A Few Aspects of Workplace Discrimination - Essay Example

Workplace Discrimination Workplace discrimination is commonplace in many countries. It is a practice rooted in traditional societal views and has persisted despite numerous efforts to eradicate it. Most people only know of the racial and gender-based dimensions of workplace discrimination, but there are others that do not receive the attention they deserve. These include mistreatment of minority groups and discrimination based on age. Drawing on the John Terry race case of 2012, this paper will examine three different aspects of workplace discrimination: the writer’s opinion on workplace discrimination, employer’s legal obligations concerning workplace discrimination, and how employers can reduce workplace discrimination. The discussion will also highlight various issues surrounding workplace discrimination and how they are being handled. Introduction Global society is hugely variegated. Whereas Western societies show a greater propensity to ensure equality at all levels, the situation in developing nations paints a different picture. Currently, it could be said that developed countries are ahead of their developing counterparts in terms of progress in ending workplace discrimination. However, cases like the one involving John Terry show that there is still a long way to go before the world can rid itself of workplace discrimination. Governments have been on the frontline in protecting workers from discrimination. They have been supported by private entities, employers, and individuals, who have worked to safeguard employee rights. However, when all factors are taken into account, the workplace is much better than it was 50 or 100 years ago. No comparisons can be made between the workplace of the 20th century and that of the 21st century. Opinion on the Statement I concur with the assertion that despite all legislation of the past 40 years, discrimination is still rife in the workplace. The John Terry case showed that Britons still hold discriminative perspectives that encourage poor treatment of employees. It would be naive to assume that workplace discrimination has been eradicated just because prominent cases involving workplace discrimination have become less common. The fact is that thousands of UK workers are subjected to various forms of workplace discrimination each year, but not all cases are covered by the media (Dignam & Galanis, 2013:26). Little or no coverage of incidences have led many to believe that workplace discrimination is now a thing of the past in Britain. This is a common feature of many common social problems, where media coverage determines the level of interest in and perception of a subject. For example, in the 1990s gang violence was so rife in the UK that incidents involving the vice were a virtual constant in the media. However, effective measures adopted by the government resulted in a significant decline in gang activities in the country and media coverage of the issue. In the second decade of the 21st century, some people think that gang violence stopped because it is no longer a popular topic in the media (Watt & Border, 2012:19). However, the vice is still perpetrated by many young and middle-aged people all over the UK, especially in London. People seem to want to cling to outrageous reports to decide whether or not workplace discrimination is still part of British society, but there is no doubt that thousands of cases go unnoticed because they are not highlighted by the media. Presentation and Interpretation of UK Workplace Discrimination Statistics Between April 2012 and March 2013, the number of employment tribunal suits accepted rose by 3%. This shows that the number of employees suing for claims due to workplace discrimination has gone up. In 2013, the number reduced because of the introduction of employment tribunal fees (Aylott, 2014:47). This handicapped some employees in their pursuit of employment tribunal claims, and masked the growing frustrations among discriminated employees who could not be duly compensated because they could not afford to follow up on their claims. It also concealed the growing number of victims of workplace discrimination, because thousands of incapable workers did not bother to file their claims. Employment Tribunal claims represent 30 percent of the cumulative number of claims (McCann, 2013:86). In the last two years, these claims rose by a sum of more than 5,000 between 2013 and 2014. Since 2007/2008, the total number of claims associated with Working Time Regulations has increased by almost 80% (Lockton, 2014:106). This implies that many employees are still being forced to work extra or unusual hours despite government regulations vetoing such incidents. The number of unfair dismissals claims rose from 49,036 in 2013 to around 51,209 in 2014, indicating that many employees are still wrongfully terminated in spite of regulations protecting them from such treatment (Gall, 2013:56). Claims for wrongful deductions from salaries represented 16 percent of total claims and increased from 53,581 in 2012/2013 to almost 55,000 in 2013/2014. According to Gall (2013:57), although some of these statistics do not directly touch on workplace discrimination, they are revealing because some of these violations are motivated by gender or racial inequalities. For example, retrenchments and deductions of wages have been found to be more favourable to men and Caucasians than women and other races. Between 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, workplace discrimination based on gender increased by 74%, and women formed the majority of complainants (Koch & Fritz, 2013:34). Based on this statistic, it is hard to argue that UK women are not discriminated upon in the workplace simply because of their sex. Interestingly, employment tribunal claims associated with equal pay, racial discrimination, wrongful termination related to pregnancy, disability discrimination, and age discrimination all declined (Turner, 2013:68). In 2014, Employment Tribunal suits associated with religious discrimination, discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the Part-Time Workers Regulations increased. According to 2014 data released by the UK government, and published on the government website www.gov.uk, the gap between permanent and temporary men’s and women’s hourly wage is 22 percent (Nyeko, 2013:31). The statistics also show that 73 percent of women are convinced that the glass ceiling is yet to be broken and that there are obstacles facing women aspiring to be promoted to senior management (Perritt, 2014:116). Another revealing statistic is that while 62 percent of women back positive initiatives to have more women in senior roles, only 42 percent of men support such notions. 