develop a plan to improve the rate's effectiveness." (Suresh, 2011)

Performance Appraisals

          Performance appraisals are a great tool for employers to evaluate how their employees have been performing at their company. They can be used for administering wages and salaries, giving performance feedback, and identifying individual employee strengths and weaknesses (Mathis, 329). They can also help control the behavior of the employees by rewards, punishments and threats. Appraisals also help with placing their employees in the right type of job or department.

          Performance appraisals are useful for the administrative and developmental aspects of a company. The most important administrative uses are pay adjustments, promoting/demoting, and terminations of employees. These changes are usually derived from the appraisal. The most important developmental uses are being able to identify the strengths and weaknesses, offering training opportunities, and outlining of future career plans.

How They're Measured

          To determine performance appraisals, the management must measure different aspects of the employees job. This will vary from job to job, but for the most part, an employee will be measured on these factors:

·         Quantity of output

·         Quality of output

·         Timeliness of output

·         Presence/attendance on the job

·         Efficiency of work completed

·         Effectiveness of work completed

Examples of Performance Appraisals Forms/guidelines:

          This website provides examples of many different performance evaluation forms that a performance manager might use in an appraisal. It also provides information on each process so the evaluator will know what to look and ask for during their meeting.

http://www.evaluationforms.org/examples/performance-review-examples/

Reasons for Unethical Reviews

          Performance managers have been known to skew their results intentionally for many reasons. In a research done by Clinton Longenecker and Dean Ludwig, over 70% of managers did so for the following reasons:

·         Belief that accurate ratings would have a damaging effect on the subordinates motivation and performance

·         The desire to improve an employee's eligibility for merit raises

·         The desire to avoid airing the departments dirty laundry

·         The wish to avoid creating a negative permanent record

·         The need to protect good performers whose performance was suffering because of personal problems

·         The wish to reward employees displaying great effort when results are relatively low

·         The need to avoid confrontation with certain hard-to-manage employees

·         The desire to promote a poor or disliked employee up and out of the department

(Longenecker, 1990) Although this article is dated some years back, it does provide general reasons why a performance manager or an employee may decided to be unethical or bias upon their reviews.

Ethics involved in Performance appraisals

          Having ethics as a manager doing performance appraisals is very important for many reasons. These appraisals can be highly subjective, which can impact the relationships between the managers and the employee being reviewed. There are many different ways that a meeting can do from ethical to unethical. Listed are some of the general appraisal characteristics and an understanding on how it can be unethical:

·         Rewards, punishments and threats

®      These should be used in a positive way. If they are negatively used, it can affect the morale of the employee

®      An appraiser should not be able to reward an employee that he/she likes more than another, when the other is more qualified

·         Reliability and validity

®      The appraiser should provide consistent, reliable, and valid information

·         Job Relatedness

·         Standardization

®      The performance appraisal process, forms, administration techniques, and ratings should be standardized so it affects all employees of the group. For example, if they provide one form or rating system for one employee, they must provide the same for another.

·         Legal Sanction

·         Rater Errors

v  Rater Bias

®      The person filling out the forms and rating the other employee or manager may distort the information by using their own values or prejudices.

v  Similar-to-me/Different-from-me Error

®      This is where the rater creates a bias for a person whose characteristics are similar or different from their own. Instead of measuring the individuals job performance, they end up measuring the individual against another person

·         Training and Appraisers

®      Providing training for the appraisers will help familiarize them with the different rating errors which can improve the rater performance. If they are unaware, they may make these unethical errors during the appraisal

·         Employee Access to Results

®      Feedback is necessary for growth or change to occur. Keeping any results away from the employees is unethical

·         Confidentiality

®      The feedback that the appraiser provides should be confidential. Leaking it to unnecessary employees is unethical

Conclusion

          Performance appraisals are a great way for a company to assess their employees. In a perfect world, the appraiser would leave all bias and unethical decisions away from the meetings. Since this is not always the case, implementing training and awareness for performance managers is a good way for them to become familiar with the unethical possibilities so they can prevent themselves from having them occur during a performance appraisal.

WORKS CITED

Admin. (July 15, 2006). Managerial Ethics in Performance Appraisals. Retrieved from http://www.citeman.com/810-managerial-ethics-in-performance-appraisal.html

Genesis Framework. (2013). Evaluation Forms. Retrieved from http://www.evaluationforms.org/

Longenecker, Clinton, & Ludwig, Dean. (Dec, 1990). Ethical Dilemmas in Performance Appraisal Revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, no. 12. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25072119?uid=3739728&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101924781267

Mathis, Robert L., and John H. Jackson. Human Resource Management. 13th ed. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011. 157-165.  Print.

