DISCRIMINATION

Discrimination, going by Oxford Concise Dictionary, is nothing but unfair treatment against a person or a group of persons based on prejudice. Differentiating people on basis of certain characteristics like age and gender or on grounds such as race and religion is discrimination. Discrimination at work is a matter of serious concern for organizations all over the world. The root meaning of the term discriminate is to distinguish one object from another, a morally neutral and not necessarily wrongful activity. However, in modern usage the term is not morally neutral. It is usually in-tended to refer to the wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude. This morally charged notion of invidious discrimination, as it applies to employment, is what is at issue in this chapter. In this sense to discriminate in employment is to make an adverse decision (or set of decisions) against employees (or prospective employees) who belong to a certain class because of morally unjustified prejudice toward members of that class.

Nature of job Discrimination

Discrimination in employment thus, must involve three basic elements: 1. First, it is a decision against one or more employees (or prospective employees) that is not based on individual merit such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legitimate qualifications. 2. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, from false stereotypes, or from some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the employee belongs. 3. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps costing those jobs, promotions, or better pay.

Forms of discrimination
Discrimination at workplace can take place in any form. Be it on the basis of race, gender and religion. Newer forms of biases, which are more subtle and less visible, like age, disability, genetic disposition, migration, HIV/AIDS, sexual orientation and lifestyle are also emerging. Every professional, be it a sales person, a journalist, an executive or a software engineer, has faced discrimination and has a story to tell: stories of harassment and humiliation; stories of injustice and discrimination, tales of how male colleagues' attempt to limit professional success of their female counter parts, how one employee is being looked down upon by other employee only because he belongs to a lower caste, how ones abilities are directly judged by ones personality or color and what not. The most common and prevalent form of discrimination is the one based on race and religion. Judging an individual by race and not by performance comes under discrimination. Such behavior of an employer can humiliate an individual and put him under stress and depression. Differences in compensation packages between employees on basis of color or race are also an unhealthy practice. In terms of age discrimination, younger workers are often being paid less for they are assumed to be inexperienced. Moreover, there is a negative attitude among employers for recruiting and retaining older workers. Talking about gender biases, women in India still remain the largest group that faces discrimination. Women today comprise only 2 per cent of the total managerial strength in the Indian corporate sector. While more and more women are joining the corporates now with better salaries and even at senior levels, pay equity compared with their male counterparts is still a disappointing. Migrants in Asia are also facing discrimination with low wages, menial jobs, and exploitative jobs contracts. A persistent form of discrimination in South Asia has been caste-based discrimination.

For example, this form confines Dalits to occupations often involving the most menial tasks such as "manual scavenging" or the removal of dead animals. Dalits are generally not accepted for any work involving contact with water or food for non-Dalits or entering a non-Dalit residence. They are thus excluded from a wide range of work opportunities in the area of production, processing or sale of food items, domestic work and the provision of certain services in the private and public sectors (e.g. office helpers). Limited access to education, training and resources, such as land or credit, further impair their equal opportunities for access to non-caste-based occupations and decent work. The deprivation stemming from discrimination in all areas of their life leads to higher levels of poverty among Dalits compared to non-Dalits.

Discrimination at work
Discrimination at work can come from either the employee of from the colleague side. Discrimination by colleagues can happen to new employees. They may face sarcastic stares or constant digs made at them by their colleagues during initial weeks. However, if it persists for a long time, it can affect not only the employee but also the employer. The effect on the employee can be huge or meager but the impact on organization remains for a longer time. An employee who is being discriminated witnesses non cooperation from peers and negative feedbacks form subordinates. Discrimination leads to psychological and emotional disturbance, resulting in demoralization and descend in performance standards. It brings down the overall performance, and fuels more discrimination, which in turn increases the number of gaps in one's work further. Discrimination at workplace also affects the society. The socio-economic inequalities get widened and social cohesion and solidarity are eroded. It results in wastage of human talent and resources.