17 percent of British women are of the opinion that giving birth to, raising or minding children has created obstacles to professional growth (Hills, 2013:17). On the other hand, only 7 percent of men share this view. So, while some people claim that workplace discrimination is on its deathbed, the numbers show otherwise. Although it is important to acknowledge that the situation is better than it was in the 19th and 20th centuries, or even at the beginning of the 21st century, the fact is that the problem still exists (Hills, 2013:19). Men and women are still being subjected to unfair treatment based on their race, sex, age, and other variants of employment discrimination. No matter how much the situation has improved, it is still worrying, and that means that it is still a major problem. In 2014, a report published and released by the UK government showed that 41 percent of female managers in Britain are childless (Sian, Law, & Sayyid, 2013:24). For men, the figure was 28 percent. This leads to two possible inferences. The first is that British employers would rather promote childless women to managerial positions than mothers. This counts as workplace discrimination. The second possible inference is that British employers would rather hire childless women to fill vacant managerial positions than mothers. This also falls under workplace discrimination (Razzu, 2014:20). 40 percent of female jobs in the UK are in the public sector, compared to just 15 percent for male jobs (Hinrichs, 2014:26). It is well-known that jobs in the private sector are more lucrative than those in the government, so the fact that they are dominated by men shows that women are still being denied opportunities to work in that segment. Disabled employees or employees suffering from chronic illnesses are twice as likely to experience harassment, unfair treatment, or bullying in the workplace as non-disabled employees (Kirton & Greene, 2013:27). The main statistic regarding age is that 28.1 percent of employees aged between 50 and 64 years work part-time. This shows that employers are still discriminating against workers based on age. They do not want to hire older workers on a full-time basis, probably due to the notion that they are less productive compared to younger employees. This falls under workplace discrimination based on age. Employer’s Legal Obligations Concerning Workplace Discrimination UK employment laws cover four types of workplace discrimination: a) Victimisation based on disability, gender, religious or cultural beliefs, sexual orientation, or age (Sapsford, 2013:74). b) Direct discrimination – unfair treatment motivated by disability, gender, religious or cultural beliefs, sexual orientation, or age. c) Indirect discrimination – the implementation of specific rules or practices on all workers that could unfairly disadvantage a specific group. For example, requiring that all interviewees be UK citizens when this is not a mandatory requirement of a vacancy (Sapsford, 2013:74). Harassment could also be based on disability, gender, religious or cultural beliefs, sexual orientation, or age. d) Harassment – this is unnecessary behaviour that infringes on employees or job applicants’ dignity or propagates a hostile, humiliating, intimidating, offensive, or degrading setting (Sapsford, 2013:76). The Equality Act 2010 vetoes any form of discrimination against workers based on their disability. It includes both the hiring and selection of staff and the continuous recruitment of workers who became disabled during employment. The Act expects employers to make logical changes to allow job applicants to be hired or current employees to continue working. Such changes include adjusting the working hours, modifying premises, offering more support, granting medical leaves, and offering specialist equipment (Sargeant, 2013:46). The Race Relations Act makes it unlawful for employers to treat any worker or job applicant less fairly than others on the basis of nationality, ethnic heritage, race, or skin colour. It covers all workers and is relevant irrespective of the employment period or the number of hours worked each week. It also bans discrimination in all aspects of employment. The Equal Pay Act gives all workers, regardless of their gender, the legal privilege of receiving equal wages and benefits as others of the opposite sex in case they perform similar duties or duties that are equivalent or seen to be equivalent. The Act covers all workers as well as all aspects of wages and benefits. The UK Sex Discrimination Act bars employers from discriminating against workers or prospective workers on the basis of sex or marital status (Hinrichs, 2014:58). It also covers all areas of employment, and the only exception it makes involves when an employer can show that hiring someone of a particular sex is a sensible occupational need. This is where the rigors of the job or specific responsibilities of the job demand that it be performed by an employee of a specific sex. This can include, for example, a male worker in a men’s refugee camp. These laws make it illegal for employers to discriminate against workers and job applicants because of their age. They cover all areas of employment and make 65 the default domestic retirement age. The laws make it illegal for employers to forcefully terminate any worker who has not attained this age (Stalford & Currie, 2013:41). The laws also give employees the right to request to work past the age of 65 and employers must take such requests into account. Finally, the legislations also vetoed the upper age limits on wrongful termination and redundancy. How Employers can reduce Workplace Discrimination Besides legal obligations to avoid workplace discrimination, employers should demonstrate fairness and justice from a human perspective. The central theme is hiring on merit. Regardless of any other conditions, employers should simply focus on the professional qualifications of current and prospective employees. It makes little sense to feign fairness and adherence to the law by making job