Contenu connexe
Similaire à Desjardins5e ppt ch11 (20)
Desjardins5e ppt ch11
- 1. CHAPTER ELEVEN: DIVERSITY AND DISCRIMINATION
AN INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS ETHICS
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved.
- 2. THIS CHAPTER SEEKS TO
Introduce a range of ethical issues raised by a diverse
workforce
Explain workplace discrimination
Distinguish between equal opportunity, affirmative action,
and preferential treatment
Explain the ethical basis of equal opportunity and affirmative
action
Examine the ethical arguments for and against preferential
treatment in the workplace
Examine the issue of workplace sexual harassment
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-2
- 3. DISCUSSION CASE: CHICK-FIL-A AND SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE
Chick-fil-A is a U.S. fast-food restaurant specializing in
chicken sandwiches
Founded in the 1940s by the Cathy family outside Atlanta; the
southern U.S. remains its market base
The Cathys have always said their business philosophy is
deeply shaped by their religious beliefs
Part of the corporate purpose is "To glorify God by being a
faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us.”
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-3
- 4. DISCUSSION CASE: CHICK-FIL-A AND SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE (CONT.)
In 2012, Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A president and CEO,
created a major controversy when he publically
denounced people who advocate for same-sex
marriages
Chick-fil-A had also supported groups opposed to gay
and lesbian rights through its WinShape Foundation
WinShape had donated millions of dollars to groups opposing
legalization of same-sex marriage
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-4
- 5. DISCUSSION CASE: CHICK-FIL-A AND SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE (CONT.)
Cathy’s comments against same-sex marriage were made when
four U.S. states had same-sex marriage proposals on the
November election ballot and just two months after President
Obama announced his support for the legalization of same-sex
marriage
Elected officials in Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia pledged
their opposition to any expansion of Chick-fil-A in their cities
Protests and demonstrations were held at Chick-fil-As across the
United States
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-5
- 6. DISCUSSION CASE: CHICK-FIL-A AND SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE (CONT.)
Prominent Republican critics of same-sex marriage
spoke out in defense of Cathy and Chick-fil-A
Cathy publically defended his comments
Chick-fil-A’s corporate response was more muted:
The company issued a statement that said: “Going forward,
our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex
marriage to the government and political arena.”
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-6
- 7. DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY
Based on data from the 2010 Census, the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics concluded that:
“Today’s labor force is older, more racially and ethnically
diverse, and composed of more women.”
“These trends are expected to continue to shape the future
of the workforce.”
The percentage of every race and ethnicity in the U.S.
workforce other than white males will grow during the
period of 2010-2020
White males have not comprised the majority of the U.S.
workforce since the 1970s
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-7
- 8. DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY
Yet an increasingly diverse workforce has not
translated into increasing diversity in
managerial positions, equality of wages and
benefits, or positions of power and prestige
True equal opportunity does not yet flourish
within business institutions
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-8
- 9. DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY
Consider the mixed record on workplace equality for
women:
The number of women in the labor force has grown to 48%
Women own 40% percent of all businesses and hold 43% of executive,
administrative, and managerial positions
Between 1970 and 1990, the percentage of women physicians
more than doubled from 7.6 to 16.9%
Between 1973 and 1993, the percentage of women lawyers
and judges increased from 5.8 to 22.7%
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-9
- 10. DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY
Yet women remain clustered in lower-paid and
lower-status jobs, are relatively absent from higher-paying
blue-collar and management positions, and
still are paid lower wages than men
Women, in general, hold less than 5% of all senior level
positions in major corporations
Women still make only 77 cents to every dollar a man
makes
In 1993, white women earned 70.8% of the salary of white
men
Black women and Hispanic women were paid 63.7% and
53.9%, respectively
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-10
- 11. DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY
The situation for minority workers is as bleak,
and was made worse by the 2008-2010 recession
The black unemployment rate in 2011 was double
that for whites
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-11
- 12. DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY
An increasingly diverse workplace means
Greater opportunities
Greater diversity provides management with opportunities to improve
worker quality by finding employees with a wider range of talents,
experiences, and abilities
Greater challenges
A diverse workforce will likely experience similar situations in which
differences among genders, ethnic groups, and cultures can create
significant barriers to an efficient and peaceful workplace
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-12
- 13. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Do employers have any responsibility to intentionally aim to
increase the diversity of its workforce?
Is the case for diversity merely a business case of improving the
labor pool and better serving customers, or is it also an ethical
case of have a duty to do so?
What ethical responsibilities, if any, does an employer have to
employees who are from backgrounds different from the
employer?
Should an employer be free to exclude diverse people from its
workplace?
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-13
- 14. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
It is easy to forget that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was
politically a very controversial measure that required
significant changes in American society
In the 21st century, commitment to equal treatment for
each individual, providing each person with equal
economic opportunity, is about as strong an ethical
consensus as exists, at least in North America, Europe,
and throughout much of the rest of the world
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-14
- 15. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
All individuals deserve equal moral standing.