Suresh, S. (2011). Ethical Issues in Human Resource Management. Management and Labour Studies, Vol. 34, no. 4. Retrieved from http://mls.sagepub.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/content/36/4/367.full.pdf+html

Ethical Issues Involving Layoffs and Alternative Options

Dan McCauley

OVERVIEW and RELEVANCE

Work force downsizing or layoffs occur for many different reasons. These layoffs and acts of downsizing happen in many different ways. Human resource departments go through many different ethically challenged routes to get where they need to be. First of all there are two different types of downsizing. One is reactive downsizing; this is a quick way for a company to react to something in the external environment in a deliberate and sometimes uncalculated manor. This type of downsizing is a quick fix and may cause problems down the road. The immediate reaction can sometimes come with disregard to the companies mission statement and overall values and goals (Parker, 1997). Reactive downsizing tends to cut down on the company’s overall morale and puts employees on edge. Not to mention it cuts down the talent pool that is a problem you may face down the road. That seems to be more unethical than the alternatives. The other type of downsizing is strategic downsizing; this occurs when a company gradually sees redundancies and starts to eliminate them slowly over time (Parker, 1997). Sometimes this type of downsizing is referred to as rightsizing. This process involves many steps. One is to identify the core that is needed to maintain business. Another is to find which jobs are redundant and can be consolidated. From there you must make sure that you protect the bottom line and corporate brand. The most important thing to remain successful is to keep in constant contact with the employees you keep and make sure they keep the course and maintain self-confidence (Parker, 1997). One of the ways that companies compensate these employees to make the transition easier is a severance package or benefits. These typically entails some sort clause that alleviates the company of any legal claims and may go as far as having a gag order or stipulation of a confidentiality agreement where the employees not legally allowed to discuss anything that happened while an employee. When the last stipulation is put into place you typically may wonder if that this person was let go for unethical reasons. There are some instances in where the company should downsize but find alternate ways of cutting costs while retaining employees. This is the most ethically sound way because you remain loyal to your employees and get within your budget. This sometime results in an increase in productivity and growth in the long run.

KEY POINTS

            You see that there is a right way or ethical way to do something and there is a not so ethical way of doing things. Now there are a few specific instances that I came across while researching that I found interesting. The first one was a non ethical downsizing that involved the state owned company Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. This was a minor downsizing that involved the company’s top investigators. These top watch dogs from this company were let go not because of the company profits slipping but because they saw and investigated things they were not supposed to. During their investigations they found a good amount of unethical behavior taking place; some even involved some of the company’s top executives. They had evidence of favoritism, improper compensations and other poorly handled investigations (Olorunnipa, 2012). All of the people who were involved in this investigation were “downsized” and part of their severance package included a gag order. This stopped all of the allegations being made by that department and now the evidence is gone and no one is being prosecuted or reprimanded. That is an example I found of unethical downsizing.

            The next article that I found was one that I thought was very progressive and ethical. This involves the Honda Motor Company during the early 90’s. The big three had just taken back a big portion of the market from Japanese motor companies. This indicated to Honda that the production would decrease because the demand was decreasing. The decrease in production and demand meant that profits would go down and that they would need fewer employees to produce what was necessary. Here is where Honda went outside of the box and found a win win ethical solution. Roger Lambert, a Honda spokesman, said, "when we decided we would have to reduce output, we didn't see this as a way to cut 200 workers, we saw it as 5 percent more time for training." That is exactly what they did. Honda offered more that 600 different courses that the employees could take to improve their knowledge and eventually help the company in the long run (Levin, 1993). Unlike the big three who have force employees to take vacations, which to me sounds unethical as well as the layoffs to cut cost in certain instances. This out of the box thinking makes sense to improve the company in the long run along with being ethically sound.

            Finally I found a statement that the Clinton administration released, telling a federal court that, “employers should be able to favor minorities when forced to choose between equally qualified black and white workers for layoffs (Mauro, 1994).” This statement was put out in 1994 but even though it was nearly twenty years ago it doesn’t seem ethical for layoffs. When layoffs occur the only ethical way to choose who is laid off when the position and pay are equal is off of past performance. This statement is saying that the minority should stay and be favored because they are a minority. This to me seems unethical and that it shouldn’t matter if some is a minority or the majority.

TAKE AWAY POINTS

            From this you see different ethical and unethical ways layoffs occur. Hopefully if you are put in the position of making layoffs you think of these alternatives and preventative ways of doing that. You will also see that there are ethical reasons and unethical reasons to layoff people. Downsizing is never a good thing to go through but understanding the reasoning behind it and the ethics involved you can deal with it in a more insightful way.

References

Mauro, T. (1994, September 9). An edge for minorities in layoffs urged. Usa Today

Olorunnipa, T. (2012, November 17). Misconduct at citizens. Tampa Bay Times, pp. 1B.

Parker, S. K., Chmiel, N., & Wall, T. D. (1997). Work characteristics and employee well-being within a context of strategic downsizing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2(4), 289-303. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.2.4.289

Levin, D.P, Special to The New York Times. (1993, March 29). Back to school for honda workers. The New York Times, pp. 1.