Abstract
This paper gives a stringent analysis of the various employment laws that protect the employees and employers. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act protect the employees from discrimination. IRCA, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, protects the entire nation from illegal immigrants who may have ill intentions. The employment-at-will doctrine protects the employers by allowing them to fire and hire according to their needs. It also protects the employees by allowing them to leave their jobs at their pleasure. The discussions reveal that all employment laws affect the HRM functions of planning, staffing, development, and maintenance of employees in one way or another.
Introduction
The human resource department is very important in any organization because it addresses all the issues of the employees. Other than ensuring that there is effective utilization of human resources, the Human Resource Management (HRM) ensures that all the employees have enviable working relationships. The HRM is obligated to plan, recruit, develop, and maintain employees (Ramona & Anca, 2013). However, various employment laws affect the HRM functions in one way or another.
The employment-at-will doctrine is one of the employment laws that make the human resource managers to reconsider their humane characters. Moreover, other laws that defend the employees from discrimination due to their gender, race, or place of origin affect the HRM functions. This paper will make a stringent analysis of the manner in which various employment laws affect the HRM functions.
Employment-at-will doctrine
The employment-at-will doctrine is one of the worst employment laws that facilitate the development of a poor relationship between the employer and the employee. According to the doctrine, the employer can dismiss the employee for no apparent reason (Harcourt, Hannay, & Lam, 2013). This was evident when Matagorda County Hospital District dismissed Christine Burwell in 2006 for no apparent reason. Moreover, the employment-at-will doctrine allows employees to leave their jobs at their own pleasure. They do not have to give feasible reasons of leaving their jobs, and neither do they have to alert their employers.
From the description of the employment-at-will doctrine, it is evident that the entire doctrine destroys the relationship between the employer and the employee. The human resource management has a responsibility of maintaining its competent employees through performance appraisal and training. The appraisal enables the HRM team to make decisions of stimulating employees, developing their career, and increasing their salaries.
The entire exercise serves in retaining employees, and in developing a strong relationship between the employer and the employees. The employment-at-will doctrine widens the relationship between the employers and the employees. The employees will tend to perform their roles recklessly as their employers can dismiss them at any time for no apparent reason. Moreover, the employers might fear to invest in appraising, training, and developing their employees, who may leave the organization at any time without giving any warning.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
GINA offers employees with protection against discrimination based on generic information (Roberts, 2011). In some cases, employers and health insurance companies feel insecure when dealing with people with a high probability of contracting illnesses. Therefore, they can decide to discriminate people because of their generic information. The employers and health insurance providers could request for pre-employment generic screening to obtain the genetic information of the people that they intended to work together.
African Americans are highly susceptible to contracting sickle cell Anemia, thus, the employers and health care insurance providers may shy away from working with them. In a case of Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the court decided to rule in favor of the employees who experienced genetic discrimination. Therefore, in case employees feel that their employers fail to hire or promote them because of their generic information, they can sue them under the GINA.
Moreover, insurance companies that insist of having the generic information of clients before deciding on their eligibility for insurance covers breach the law. Selection and recruitment are the two HRM functions that the Genetic and Nondiscrimination Act might affect in one way or another. Private sector employers and insurance companies are susceptible to breaching the requirements of the GINA for selfish reasons.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
When companies have job vacancies, the employers may decide to determine the eligibility of job applicants using their background information. This may also apply when a company considers promoting, retaining, or firing some of its employees. In case the employer insists on assessing the consumer reports, it is necessary to comply with the FCRA.
This act requires the employers to seek permission to review the reports. The employers can only continue with their proceeds upon receiving a written permission from the applicants or employees (Smith & Gilbert, 2013). The employers ought to handle the information in the consumer reports carefully, and they must use the information as evidence to reject or accept a job application. It is a criminal act to mishandle consumer reports, and indeed, TeleCheck Services, Inc. agreed to pay a fine of $3.5 million to settle the charges of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The consumer reports are helpful in verifying the termination of employment, or denial of a promotion. Indeed, the Fair Trade Act will affect the recruitment and appraisal functions of HRM. The employers are less likely to recruit job applicants with scandalous backgrounds. Moreover, employees with background information that reflect adverse personal characters may experience negative appraisal reports from their employers.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)
The Immigration Reform and Control Act obligate employers to be cautious of their employees’ origin. Essentially, a company that knowingly employs illegal immigrants to work in United States commits a crime (Robinson & Gilbertson, 2007). Companies have to make stringent follow-ups to ensure that their employees are entitled to work in the United States. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. was a victim of violating the Immigration and Control Act.
The company employed Jose Castro, who happened to have entered the United States illegally. Further, the company laid off Castro for participating in a union campaign. The court found it guilty of two offenses: violating the National Labor Relations Act, and violating the Immigration Reform and Control Act. According to IRCA, it is unlawful to employ undocumented workers, as they could be illegal immigrants. IRCA affects the recruitment HRM role as it enforces strict rules on the job applicants to hire.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
In case the government calls upon employees to offer uniformed services for a particular period, USERRA protects the employees’ rights of re-employment. In the United States, non-full-time military members are called to work actively in the military in case of war or major national emergencies. The members cannot attend to legal proceedings, thus, the state protects them from any trouble that may arise in their absence.
Moreover, the employees are entitled to reemployment immediately after their return (Tidwell, Rice, & Kropkowski, 2009). Their status, pay, seniority, and all benefits ought to be regained as soon as they resume their jobs. Failure to adhere to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act is illegal. Portland Ore violated the act by terminating Mathew King, an Iraq War veteran. The company had to pay $45,000 to Mathew King for the damages caused.
This Act affects many private institutions that recruit other people to stand in for the employees, who go to offer uniformed services. The USERRA is most likely to affect the recruitment and personnel planning HRM role adversely. The private institutions, which ought to continue with their proceedings in the absence of some of its workers, hesitate to recruit new employees. The institutions also find difficulties in planning for the unpredictable return of their employees, who could be serving in very sensitive positions in the organization.
Conclusion
From the discussions, it is evident that various employment laws play a significant role in protecting the employees and their employers. Indeed, the government has addressed almost every issue that relates to the work place. Every person who violates any of the mentioned laws is likely to face harsh criminal charges. Therefore, it is upon everyone to adhere to the set employment laws. The employers and employees have to ensure that they fight for their rights as long as they have satisfactory and reliable evidence.
References
Harcourt, M., Hannay, M., & Lam, H. (2013). Distributive justice, Employment-at-Will and just-cause dismissal. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(2), 311-325.
Ramona, T., & Anca, Ĺž. (2013). Human resource management: From function to strategic partner. Economic Science Series, 22(2), 631-638.
Roberts, J. L. (2011). The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act as an antidiscrimination law. Notre Dame Law Review, 1(2), 597.
Robinson, R. K., & Gilbertson, D. L. (2007). The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: Employer liability in the employment of undocumented workers. Labor Law Journal, 38(10), 658-664.
Smith, A. M., & Gilbert, P. (2013). Fair Credit Reporting Act update 2012. Business Lawyer, 68(2), 593-602.
Tidwell, G. L., Rice, D. A., & Kropkowski, G. (2009). Employer and employee obligations and rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Business Horizons, 52(3), 243-250.