Employer's role
Recognizing the fact that unwanted attention to any aspect of an employee demoralizes him, hits his performance level and ultimately results in loss to the employee in the short term and to the organization in the long run, employers should promote a discrimination free environment within the organization. The employer should try to be an equal employment opportunity provider and should take affirmative actions towards disables and other weaker sections of its workforce. To maintain bias free environment throughout the organization, employees at all levels should be provided periodic counseling to train them to bring out the best in their new colleagues. All employees should be made to understand that harassing their colleagues indirectly causes loss to the organization and it can have adverse effects on its repute.

FORMS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION

RACIAL AND EHTNIC DISCRIMINATION
Racial discrimination differentiates between individuals on the basis of real and perceived racial differences, and has been official government policy in several countries, such as Papa New Guinea in the apartheid era. In the United States, racial profiling of minorities by law enforcement officials has been called racial discrimination. As early as 1866, the Civil Rights Act provided a remedy for intentional race discrimination in employment by private employers and state and local public employers.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 applies to public employment or employment involving state action prohibiting deprivation of rights secured by the federal constitution or federal laws through action under color of law. Title VII is the principal federal statute with regard to employment discrimination prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination by public and private employers, labor organizations, training programs and employment agencies based on race or color, religion, gender, and national origin. Within the criminal justice system in some Western countries, minorities are convicted and imprisoned disproportionately when compared with whites. In 1998, nearly one out of three black men between the ages of 2029 were in prison or jail, on probation or parole on any given day in the United States. Native Americans make up about 2% of Canada's population, but account for 18% of the federal prison population as of 2000. According to the Australian government's June 2006 publication of prison statistics, Aborigenes make up 24% of the overall prison population in Australia. In 2004, Mori made up just 15% of the total population of New Zealand but 49.5% of prisoners. Mori were entering prison at 8 times the rate of non-Mori. A quarter of the people in England's prisons are from an ethnic minority. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that five times more black people than white people per head of population in England and Wales are imprisoned. Experts and politicians said over-representation of black men was a result of decades of racial prejudice in the criminal justice system.

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF NATIONALITY

Discrimination on the basis of nationality is usually included in employment laws. It is sometimes referred to as bound together with racial discrimination although it can be separate. It may vary from laws that stop refusals of hiring based on nationality, asking questions regarding origin, to prohibitions of firing, forced retirement, compensation and pay, etc. based on nationality. Discrimination on the basis of nationality may show as a "level of acceptance" in a sport or work team regarding new team members and employees that differ from the nationality of the majority of team members.

SEX AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Though gender discrimination and sexism refers to beliefs and attitudes in relation to the gender of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and do not, normally, carry any legal consequences. Sex Discrimination, on the other hand, may have legal consequences. Though what constitutes sex discrimination varies between countries, the essence is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature is considered a form of prejudice and in certain enumerated circumstances is illegal in many countries. Sexual discrimination can arise in different contexts. For instance an employee may be discriminated against by being asked discriminatory questions during a job interview, or by an employer not hiring or promoting, unequally paying, or wrongfully terminating, an employee based on their gender. In an educational setting there could be claims that a student was excluded from an educational institution, program, opportunity, loan, student group, or scholarship due to their gender. In the housing setting there could be

claims that a person was refused negotiations on seeking a house, contracting/leasing a house or getting a loan based on their gender. Another setting where there have been claims of gender discrimination is banking; for example if one is refused credit or is offered unequal loan terms based on ones gender. Another setting where there is usually gender discrimination is when one is refused to extend their credit, refused approval of credit/loan process, and if there is a burden of unequal loan terms based on ones gender. Socially, sexual differences have been used to justify different roles for men and women, in some cases giving rise to claims of primary and secondary roles. While there are alleged non-physical differences between men and women, major reviews of the academic literature on gender difference find only a tiny minority of characteristics where there are consistent psychological differences between men and women, and these relate directly to experiences grounded in biological difference. However, there are also some psychological differences in regard to how problems are dealt with and emotional perceptions and reactions which may relate to hormones and the successful characteristics of each gender during longstanding roles in past primitive lifestyles. Unfair discrimination usually follows the gender stereotyping held by a society. The PwC research found that among FTSE 350 companies in the United Kingdom in 2002 almost 40% of senior management posts were occupied by women. When that research was repeated in 2007, the number of senior management posts held by women had fallen to 22%. Transgender individuals, both male to female and female to male, often experience problems which often lead to dismissals, underachievement, difficulty in finding a job, social isolation, and, occasionally, violent attacks against them. Nevertheless, the problem of gender discrimination does not stop at transgender individuals or with women. Men are often the victim in certain areas of employment as men begin to seek work in office and childcare settings traditionally perceived as "women's jobs". One such situation seems to be evident in a recent case concerning alleged YMCA discrimination and a Federal Court Case in Texas. The case actually involves alleged discrimination against both men and blacks in childcare, even when they pass the same strict background tests and other standards of employment. It is currently being contended in federal court, as of fall 2009, and sheds light on how a workplace dominated by a majority (women in this case) sometimes will seemingly "justify" whatever they wish to do, regardless of the law. This may be done as an effort at self-protection, to uphold traditional societal roles, or some other faulty, unethical or illegal prejudicial reasoning.

