The protected rights as documented in the Ontario Human Rights Commission website articulate why discrimination at the place of work should is prohibited. There should be equal treatment of all employees working in any give organization. The rights’ code in section five expounds that all the employees at the workplace should be treated equally without any element of discrimination.
In other words, no employee should be sidelined on the basis of disability, family status, marital status, a record of offenses, age, sexual orientation, sex, creed, citizenship, ethnic origin, color, place of origin, ancestry and race (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2008).
The code continues to assert that all employees should be free from any form of emotional or physical harassment at the place of work. This harassment may emanate from the employer’s agent or the employer himself. Besides, it is also possible for employees to harass each other based on disability, family status, gender or sexuality.
Although the term “employment” has not been defined by the code, it has been extensively interpreted by the commission. According to the latter, employment entails a contract job or part-time and full-time work that is executed by staff members who may be temporarily or permanently hired.
Working under probation or volunteering also constitutes employment. All the aspects of the working environment are adequately covered by the rights enshrined in the code.
When filling out employment application forms or during interviews in anticipation for employment, I have noted that discrimination still exists. For instance, the employment application forms contain mandatory fields that must be filled out in order to specify the gender and sexual orientation of job seekers. Worse still, the interview process is hardly transparent because the choice of the successful candidate is largely affected by gender and sexuality.
Compare and contrast the forms of prejudice and discrimination experienced by your case study choice
Any form of prejudgment is highly likely to culminate into prejudice. It is common for the interviewing panel to draw conclusions about an applicant who is being interviewed even without having the relevant facts to support the arguments. The contemporary world has indeed advanced in making prejudice statements. Unfavorable and preconceived decisions have made several job seekers to miss employment opportunities.
Nationality, language, race/ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and even gender are some of the elements used to prejudice and discriminate other people. Other forms of prejudice and discrimination that have potentially gone against the provisions of code five include disability, age and social class (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2008).
Unfounded beliefs may also amount to prejudice. For instance, if a decision does not conform to rational thinking, it can still lead to prejudice. Application forms for job seekers and the process of interviewing applicants are usually subjected to all the mentioned elements of prejudice and discrimination.
Assess social problems and their dynamics within a cultural and personal context utilizing critical thinking skills
There are myriads of social problems aggravated by challenges posed by prejudice and discrimination. Individuals can be prejudiced or discriminated through a preconceived notion. The two vices can also be considered by the victim as any form of undesirable or unusual characteristics of the perpetrator.
Some of the social challenges experienced by the victims of prejudice and discrimination include linguistic discrimination, religious discrimination, racism, sexual discrimination, classism, nationalism, and sexism (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2008).
These social problems also affect personal and cultural dynamics. For instance, common cultural characteristics are usually part and parcel of sentiments carried along with the spirit of nationalism.
Although a population is often bound by nationalism, the dynamics of the latter often culminate into separatism or national independence. Such an outcome may not be favorable when a nation is keen on seeking bilateral and multilateral co-operation with other states.
Reference
Ontario Human Rights Commission (2008). Human Rights at Work 2008 – Third Edition. Web.