Passive nondiscrimination implies that business has
an obligation not to discriminate in any of its
activities.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-15
- 16. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Discrimination refers to the ability to make unfair
or unequal distinctions.
- Job-relevant criteria
- Preferential hiring or treatment
Is a company’s hiring preference of employees’
family members a violation of equal
opportunity?
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-16
- 17. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Utilitarians: An employer should make hiring
decisions based primarily on the ability of the
candidate to perform the job efficiently and
skillfully, taking other consequences into
consideration.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-17
- 18. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
When all other things are equal, employers should
enjoy a wide latitude in their hiring decisions.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-18
- 19. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Suppose a manager hires a person from his or her alma
mater from among a pool of equally qualified
candidates.
Has the manager done anything wrong by
discriminating on the basis of personal preference
rather than job-relevant criterion?
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-19
- 20. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Four decades after the Civil Rights Act, there
remains widespread unequal treatment
throughout the economy
Equal opportunity alone has not solved many of
the problems it was designed to address
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-20
- 21. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Affirmative action refers to any policy or action,
aimed at securing a more equal workplace, going
beyond simple legal access or passive
nondiscrimination, that does not alter the
standards or qualifications for employment.
It does not refer to a quota system.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-21
- 22. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Reflect on the language used in social
debates…there is a lot of misunderstanding and
ambiguity used in these discussions.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-22
- 23. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Equal opportunity refers to the commitment to
legal access regardless of gender, race, or ethnic
background.
Policies described as color blind or gender blind are
examples.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-23
- 24. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Affirmative action refers to any positive steps taken
to alleviate unequal treatment that moves
beyond passive nondiscrimination.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-24
- 25. DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Preferential treatment refers to policies that go
beyond affirmative action by seemingly changing
the job standards in an effort to hire more
women and people of color.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-25
- 26. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT
What are the various forms that preferential hiring
might take?
- giving preference to previously disadvantaged
candidates
- actively identifying members of previously
disadvantaged groups in the pool of applicants
and giving them preference in hiring decisions
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-26
- 27. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT
What are the various forms that preferential hiring
might take?
- hiring members of disadvantaged groups with
only minimal consideration given to
qualifications (quotas)
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-27
- 28. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT
Do preferential policies violate the rights of white
males?
If preferential policies do violate the rights of white
males are there other ethical considerations that
would override this violation?
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-28
- 29. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT
Deontological arguments:
- Preferential policies are unjust because they
violate the rights of white males.
- Preferential policies are just because they
compensate people for harms they have
suffered.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-29
- 30. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT
Utilitarians:
- On balance, preferential policies produce either
beneficial or detrimental results.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-30
- 31. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT
Many arguments have been offered to support or
refute the ethical legitimacy of preferential hiring
- the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case involving the
University of Michigan Law School
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-31
- 32. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT
The Supreme Court ruled that diversity can be a
compelling state interest in admissions to state
educational institutions.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-32
- 33. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT
Deontological arguments white
males could make:
- merit argument
- preferential treatment
violates the white male’s
right to be treated with
respect
Deontological arguments in
support of preferential
treatment
- a means for compensation
for past harms
- presently disadvantaged
people should be granted
preference as a means to
secure equality in the
workplace
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-33
- 34. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING
The Merit Argument
Is this argument a reasonable requirement of justice?
Are the qualifications used to establish merit fair and
open to all?
Is there some reasonable way to determine and
measure qualifications so that we can decide who is
the most qualified?
Does race or gender serve as a job qualification?
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-34
- 35. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING
For the first issue, assume that a fair and
objective determination of qualifications can be
made
Can we say that this person has earned the job, or
deserves it in such a way that if they are denied the
job, an injustice has been done?
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-35
- 36. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING
For the second issue we need to ask, to what
degree are the qualifications fair and open to all?
The answer is ambiguous.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-36
- 37. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING
For the third issue, is there a fair and reasonably
objective way to determine qualifications?
Qualifications as accomplishments
Qualifications as predictors
Qualifications in comparison to present employees
There seems to be no objective way.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-37
- 38. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Finally, might job candidate’s gender or ethnic
background function as a qualification for a job?
Bakke v. Regents of the University of California
A reasonable conclusion would seem to acknowledge
the possibility that being a woman or a person of
color can make a positive workplace contribution
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-38
- 39. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING
The Principle of Equal Treatment
Preferential treatment policies deny white males the
equal respect and consideration that is their due.