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe. For instance, the indigenous Christian population of Balkans (known as "rayah" or "protected flock") lived under the Ottoman KanuniRayah. The word is sometimes translated as 'cattle' rather than 'flock' or 'subjects' to emphasize the inferior status of the rayah. In the Ottoman Empire, in accordance with the Muslim dhimmi system, Christians were guaranteed limited freedoms (such as the right to worship), but were treated as second-class citizens. Christians and Jews were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law. They were forbidden to carry weapons or ride atop horses, their houses could not overlook those of Muslims, and their religious practices would have to defer to those of Muslims, in addition to various other legal limitations.

Restrictions upon Jewish occupations were imposed by Christian authorities. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to Jews, pushing them into marginal roles considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and money lending, occupations only tolerated as a "necessary evil". The number of Jews permitted to reside in different places was limited; they were concentrated in ghettos and were not allowed to own land. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 decreed that Jews and Muslims must wear distinguishing clothing. In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States commission on civil rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied " the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not is called ableism or disablism Disability discrimination, which treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of normal living, results in public and private places and services, education, and social work that are built to serve 'standard' people, thereby excluding those with various disabilities. In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act mandates the provision of equality of access to both buildings and services and is paralleled by similar acts in other countries, such as the Equality Act 2010 in the UK.

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
Employment discrimination refers to disabling certain people to apply and receive jobs based on their race, age, gender, religion, height, weight, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. In relationship to sociology, employment discrimination usually relates to what events are happening in society at the time. For example, it would have seemed ludicrous to hire an African American male and absolutely unheard of to hire an African American woman over 50 years ago. However, in our society today, it is the absolute norm to hire any qualified person. Many laws prohibit employment discrimination. If a person uses discriminatory hiring practices, they can be sued for hate crimes. However, some minority groups (notably LGBT people) remain unprotected by U.S. federal law from employment discrimination.

MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION
Many people suffer more than one form of discrimination. The depth of poverty is widest among people who suffer multiple forms of discrimination simultaneously. Indigenous and tribal people, for example, are among the poorest of the poor, and women within these groups are even more severely affected.

The intensity or severity of the disadvantages they may confront depends on how many personal characteristics may generate discrimination, and how these interrelate. People who suffer several forms of discrimination are more likely to be poor, or chronically poor, and to work in the informal economy.

AGE DISCRIMINATION
The changing structure of the world's population makes it even more important to tackle discrimination based on age. By 2050, 33 per cent of people in developed countries and 19 per cent in developing countries will be 60 or older. Discrimination can be overt, such as age limits for hiring. It can also take more subtle forms, such as allegations that people lack career potential, or have too much experience. Other forms of discrimination include limited access to training and conditions that virtually compel early retirement. Under certain conditions, age discrimination can affect younger or new workers as well as mid-life and near retirement workers.