applications open to all qualified job seekers and then, during the interviewing process, reject others because of their personal situations (Hardill, Kofman, & Graham, 2013:27). This is not only cruel but very unjust. When job seekers apply for positions, they are not aware that a specific company or CEO does not favour employees with certain biological or personal profiles. If they knew, they would not apply for those positions in the first place. Employers who practice any form of workplace discrimination should question whether they would be comfortable if their children or close relations were subjected to the similar treatment. Ultimately, the hiring process should be transparent, fair, and guided by an awareness of the increasingly dynamic nature of the 21st century workplace (Edwards, 2014:49). This is not the 19th century where pregnancy was seen as an impediment to employment, or being a woman meant eternal blockade from educational and scientific pursuit. Apart from showing fairness and humanity in recruitment, employers should stay abreast of government regulations on employment discrimination. The UK government occasionally makes some changes to employment laws, and this is often communicated to employers via relevant media. Employers must be proactive in their handling of employment laws. They must be up to date with developments to avoid being caught unawares by amendments and new laws. This will be instrumental in preventing unintentional workplace discrimination on the basis of misinformation. For example, it is very hard for an employer who is well versed in employment laws to discriminate on a worker either deliberately or accidentally if he or she understands his legal obligations (Corby & Burgess, 2014:36). Employers should also implement cultures of intolerance to workplace discrimination; this is an effective long-term solution to employment discrimination. It can be implemented as part of ethical frameworks and underlined by such slogans as “This Company does not tolerate workplace discrimination.” This will put current and future staff on notice when it comes to discriminating against others, and significantly reduce workplace discrimination. Most people think that responsibility for ending workplace discrimination is exclusive to senior employees only; this is a huge misconception. When implementing government requirements, senior managers must ensure that all employees understand that they are obligated to fight workplace discrimination. Commitment should be fully demonstrated at all levels because partial implementation leaves room for continuation of deep-seated affinities for employment discrimination. For example, junior employees who join a company that practices workplace discrimination and endorse it are likely to continue the trend when they rise to the top of the company (Acton, 2013:24). Since they are cultured in employment discrimination, they will find it highly convenient to practice it and spread it within the organisation. Finally, employers should adopt punitive measures to ensure that their workers adhere to organisational and regulatory requirements on the issue. This will deter workers from practicing or even contemplating employment discrimination. Conclusion This paper has shown that the UK needs to intensify efforts to stop workplace discrimination. The statistics on employment discrimination are especially worrying, and paint a bleak picture of the fight against workplace discrimination. In summary, a holistic approach to the problem would go a long way towards significantly reducing workplace discrimination and, ultimately, making it a non-issue in UK employment circles. However, a major shift is required in terms of perceptions; the roots of the problem should be found and removed. Messages about social tolerance, awareness, and harmony should be spread by the government so that the vice is dealt with from the ground up. This, when combined with integrative participation by all stakeholders, will be instrumental in putting stop to workplace discrimination. References Acton, Q. (2013) Issues in global, public, community, and institutional health (2013 ed.), New York, ScholarlyEditions. Aylott, E. (2014) Employment law, London, Kogan Page. Corby, S. & Burgess, P. (2014) Adjudicating employment rights: a cross-national approach, London, Palgrave Macmillan. Dignam, A. & Galanis, M. (2013) The globalisation of corporate governance (Revised ed.), Farnham, England, Ashgate. Edwards, L. (2014) Power, diversity and public relations, London, Taylor & Francis. Gall, G. (2013) New forms and expressions of conflict at work, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. Hardill, I., Kofman, E. & Graham, D. (2013) Human geography of the UK an introduction, London, Routledge. Hills, J. (2013) Wealth in the UK: distribution, accumulation, and policy (Illustrated ed.), Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press. Hinrichs, R. (2014) A comparison of job opportunities for women in Germany and the UK (Unabridged ed.), Munich, GRIN Verlag GmbH. Kirton, G. & Greene, A. (2013) The dynamics of managing diversity a critical approach (4th ed.), Burlington, Routledge. Koch, M. & Fritz, M. (Eds.). (2013) Non-standard employment in Europe: paradigms, prevalence and policy responses (Illustrated ed.), London, Palgrave Macmillan. Lockton, D. (2014) Employment law (9, Revised ed.), London, Palgrave Macmillan. McCann, L. (2013) International and comparative business: foundations of political economies, London, SAGE. Nyeko, W. (2013) Do current employment laws achieve satisfactory balance between the interests of employers, workers and society at large? Munich, GRIN Verlag GmbH. Perritt, H. (2014) Employment law update, 2014, S.l., Kluwer Law International. Razzu, G. (Ed.). (2014) Gender inequality in the labour market in the UK, Oxford, OUP Oxford. Sapsford, D. (2013) Labour market economics, London, Routledge. Sargeant, M. (2013) Discrimination law (Revised ed.), Harlow, England, Taylor & Francis. Sian, K., Law, I. & Sayyid, S. (2013) Racism, governance, and public policy beyond human rights, New York, Routledge. Stalford, H. & Currie, S. (Eds.). (2013) Gender and migration in 21st century Europe (Revised ed.), Farnham, England, Ashgate Pub. Turner, C. (2013) Key facts: employment law (3, Revised ed.), London, Routledge. Watt, B. & Border, R. (2012) Your rights at work, London, Routledge. Read More