AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: MALE VS FEMALE
The concept of fair hiring practices is a twentieth century invention; before then, it was common, even expected, for employers to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or anything else they desired. With the success of the civil rights and women’s rights movements, this sort of discrimination has become taboo in western society, and has officially died out, though unsanctioned discrimination certainly exists. The idea behind fair hiring practices is nothing more than the idea of fairness, but since this idea holds little water in a capitalist economy, where fairness and equity is not as driving a force as economic health, proponents of fair hiring hold it up as being the concept of “the best man for the job.” The best employee, they argue, may be a member of a minority, and it is folly not to hire someone because (s)he is a minority. Quite contrary to this argument is the fact, for it is a fact, that there are times that a minority will be less suited for the position than a white Protestant man precisely due to his or her minority status. The most obvious example, and the one that will be dealt with exclusively in this essay, is women. Indeed, in many instances, it is in the best economic interest of an employer to
specifically not hire women precisely because they are different from the rest of his employees. The second reason is a peculiarity of modern workplace relations growing out of the late twentieth century. In the modern workplace, the feelings and opinions of the workers have become tremendously important, not only as a means of raising workplace moral, but also as a way of avoiding litigation. The legal definition of a “hostile workplace environment” has become shadier and less defined, making it more difficult for an employer to safeguard himself against legal action should one of his employees feel that he is not making the proper efforts to provide a safe and hospitable working environment. Because we are all subjective, and we all feel a certain pride in whatever group we may belong to, be it race, gender, religion, nationality, or what have you, it is much simpler for an employer to avoid offending an employee who is of the same race, gender, religion, etc., as the employer. This is not to say that an employer would purposely do or say something his employees would find offensive, but any less than innocuous offhand remark now has the potential to result in a lawsuit. There was a time when this was not true, that an offended employee had no recourse but to quit, but that time has passed. It seems silly for a man, who employs mostly other men, to constantly be on his guard against accidentally offending the women working for him for fear of legal and financial reprisal. The third reason is applicable only among salaried workers, but is indubitably the most persuasive, as its roots are in physiology, rather than psychology. It is common among businesses to award a woman maternity leave for the purpose of giving birth and then recovering from what is most certainly a serious ordeal. However, during th
Some topics in this essay:
,
fair hiring,
pregnant woman,
maternity leave,
hiring practices,
nearby devote energy,
race gender religion,
fair hiring practices,
modern workplace,
gender religion,
nearby devote,
race gender,
devote energy,
giving birth,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 1229
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
More Essays on AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: MALE VS FEMALE
Professional Papers: |
CUSTOMER SERVICES
|
|
Saved Papers
You haven't saved any papers.
|
Example Essays Home