HIV/AIDS DISCRIMINATION
Worldwide, more than 42 million men, women, girls and boys are living with HIV AIDS. Discrimination at work based on HIV/AIDS can take many forms, including pre-employment testing leading to a refusal to hire, testing of long-term foreign visitors before entering the country, and in some countries, mandatory tests for migrant women workers. Breaches of medical confidentiality are common. Other forms of discrimination include dismissal without medical evidence, notice or a hearing; demotion; denial of health insurance benefits; salary reductions and harassment. The burden of caring for people with the disease often falls on women and girls - increasing their workload, and reducing their opportunities to earn incomes and attend school. Older women workers may become responsible for orphaned grandchildren.

REDLINING
Redlining is the practice of denying, or increasing the cost of services such as banking, insurance, access to jobs, access to health care, or even supermarkets to residents in certain, often racially determined, areas. The term "redlining" was coined in the late 1960s by John McKnight, a Northwestern University sociologist and community activist. It describes the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest; later the term was applied to discrimination against a particular group of people (usually by race or sex) no matter the geography. During the heyday of redlining, the areas most frequently discriminated against were black inner city neighborhoods. For example, in Atlanta in the 1980s, a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles by investigative reporter Bill Dedman showed that banks would often lend to lower-income whites but not to middle- or upperincome blacks. The use of blacklists is a related concept also used by redliners to keep track of groups, areas, and people that the discriminating party feels should be denied business or aid or other transactions.

EXTENT OF JOB DISCRIMINATION

How do we estimate whether an institution or a set of institutions is practicing discrimination against a certain group? By looking at statistical indicators of how the members of that group are distributed within the institution. A prima facie indication of discrimination exists when a disproportionate number of the members of a certain group hold the less desirable positions within the institutions in spite of their preferences and abilities. Three kinds of comparisons can provide evidence for such a distribution: 1. Comparisons of the average benefits the institutions bestow on the discriminated group with the average benefits the institutions bestow on other groups; 2. Comparisons of the proportion of the discriminated group found in the lowest levels of the institutions with the proportions of other groups found at those levels; 3. Comparisons of the proportions of that group that hold the more advantageous positions with the proportions of other groups that hold those same positions. If we look at American society in terms of these three kinds of comparisons, it becomes clear that some form of racial and sexual discrimination is present in American society as a whole. It is also clear that for some segments of the minority population (such as young, college-educated black males) discrimination is not as intense as it once was. Average Income Comparisons: Income comparisons provide the most suggestive indicators of discrimination. If we compare the average incomes of nonwhite American families, for example, with the average incomes of white American families, we see that white family incomes are substantially above those of nonwhites. Contrary to a commonly held belief, the income gap between whites and minorities has been increasing rather than decreasing. Since 1970, in fact, even during periods when the real incomes of whites have gone up, real minority incomes have not kept up. In 1970 the average income for a black family was 65 percent of a white familys average income; in 1994 the black familys in- come was 63 percent of the white familys income. Income comparisons also reveal large inequalities based on sex. A comparison of average incomes for men and women shows that women receive only a portion of what men receive. A recent study found, in fact, that firms employing mostly men paid their workers on average 40% more than those employing mostly women.
Distribution of Income Among Working Men and Women, 1994.

INCOME 1 to 2499 2500 to 4999 5000 to 9999 10000 to 14999 15000 to 24999 25000 to 49999 50000 to 74999 75000 and over

Percent of men with that income 7 4 12 13 20 29 10 6

Percent of women with that income 14 10 21 15 19 17 3 1

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports.

The evidence of racial and sexual discrimination provided by the quantitative measures cited can be filled out qualitatively by examining the occupational distribution of racial and sexual minorities. As the figures suggests, larger percentages of white males move into the higher paying occupations, while minorities and women end up in those that are less desirable. Consequently, although many white women have moved into middle-management positions in recent years, neither they nor minorities have yet been al-lowed into the top-paying senior management and top executive positions. Just as the most desirable occupations are held by whites, while the less desirable are held by blacks, so also the most well paying occupations tend to be reserved for men, and the remainder for women. The following table illustrates the disparities. Studies indicate that despite two decades of women entering the workforce in record numbers, women managers still are not being promoted from middlemanagement positions into senior or top-management posts be-cause they encounter an impenetrable glass ceiling through which they may look but not enter. It is some-times suggested that women choose to work in those jobs that have relatively low pay and low prestige. It is suggested sometimes, for example, that women believe that only certain jobs (such as secretary or kindergarten teacher) are appropriate for women; that many women choose courses of study that suit them only for such jobs; that many women choose those jobs because they plan to raise children and these jobs are relatively easy to leave and re-enter; that many women choose these jobs because they have limited demands and allow them time to raise children; that many women defer to the demands of their husbands careers and choose to forgo developing their own careers. Al-though choice plays some role in pay differentials, however, researchers who have studied the differences in earnings between men and women have all concluded that wage differentials cannot be accounted for simply on the basis of such factors. Studies indicate that even after taking into account male and female differences in education, work experience, work continuity, self-imposed work restrictions, and absenteeism, a gap between the earnings of men and women remains, that can only be accounted for by discrimination in the labor market.

