Free Essay about Anti-discrimination Laws

At present, there is diversity in the global labor force such that workplace equity is gaining popularity as companies strive to adopt workplace policies and procedures that are in accordance with Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2017). Voluntarily prohibiting Federal anti-discriminatory laws present certain limitations and benefits to organizations which companies at present consider before implementing workplace equality procedures and policies. Benefits of outlawing Federal anti-discriminatory laws cost reduction in accommodation of employees with special needs. For instance, eliminating Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 in which Title I and V outlaw discrimination of people with disabilities in local and state governments, and private sector when they are qualified for various jobs. Equality in such a situation implies that any employer will have to make necessary adjustments to accommodate the needs of the employees (European Commission, 2016). For instance, consideration of a physically impaired candidate during recruitment forces an employer to buy an expensive ergonomic desk to facilitate wheelchair positioning.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The disadvantage of prohibiting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is that employers miss the benefits that talented persons with disabilities would provide in the company of as their contributions outweigh expenses of accommodating them. Prohibiting anti-discrimination law such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) promotes financial solvency because a workplace that has total equality lacks clear delineation of support responsibilities and managerial roles because of compensation structure reward workers equally regardless of their positions and responsibilities. Outlawing such legislation promotes compensation of workers basing on the pay scale and individual contribution and job functions. According to Lieberwitz (2010), any company whose salary and remuneration structure lacks pay scale that delineates job functions and award workers equally in an attempt to comply with equal pay laws plunge into financial insolvency. The cost of prohibiting Equal Pay Act is that it promotes sex-based compensation discrimination which places women performing substantial roles as men at a disadvantage. Prohibiting Civil Rights Act of 1991 can save an organization from incurring monetary losses in case of the occurrence of intentional employment discrimination. There is a possibility of recruiting young, energetic workplace if a company voluntarily prohibit the Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) Age Discrimination EEO law protecting employment and retention of workers with more than 40 years. However, eliminating such laws has the disadvantage of locking out experienced workers who can be beneficial to the company and encourage intake of young, inexperienced employees.

There are limitations and benefits that an organization encounter for prohibiting federal laws that Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws enforce. The most common federal laws that EEO does not impose is Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) which advocate for fair personnel actions by outlawing specific personnel practices (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2017). The benefits of voluntarily prohibiting CSRA include excluding authorized employees from taking legal measures against employer's act of discrimination or unfair treatment basing on disability, age, sex, religion, national origin, colour and race. In that way, it saves a company the risks of lawsuits from its personnel. Furthermore, CSRA protects personnel actions whose bases include conducts or attributes that have little or no impact on employee productivity such as political affiliation and marital status. The law also reduces reprisal from federal employees or human rights organizations for grievance rights, complaints and whistle-blowing. Lastly, prohibiting CSRA allows discrimination that arises from sexual orientation. However, the disadvantage of voluntarily banning of federal anti-discriminatory laws is the loss of reputation due to inequality and unfair practices against its personnel which is the most critical asset for any business. According to Sharma and Samir (2016), companies adhering to equality and fairness regulations upheld by the law or equality philosophies that the law does not enjoy good reputation which translates into large customer base and community acceptance. It is because supporting equality principles reveal organizational beliefs, values, compliance and respect for humanity. Equality and diversity attract consumer and supplier base because many business partners like to associate with organizations which adhere to multiplicity policies and ethical practices.

According to Lieberwitz (2010), the global workforce is changing at a rapid due to emerging markets, immigration and cultural evolution. Many organizations are leveraging the benefits of a culturally diverse labour force by voluntarily adopting promotion and hiring practices aimed at diversifying their workforce. Employees from different religious, cultural and social backgrounds contribute to innovation while working in teams hence strengthening the company's profitability, competitiveness and reputation. Therefore, a diversified workforce has increased the ability to generate stable cash flows thus satisfying stakeholders. Thus, voluntary adoption of policies and practices that govern hiring and promotion to diversify workplace assists significantly in achieving a differentiated organizational status strengthened the value and competitiveness. According to Berger (2011), culturally diverse employees enhance long-term effectiveness and leads to short and medium-term employee performance. As a strategy for promoting inclusion in a company, there should be policies and practices that administrate diversification of workforce because Berger's (2011) study articulates the benefits of cultural integration in appealing a more comprehensive supplier and customer base.

