Desjardins5e ppt ch11

CHAPTER ELEVEN: DIVERSITY AND DISCRIMINATION
AN INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS ETHICS
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved.

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

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.”

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

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

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.”

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

 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

 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%

 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

 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

 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

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?

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

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
All individuals deserve equal moral standing.
Passive nondiscrimination implies that business has
an obligation not to discriminate in any of its
activities.

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?

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.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
When all other things are equal, employers should
enjoy a wide latitude in their hiring decisions.

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?

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

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.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Reflect on the language used in social
debates…there is a lot of misunderstanding and
ambiguity used in these discussions.

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.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Affirmative action refers to any positive steps taken
to alleviate unequal treatment that moves
beyond passive nondiscrimination.

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.

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

What are the various forms that preferential hiring
might take?
- hiring members of disadvantaged groups with
only minimal consideration given to
qualifications (quotas)

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?

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.

Utilitarians:
- On balance, preferential policies produce either
beneficial or detrimental results.

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

The Supreme Court ruled that diversity can be a
compelling state interest in admissions to state
educational institutions.

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

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?

 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?

 For the second issue we need to ask, to what
degree are the qualifications fair and open to all?
 The answer is ambiguous.

 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.

 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

 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.

 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

 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.

Some defenders of preferential policies distinguish
between violating someone’s rights and
overriding those rights for a more pressing
ethical goal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Finally, critics explain that gender, race, or ethnicity
may be inappropriate criteria to use in deciding
preferences – economic and social class is more
appropriate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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

 Quid pro quo harassment
 Threats
 Offers
 Both are forms of coercion or extortion
 Barnes v. Train

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.”

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.

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.

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?

Another problem: the reasonable person standard
is itself ambiguous.
- sometimes an ideal standard
- sometimes an average or normal person
standard

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

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

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.

Desjardins5e ppt ch11

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Desjardins5e ppt ch11

Similaire à Desjardins5e ppt ch11 (20)

Plus de oudesign

Plus de oudesign (20)

Desjardins5e ppt ch11