Arguments Against Job Discrimination

Utilitarian arguments:

Utilitarian argument: Discrimination (in employment) is wrong because it is inefficient. o Social productivity is optimized to the extent that jobs are awarded on the basis of competency or "merit": this best promotes the general welfare. different tasks require different skills, knowledge, and temperaments maximal efficiency will be achieved by assigning to these tasks the people who most possess the skills knowledge, and temperaments the jobs require.

o o o o

selection on grounds other than merit will cause productivity to decline. Race, sex, & religion (among other things), being generally unrelated to job performance, have nothing to do with merit. So, assignment of tasks on these other bases -- i.e., discrimination in employment -- is inefficient. Discrimination is unethical because it reduces social efficiency and utility and raises costs Conclusion: Discrimination is wrong.

Rights arguments: Kantian argument: Discrimination is wrong because it violates a person's basic moral rights. Every individual has a right to be treated as an "end" not merely as a "means". o Discrimination treats people as means to whatever ends the discrimination is supposed to serve, and not as ends Bad Old Fashioned Discrimination (BOFD) to keep the negroes/women "in their place" to prevent "race-mixing" and "mongrelization" to preserve "the sanctity of the home" Affirmative Action & Reverse Discrimination to achieve diverse workplaces to compensate the disadvantaged BOFD: treats those discriminated against solely as means based on stereotypes that undermine the self esteem of the disadvantaged which discourages them from pursuing their own ends economic impoverishment: deprives them of the means to pursue their ends educational impoverishment: withholds from them the means to refine their ends & effectively target them Related Kantian point: discrimination is a nonuniversalizable practice o those who discriminate would be unwilling to be similarly discriminated against if things were reversed o they'd be unwilling to consent to the universalization of their discriminatory maxim or preferential treatment
o

basic idea we have a duty to treat others as we ourselves want to be treated others have this corresponding right: to be treated as we ourselves would want to be treated

Justice arguments: Discrimination leads to unjust distribution of societys benefits and burdens and is therefore unjust

Rawl's Argument: The Principle of Equal Opportunity is a fundamental principle of distributive justice o a principle that everyone would choose from "behind the veil of ignorance" o The Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. o Discrimination violates this principle. lucrative & authoritative jobs are not equally open to those discriminated against o Conclusion: Discrimination is unjust. Argument from the first principle of justice o The First Principle of Justice: Individuals who are equal in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question should be treated equally. o Discrimination violates this principle: race & sex are generally irrelevant to job performance o Conclusion: discrimination is unjust.

Discriminatory Practices
Regardless of the problems inherent in some of the arguments against discrimination, it is clear that there are strong reasons for holding that discrimination is wrong. It is consequently understandable that the law has gradually been changed to conform to these moral requirements and that there has been a growing recognition of the various ways in which discrimination in employment occurs. Among the practices now widely recognized as discriminatory are the following: Recruitment Practices Firms that rely solely on the word-of-mouth referrals of present employees to recruit new workers tend to recruit only from those racial and sexual groups that are already represented in their labor force. When a firms labor force is composed of only white males, this recruitment policy will tend to discriminate against minorities and

