On the one hand, affirmative action program focuses extensively on discriminating features in the workplace, including color, religion, race, sexual orientation, and gender and, therefore, employees might oppose to these programs because of unequal treatment with other workers. On the other hand, affirmative action programs provide strong support to employers suffering from discrimination.
Therefore, the adoption of the affirmative actions can ensure “a long-term cure for discrimination by allowing victims to demonstrate their skill and worth, thus changing prejudicial attitudes” (Myers, 2007, p. 3). Both sides of debate, nevertheless, suggest that effective implementation of affirmative action program should lead to increase in minority employment. At the same time, women and minority groups can oppose to the efficiency of the employment process. Affirmative actions, however, can recognize the problems in an explicit way, which was impossible so far.
Similar ethical and moral undercurrents refer to the reverse discrimination approach that is used to focus on the majority groups working in a business organization. Using reverse discrimination can strike the balance between the white populations presenting the majority in business organizations of the United States and the minority groups. At the same time, emphasis on reverse discriminative policies can lead to serious conflicts between various social and national groups working in an organization.
As a result, an organizational culture can be under the threat. According to Arcidiancono (2001), reverse discrimination can negatively contribute to the overall economic situation because of declines in production and profitability. Despite the adverse effects of reverse discrimination, the method can be regarded among the most effective ones because it provides significant shifts to fighting against inequality.
Both affirmative action and reverse discrimination can complement each other in struggling against discrimination in the workplace. However, the criterion of comparable worth seems to be the most reasonable introduction to the debate on improving the employed environment, despite some of the disadvantages (August, 2004). Specifically, the actual recognition of differences in salary payment proves the existing inequality between men and women.
However, considering the problem of sex-segregated jobs can provide remarkable changes to the policies of hiring for various job positions. The approach, therefore, can increase the chances of women to be appointed for a position that was traditionally considered as a male profession. Particular attention requires managerial positions, which are predominantly occupied by males.
Response to Post 1
Hi,
It seems to me that your analysis of illegitimate use of drugs in the workplace does not have much in common with the topic under analysis. I can barely address the problem of discrimination in this context. I agree, however, that employees’ rights and responsibilities relate partially to the issue of discrimination. However, I would rather approach this problem from a different angle. In particular, I would provide cases about unequal treatment of women and minorities in the workplaces, where drug use initiatives were directed at this group.
Response to Post 2
Hi,
Reference to nature and roots of discrimination provides greater support to minority groups suffering from discrimination in the workplace. As per the comparable worth, I agree with the definition and historical importance of the term, but I would also add some negative points of comparable worth approaches. Particular attention can be given to the problem of shifts to employment rates among males and females, as well as to possible economic problems. Finally, I agree that reverse discrimination is not the most effective way of solving the problem because it does not focus on the actual problem of inequality.
References
Arcidiancono, P. (2001). Reverse Discrimination and Affirmative Action as Equilibrium Outcomes. Duke University. pp. 1-31. Web.
August, R. (2004). International Business Law: Text, Cases, and Readings. US: Prentice Hall.
Myers, C. K. (2007). A Cure for Discrimination? Affirmative Action and the Case of California’s Proposition 209. Department of Economics, 60(3). pp. 1-20.