Team A - Weekly Reflection
Weekly Reflection
This week in our class discussions, one topic in particular that is important is discrimination and how it is used in hiring practices. Because of legislation that has been passed, companies are now required to follow hiring practices that are supposed to eliminate most discrimination. However, even though companies are required to not discriminate it still does take place. When posting a new job announcement, some companies will manipulate the wording in the announcement so that only a specific individual can qualify for that job. As long as there is no mention of specific discrimination in the announcement, this is one way around the discrimination laws for hiring.
Another topic in the discrimination field of employment is how technology allows for more discrimination than ever before. Because of the internet and information being solicited employers can find out any information about a potential candidate without even speaking to him or her. Employers can find out about race, gender, religion, national origin, and color by clicking a button on a computer. This new technology takes away the one on one interaction between an employer and a potential employee. The reverse side to the equation is the internet has allowed potential employees to flood employers with resumes. If an employer posts a job on www.monster.com, the company will receive thousands of resumes. It is impossible for the employers to meet with everyone that is qualified so they have to create methods to weed out potential candidates.
Additionally we talked about discrimination and the types of discrimination that are covered by law: age, disability, equal pay, national origin, pregnancy, race, color, religion, retaliation, sex, and sexual harassment. Although we talked about the many types of discrimination, we focused on the “BIG FIVE” which were Sex, Race, Color, Religion and National Origin.
The case that was used as an example was Plessy vs. Fergusen. On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a first class ticket at the Press Street Depot and boarded a "whites-only" car of the East Louisiana Railroad in New Orleans, Louisiana, bound for Covington, Louisiana. After Plessy had taken a seat in the whites-only railway car, he was asked to vacate it and sit instead in the “blacks-only” car. Plessy refused and was arrested immediately. The train was stopped and Plessy was taken off the train. The courts upheld the ruling from the State of Louisiana of the "Separate Car Act" that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars. We discussed the fairness of the ruling and were told that this was the state of the affairs for the late 1800s.
Ultimately, what can really be gained from this past week’s discussions and learning, is that rulings in human capital cases that happen today are only as good as the current state of socially acceptable practices. In other words, public perception and pressure can have an effect on a court’s ruling, as it did in Plessy vs. Ferguson. In the minds of many, including minorities, the “separate but equal” concept may have been fair at that the time. However, all it takes is a simple taste of impropriety, and the laws are certain to change. If the “blacks-only” car was exactly the same standards as the “whites-only” car, would there have been an issue? The fact that there was inequality apparently caused a domino effect of change, leading to a new, unchartered path in social integration. In human capital management, it appears that the most challenging task will be to somehow “foresee” social laws and acceptances in such as way as to protect a company or business from dangerous practices due to employee based inequities. A company unwilling to be proactive by understanding that changes in society have a direct effect on their business is a company certain to have a law suit or two on its hands in the very near future.