women. Also, when desirable job positions are only advertised in media ( or by job-referral agencies ) that are not used by minorities or women ( such as in English newspapers not read bt Spanish-speaking minorities ) or are classified as for men only, recruitment will also tend to be discriminatory. Screening Practices Job qualifications are discriminatory when they are not relevant to the jobs to be performed ( e.g. requiring a high school diploma or a credential for an essentially manual task in places where minorities statistically have had high secondary school dropout rates ). Aptitude or intelligence tests used ti screen applicants become discriminatory when they serve to disqualify members from minority cultures who are unfamiliar with the language, concepts, and social situations used in the tests but who are in fact fully qualified for the job. Job interviews are discriminatory if the interviewer routinely disqualifies women and minorities by relying on sexual or racial stereotypes. These stereotypes may include assumptions about the sort of occupations proper for women, the sort of work and time burdens that may fittingly be imposed on women, the ability of a woman or minority person to maintain commitment to a job, the propriety of putting women in male environments, the assumed effects women and minorities would have on employee morale or on customers, and the extent to which women and minorities are assumed to have personality and aptitude traits that make them unsuitable for a job. Such generalizations about women or minorities are only discriminatory, they are also false. Promotion Practices Promotion, job progression, and transfer practices are discriminatory when employers place white males on job tracks separate from those open to women and minorities. Seniority systems will be discriminatory if past discrimination has eliminated minorities and women from the higher, more senior positions on the advancement ladder. To rectify the situation, individuals who have specifically suffered from discrimination in the seniority system should be given their rightful place in the seniority system and provided with whatever training is necessary for them. When promotions rely on the subjective recommendations of immediate supervisors, promotion policy will be discriminatory to the extent that supervisors rely on racial or sexual stereotypes. Conditions of Employment Wages and salaries are discriminatory to the extent that equal wages and salaries are not given to people who are doing essentially the same work. If past discriminations or present cultural traditions result in some job classifications being disproportionately filled with women or minorities ( such as secretarial, clerical, or part-time positions ), steps should be taken to make their compensations and benefits comparable to those of other classifications. Discharge Firing an employee on the basis of race or sex is a clear form of discrimination. Less blatant but still discriminatory are layoff policies that rely on a seniority system, in which women and minorities have the lowest seniority because of past discrimination.

Affirmative Action in Job Discrimination

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination. Affirmative action is intended to promote equal opportunity. It is often instituted in government and educational settings to ensure that minority groups within a society are included in all programs. The justification for affirmative action is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture, and to address existing discrimination. Affirmative action in workplace refers to a positive, corrective tool intended to assist people who have been discriminated against hence it serves as a strategy that is geared toward achieving employment equity. Affirmative action generally refers to the elimination of barriers towards equality for women in the workplace. Affirmative action integrates policy and practices implementation which aims in access to employment opportunities and in terms and conditions of employment including pay. The contributing factors to workplace discrimination include the position of women in the workforce, the valuing of jobs and the relationship between the construct of paid work and womens job choices and development. The core principles of affirmative action apply to major categories as minorities, disabled and women. The focus is on integration of human capital with development, productivity and improved service delivery, cost effectiveness, communication and participation, relative disadvantage transparency and reasonable accommodation. Reservation in India is a form of affirmative action designed to improve the well being of perceived backward and under represented communities in India. These are laws wherein a certain percentage of total available slots in educational institutes and government jobs are set aside for people from backward communities. Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) are the primary beneficiaries of the reservation policies, while there are also reservation policies for women. The reservation system has been a matter of contention ever since the British occupied India and remains a point of conflict. Many citizens who come from the upper classes find this policy of the government biased and oppose it, since they feel it takes away their rights to equality. But not everyone who comes from the underprivileged communities support the system because they say it makes them feel disadvantaged. Thus the reservation system is controversial.

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) :

These days, many employers call themselves equal employment opportunity (EEO) employers. They may have an EEO Officer to oversee EEO in their workplace, or they may simply ensure that their human resources manager and other managers understand and follow EEO. Their job advertisements may say that they want people who will follow EEO principles.