This argument is at the heart of reverse
discrimination.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-39
- 40. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING
First, hiring policies that prefer women and
people of color are ethically different from
similar policies that gave preference to whites
and males
Whatever else, white males are not now and
never will be victims of similar systematic
mistreatment
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-40
- 41. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Nevertheless, that individuals are denied a job
on the basis of
gender
Race
Ethnicity
that seem irrelevant and over which the job candidate
has no control, is prima facie wrong – a violation of a
right to equal treatment.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-41
- 42. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Some defenders of preferential policies distinguish
between violating someone’s rights and
overriding those rights for a more pressing
ethical goal.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-42
- 43. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
A major argument for preferential hiring claims
that these policies are an ethically legitimate
means for compensating people for harms that
they have suffered.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-43
- 44. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Three issues need to be resolved to assess this
argument:
1. compensatory justice requires that
compensation be proportionate to the harms
done (equity).
2. Compensatory justice requires that the
person paying the compensation must be the
person who enacted the harm.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-44
- 45. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Three issues need to be resolved to assess this
argument:
3. Compensatory justice requires that the party
receiving the justice be the party that was
harmed.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-45
- 46. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
At first glance compensatory justice seems to
compensate for harms done…
…examination of the issue reveals that
the preference only equalizes the situation and
returns it to the point that it would have been
had the original discrimination not occurred.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-46
- 47. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Under the current conditions, young white men
would argue that they did not personally harm
anyone through preferential treatment…
…compensatory justice responds by
denying that young white men are making the
repayment – society and business is making the
repayment.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-47
- 48. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Critics would argue that actual preferences go
further and deny young white men equal
employment opportunities…
…in response, young white men have
benefited from the harms that occurred…they
should not expect to receive benefits derived
from them.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-48
- 49. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Critics would argue that preferences granted as a
means for compensation do not compensate
injured parties
- the true victims of discrimination are past
generations
- to the extent that discrimination harms present
generations, preferential policies compensate
the least desiring members of these groups
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-49
- 50. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Finally, critics explain that gender, race, or ethnicity
may be inappropriate criteria to use in deciding
preferences – economic and social class is more
appropriate.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-50
- 51. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Defenders of the compensatory argument will
concede that the harms to be compensated are
those done to previous generations…
…but the fact that greater injury is suffered by
others does not mean that the preferential hiring
granted to some is unjust…other forms of
compensatory justice are needed.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-51
- 52. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Finally, defenders argue that the only means
available to compensate for overall
discrimination is to grant individual women and
people of color preferential consideration in
hiring and promotions.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-52
- 53. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Defenders are challenged to specify if compensation is
owed to groups or to individuals…
…if, on the other hand, criteria other than
group membership is used to allocate compensatory
preferences, there will be some equally deserving white
males who will be unfairly ignored.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-53
- 54. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
What exactly is required by the right to equal
treatment?
- Equality does not commit us to identical
treatment.
Relevant differences can justify different and
nonidentical treatment.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-54
- 55. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL HIRING
The equality argument would claim that real or fair
equal opportunity demands that individuals not
suffer the effects of undeserved and unfair
disadvantages…
…through no fault of their own women and
people of color suffer from an unfair
disadvantage in the workplace.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-55
- 56. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
The Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Individuals ought not to be denied equal
employment opportunities based on such
irrelevant factors as race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-56
- 57. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
in 1980 defined illegal sexual harassment
Quid pro quo: when submission to sexual favors is
made a condition for employment
Hostile work environment: when the overall
workplace environment is so pervaded with sexual
harassment and intimidation that it creates an unfair
barrier for women in the workplace
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-57
- 58. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
Quid pro quo harassment
Threats
Offers
Both are forms of coercion or extortion
Barnes v. Train
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-58
- 59. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
The word “sex” is ambiguous
In one sense it refers to gender
In another sense it refers to sexuality
The EEOC seems to confuse the issue when it
characterizes the unlawful behavior as being only of a
“sexual nature.”
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-59
- 60. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
In response to the ambiguity and short-comings of
Quid pro quo, scholars and courts recognize the
hostile work environment model.
Thus certain “verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
nature” can interfere with a woman’s ability to
work to the level of workplace discrimination.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-60
- 61. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
The hostile work environment principle is
problematic because it does not consider intent.
The reasonable man standard was introduced to
emphasize the “unreasonable interference” with
work that harassment behavior enacts.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-61
- 62. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
This standard prevents allowing the victim’s
perceptions to be the sole determination of
harassment.
Do men and women differ over what constitutes
unreasonable conduct of a sexual nature?
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-62
- 63. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
Another problem: the reasonable person standard
is itself ambiguous.
- sometimes an ideal standard
- sometimes an average or normal person
standard
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-63
- 64. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
Should we shift to a reasonable woman standard?
There are some good reasons to:
- we should be alert that the “reasonable person”
standard is a disguised version of “man”
- when it comes to sexuality women and men perceive
sexual experiences differently
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-64
- 65. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
But there are also reasons to hesitate in the shift of
language
- reinforcing a sexual stereotype
- reinforcing paternalism
- it may create an unfair situation for men
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-65
- 66. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
Even if men do not fully understand that they
conduct harassment, one would ideally hold
them responsible because, if they were
thoughtful and reflective, they should have
known better.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. 11-66