The costs of voluntary adoption of policies and practices promoting workforce diversification include legal compliance costs such as the potential finances incurred for communicating the new plans, staff training and purchasing record-keeping systems. Diversity similarly has related cash costs such as expenses for reporting and monitoring processes, hiring specialists and improving the working conditions (Lieberwitz, 2010). Lastly, there are business risks associated with cultural diversity policies because of most practices designed to bring change incorporate cultures take consumer time in planning and implementation. The attempt to include diverse employees increase the time which an organization take in choosing from a wide range of individuals in an attempt to support diversity. There are chances of dismissing experiences and genuinely qualified candidates as managers try to balance the diversity of the workforce. They tend to spend a significant amount of time in reviewing gender, ethnicity, race, colour and religions of candidates before making recruitment decisions.

Discriminating in the contemporary workplace is unethical. Some of the ethical considerations in the act of not prohibiting discrimination laws include respect for humanity, unfair treatment and inequality in the provision of employment through denying individuals job opportunities basing on their colour, religion, age, gender, ethnicity and nationality. On the other hand, not adopting policies and procedures that encourage workplace diversity is a form of disrespect to humanity because of inclusion aid in the development of global culture stewardship and social justice (European Commission, 2016). Employment discrimination and lack of cultural inclusion practices deny people justice and rights to employment because of denying them job opportunities by imposing reasons such as racism, sexual orientation and religious beliefs unduly. All humans, regardless of their social, cultural and religious diversity, under the ethical principle of justice, deserve equal treatment.

In summary, technological advancement, emerging markets, unlimited immigration, cultural evolution and generational turnover are responsible for increased diversity in the global workforce. Every business regardless of its location has a diverse workforce hence the need to consider cultural, social and religious diversity. Adopting and adhering to Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) Laws is one of the ways of establishing a complex industrial and corporate systems which remove barriers and limitations to recruitment, talent development and retention. It is recommendable for any business not to prohibit Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Laws. For example, the advantage of adopting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is that employers enjoy the benefits that talented persons with disabilities would provide in the company as their contributions outweigh expenses of accommodating them. Furthermore, adopting and adhering to the provisions of Civil Rights Act of 1991 can save a firm from incurring monetary losses that would otherwise accrue from intentional employment discrimination. EEO laws advocate for employment of individuals without prejudice due to sexual orientation, gender, religious affiliation and ethnicity. Adopting the regulations has the advantages of including experienced workers who can be beneficial to the company and encourage intake of both young and old inexperienced employees. Benefits of adopting diversity policies and practices include long-term creation and strengthening of organizational and human capital. Other than the provision of knowledge capital, different employees are significant assets that businesses exploit in creating value and establishing a competitive advantage. Diversity contributes to the efficient workforce because workers from different education cultural backgrounds and thoughts are sources of capabilities, management styles and innovation.

References

Berger, C. G. (2011). Equal Pay, Equal Employment Opportunity and Equal Enforcement of the Law for Women. Valparaiso University Law Review, 5(2): 324-335.

European Commission. (2016). The Costs and Benefits of Diversity: Fundamental rights and anti-discrimination. London: European Commission.

Lieberwitz, R. (2010). Employment Discrimination Law in the United States: On the Road to Equality? New York: Cornell University.

Sharma, A., & Samir, T. (2016). Managing diversity and equality in the workplace. Cogent Business & Management , 3(1): 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1212682.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2017). Retrieved from Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers: https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html