Employers are likely to mean one of two things when they use the term EEO. The two meanings of EEO are:

 Sometimes it means that the employer follows the anti-discrimination laws and tries to ensure that everyone in their workplace understands these laws and follows them too. Other times it means that as well as following anti-discrimination laws, the employer implements specific equal employment opportunity management plans or programs designed to ensure that everyone really does have equal opportunity in their workplace. For example, they may keep statistics on the proportions of different groups at different levels in their workplace to help them monitor how EEO is working. They may try to identify and remove any barriers that certain groups face in achieving real equal opportunity. This sort of planning is a more structured and foolproof way of ensuring that the employer does not break the antidiscrimination laws, even unwittingly. Apart from that employers should take extra steps to get a pool of well qualified applicants from all groups. Existence of quotas, preferences & set-asides also provides hiring options. Many companies now employ affirmative action policies as part of their business models, but the practice remains controversial, as it creates advantages and disadvantages.

Arguments in Favour Of Affirmative Action: Divesity:

Affirmative action policies help to create a more diverse work environment. Diversity, in turn, provides businesses with two key advantages: First, they provide more adaptability in terms of problem solving by offering a wider array of possible solutions; and companies that embrace a multi-cultural employee roster are better positioned to serve multi-cultural communities, by overcoming language and cultural barriers. While affirmative action is not the best way of going about this, there are other ways of promoting diversity. Encouraging minorities from a young age to pursue their goals and obtain a good education is an important start. Assisting people from poor socio-economic backgrounds in gaining the resources and motivation they need to level the playing field with the more privileged population should be something we all actively do. Understanding and accepting diversity is not the issue in question; the issue is the best way of going about creating a society where minorities and non-minorities alike can be judged based on merit and character, and not on the color of their skin.

Increased Opportunities :

By maintaining affirmative action hiring policies, a business can expand its opportunities to include government contracts. The Executive Order put into place by President Lyndon B. Johnson specifies that businesses receiving government contracts must establish and maintain affirmative action policies. The availability of government contracts vary from administration to administration and federal budget to federal budget, but such contracts can prove a lucrative windfall for the businesses that win them.

Moral Commitment :
Embracing affirmative action can provide businesses with a means of making a moral commitment to the ideal of justice or equal treatment for all. The advantage of such a moral stand within the workplace remains indirect. It can help to draw employees that share a belief in the principle of justice, which helps to foster a more tolerant work environment. It can also reassure employees that come from historically underrepresented groups that the company will give them full consideration for any available promotions.

Arguments against Affirmative Action:

Reverse Discrimination:
One major disadvantage of affirmative action in the workplace is the reality or perception of reverse discrimination. .i.e. it is an attempt to end discrimination with discrimination. When a company discriminates against a white male for the sake of bettering the outcome of another racial group, an injustice occurs. While reverse discrimination remains exceedingly rare in practice, the accusation of reverse discrimination can generate a negative social backlash for a company, which may undermine its financial future. The accusation can also potentially undercut the confidence of minority and women employees concerning their skill level.

Reconciliation of the injustices of the past :

Affirmative action seeks to reconcile the injustices of the past. The horrible atrocities of the past, including slavery and the refusal to grant women and minorities the right to vote, cast an ugly shadow on the history of our nation. But affirmative action cannot erase what our ancestors did years ago. Instead of trying to reconcile the oppression of the past, we should try to lend a hand to young minorities that want to learn and be successful, but lack the resources they need to accomplish their goals.

Stigmatization:
Affirmative action policies can potentially create a stigma that minorities and women obtain positions in a company based on gender, race or ethnicity, rather than through achievement and qualifications. Minorities are capable of getting the best jobs and being as successful as any white male has ever been. The problem occurs when people view them as inferior because of affirmative action--the attitude of "You couldn't do it on your own." These implications have a lasting, damaging effect on the mental well-being of minorities. How can anybody feel truly accomplished when a lingering doubt about the legitimacy of his achievements exists?

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

http://rkb-ce.blogspot.in/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination http://www.help4adhd.org/en/systems/legal/discrimination www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr2005/.../section3b.pdf www.ehow.com www.lawmemo.com/eeoc/practices.html www.slideshare.net/simply_coool/extent-of-job-discrimination http://www.buzzle.com/articles/discrimination-against-women-in-the-workplace.html