Biasness in the workplace
‘Want to avoid Age Bias suits? Here are a few terms NOT to Use’ is an article written by Gould focusing on a 54-year old employee who was sacked because she was old according to the employer. When the employee came to know of the nature of the language used at her dismissal, she decided to file a suit against the company, which she won. Hawaii Health Care Professionals, the company she was working with, had to endure the terms of the suit, which were not in its favour. The article emphasises on the importance of paying attention to the language people use in the workplace and the effects that the misuse of language may have on the company. As a personal opinion, the author of the article was right in suggesting the need to watch the language that one uses at the workplace. It is illegal to discriminate people by their age, as it happened in the case above, sex, religion, or on any other grounds, which apply in the workplace. With the increased life expectancy and the reduced workforce in various areas of the world, it is common to find the elderly working in many companies.
Despite the challenges that may exist in working with them due to the age difference and or speed of work, they add a valuable resource to the company in the form of experience. The success of a company is dependent on many factors, one of which is the ability of the employees to work as a unit. In achieving organisational goals, the employees have to respect each other’s differences in age and sex to focus on the common goal of the institution. The employee above was right in seeking compensation for her experiences with the company. Her actions were justified. However, the legal system was far too harsh on the company. The actions of an individual within a company at whatever level of administration should have an individual effect on the employees involved. In avoiding confrontations, it is indispensable therefore to be sensitive to the rights of the employees at the workplace taking into consideration their diversity.
Male-on-Male Harassment
‘Tab for Male-on-Male Harassment: $600k’ by Gould presents a restaurant that has been prosecuted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for sexual harassment of male employees by one of the managers. The male manager is said to have sexually harassed 22 male employees in a span of 8 years. This article portrays a failure in the human resource department in the company because the issue is chronic to the company with several reports being made though with no forthcoming change. As a result, the employees settled for the EEOC, which spelt out strict changes in the company. Sexual harassment cases in the workplace are on the rise. More of them are going unreported due to the fear of victimisation as it happened in the article. In the human resource department, the human resource officer should always be on the watch for these cases. He/she should be able to detect early signs of harassment in the workplace.
There are different forms of sexual harassment taking place in the workplace. Male-to-male harassment is one of them. Screening for possible cases of sexual harassment should begin at interviews where new employees are evaluated for this character. The decision by the employees to seek legal redress is justified in my opinion. As such, this should serve as an example for future violators. The decision made by the EEOC is lenient on the restaurant and is enough to prevent the same happening in the future. However, the employer involved should have been relieved of his job with those employees he victimised being compensated by him. This should, therefore, have served as a warning for future offenders of sexual harassment at the workplace. With the world turning into a global village, the workplace is increasingly changing in diversity. It is therefore noteworthy that human resource training and practice involve more of diversity by showing how it can be dealt with in the workplace. This will go a long way in avoiding sexual harassment in the workplace. It would prevent incidences such as the one discussed.
Gay Rights in the Workplace
Gould’s article ‘What’s in a Name? A Gender Bias Suit that could Cost Firm Big’ is just an example of the violation of these rights and an apt solution to the same. With the legalisation of many gay marriages in various parts of the world including the United States, there is an increased agitation that their rights are respected in the workplaces. The article describes how an employee was harassed at the place of work to the level of being fired by the employer because he did not conform to the employer’s perceived popular stereotype. Being gay and married meant that he took the name of his partner. The employer was not satisfied with this case. He used various ways to harass him with eventual dismissal on the pretext that he missed work on many occasions. The aggrieved party won the case after the court decided that the employer’s actions were bordering on gender biases, which is just another example of how the increasing diversity at the workplace is generating more challenges for the human resource department. In most of the cases, the decision is made against the employer.
There is little proof of the incidences, which depend on the witnesses of the other employees. On the other hand, the ruling made by the court was competent and justified. The employer should have respected the sexuality of the employee so long as it did not interfere with his performance at work. Instead of the harassment, he should have had discussions with his superiors to come to an agreement on how to deal with the perceived problem. For a human resource officer, it is crucial to encourage tolerance within the workforce, which can be done by providing opportunities for employees to know each other besides sharing their opinions on different issues affecting them in the workplace. One of these activities is a team-building retreat where the emphasis is made on the importance of teamwork in achieving organisational goals. It should also be emphasised that sexual biasness is illegal and counterproductive in the organisation. Human resource department should, therefore, have done more to avert this crisis. With the damage done, they should focus on preventing future recurrence in the same organisation.
Disability in the Workplace
Gould’s ‘Hear the One about the Lineman who couldn’t climb Utility Poles?’ is an article about a lineman who suffered a back injury for which he required surgery, and later could not efficiently work for this company. The doctor’s advice after surgery was against climbing and lifting heavy objects, which were the main requirements of his job. The company decided to fire him with advice that he applied for long-term disability benefits. It later rehired him but on lesser wages, and at a lower job standard. The case demonstrated discrimination against the disabled in the workplace. With this consideration, the judge decided that there would be a hearing on it. According to personal opinion, both the company and the employee could have done more in their capacity at the organisation to avert the trial including retaining the employee at the same salary as before the accident besides giving him a more involving job, which would have also aided in his recovery. There is increased awareness of employees’ rights in contemporary workplaces. Employers have to keep in touch with them.
The employee knew the amending of the ADA, which has so far worked in his favour. The diversity in the workplace is allowing more and more disabled people to work in different workplaces meaning that their rights have to be respected. The ruling that the case is to proceed is a right one since there is a demonstration of violation of the plaintiff’s rights under the new amendments. To prevent future incidences, human resource departments should engage in continuous sensitisation of employees and their superiors on the changes in the laws addressing the working environment showing how they can affect them. Consultation with legal experts is also necessary before the execution of decisions with legal implications especially those bordering on the violation of employees’ rights. The out-of-court settlement should also be encouraged to avert substantial losses in suits and cases. Therefore, when it comes to diversity in the workplace, it is vital for companies to respect the rights of various parties by not discriminating based on age, sex, religion, or any social outfit.