Equal Employment Opportunity in the US

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Basic Tenets of EEO Laws
Effectiveness of EEO in the US Labour Market
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The struggle against discriminative practices in employment has been one of the defining characteristics of American life for years. Starting in earnest in the 1940’s, this struggle has been at the heart of various organized groups in the US, such as political parties, civil rights movements, contemporaly women’s movements and other interest groups (Burstein, 1994, p. 18).

On September 24, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson bowed to sustained pressure against employment discrimination and signed Executive Order 11246, allowing the establishment of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). The EEO was established to disallow federal employment contractors from discriminating against workers on the basis of race, creed, social status, sex, religious orientation, color or nationality.

The Executive Order also sought to compel employers to implement affirmative action strategies to enhance the participation of minority communities and women in the labor force (Collins & Yeskel, 2005, p. 36).

While EEO was modelled around fundamental concepts needed to level the playing field in regards to employment opportunities, it is the purpose of this paper to show how the key objectives of EEO remain largely unattained in the American workforce.

Most Americans are of the opinion that the labor market usually operates justly, that individuals are promoted by the virtue of their hard work and qualifications, and that they can generally expect to receive rewards that are commensurate to their input in their places of employment (Burstein, 1994, p. 1).

Indeed, many Americans have an indistinct sense that some communities and racial groups continues to be discriminated against in the 21^st century but know little about the reality and tend to think that discrimination in employment is a thing of the past. According to Burstein (1994), “…virtually all groups except white protestants of northwest European ancestry have suffered from intense discrimination at one time or another” (P. 1).

However, even members and communities that have suffered massively from employment discrimination, predominantly women and blacks, continue to have vague ideas about how it has influenced their lives and how it has transformed itself over time. As such, it is only imperative to evaluate the basic tenets of EEO to be able to clearly outline the disjoint between the ideals of EEO and the realities on the ground

The Basic Tenets of EEO Laws

In the US, various EEO standards, such as merit selection and fair pay have been designed to assist the public sector in attracting and retaining the best employees from diverse communities (Collins & Yeskel, 2005, p. 48). All public sector agencies have a deep-seated responsibility to be all-inclusive in the provision of workplace environments where all employees are valued.

Pundits are of the opinion that a skilled and diverse workforce offers the public sector the skills and knowledge needed to provide quality services to all communities. In the US, monitoring and enforcement of EEO laws are done by the Civil Rights Centre and The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, under the Department of Labour (USDOL, 2009, para. 2).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is an autonomous federal agency charged with the responsibility of encouraging equal opportunity in employment through education and technical support, as well as through administrative and judicial enforcement.

According to Buckley (2004, p. 12), EEO basically entails making sure that the workplace environment is free from any forms of employee intolerance, discrimination and harassment. EEO also deals with the provision of programs and strategies aimed at assisting individuals and groups overcome past or current employment disadvantages.

In essence, EEO is about introducing workplace rules, strategies, practices, attitudes, behaviours and values that are consistent, fair, and do not in anyway disadvantage individuals for the reason that they belong to particular groups. In an EEO environment, all employees must be valued, respected, and offered the opportunity to develop their full potential, including pursuing a career path that is commensurate to their calling and choice.

Consequently, EEO is designed to achieve a variety of outcomes, including the maintenance of a diverse and skilled workforce, enhancement of employment access and involvement by EEO groups, and the creation of a workplace culture that displays fair workplace practices, attitudes and behaviors (Gillin, 1996, p. 77).

To achieve the desired workforce, especially in the public sector, EEO demands that recruitment, selection, training and promotion practices must be open, competitive and founded on merit. In essence, merit evaluated by objectively defined, job-related standards ensures that the best candidate is selected for the job.

All employees must have an equal access to career training and development, and must be offered with flexible working engagements that meet the requirements of all in the creation of a productive workforce. Grievance handling procedures and techniques must be made accessible to all employees, and must be prompt, confidential and fair in dealing with a multiplicity of grievances, complaints and suggestions in the workplace (Burstein, 1994, p. 14).

Effective EEOs’ must also establish a platform that enables all employees to have equal access to information while at the same time allowing their views and perceptions to be fairly heard. The decisions made by management must be without bias or favor, and illegitimate discrimination and harassment should not be tolerated in the workplace.

According to the EEO principles, employers must respect their employees’ social and cultural backgrounds. However, the effectiveness and integrity of EEO in ensuring equal rights for American workers have often being called into question.

Effectiveness of EEO in the US Labour Market

Assiduous and conscientious analysts both in the public and private sectors believe that the US is still miles away from creating a work environment that upholds the basic tenets of EEO laws as described above (Collins & Yeskel, 2005 p. 49). Although the federal government together with the agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing and enforcing EEO have claimed victory in ensuring a level playing field, all indications points to the contrary.

According to Burstein (1994, p. 2), the nature and magnitude of workplace violations have been drastically reduced through concerted efforts by interest groups and stakeholders, but millions of workers still undergo various forms of discrimination in their places of work.

While the US can be applauded for its capacity and ability to integrate the diverse ethnic components of its inhabitants (Rose, 1994, p. 39), various forms of workplace discrimination still persist in both public and private sectors.

In most occasions, discrimination in the workplace is perpetuated in relation to age, race, social group, religion, color, nationality, and marital status. Workplace discrimination also arises from other physical and social factors such as disability, career responsibility, sexual orientation and pregnancy.

The US has largely succeeded in guaranteeing political freedom, social independence and economic opportunity to a majority of the population (Rose, 1994, p. 39). However, it is evident that the color problem has for many decades prohibited political, social and economic integration.

The 2008 US presidential election, which pitted Barrack Obama and John McCain is a vivid example of how the color issue continues to be used in the US to prevent individuals from achieving their highest potential.

In this case, president Barrack Obama’s nationality and religious orientation were put into question by some critics even after all documents revealed that Obama was indeed American and a practicing Christian. The Obama saga points to the fact that race and color are still widely used in the US to discriminate against certain individuals or groups of individuals from achieving their highest potential in employment.

This goes against the basic tenets of EEO. According to Rose (1994), “…the question of whether equality of opportunity [in the US] can be translated from an ideal into more nearly a reality is for the future” (p. 40).

EEO denotes a form of employment obligation between the employer and the workers that guarantees social justice, freedom and legal responsibility (Buckley, 2004, p. 21). EEO also recognizes that disallowing discriminatory policies and practices is an effective management procedure.

Under EEO, employees must have the right to fair practices, fair allocation of workloads, merit-based selection and recruitment processes, and equal access to benefits in their places of work. However, available evidence reveals that the above indicators are practiced more in the abstract than in reality.

One of the challenges facing the application of EEO comes from the fact that the policy is implemented and administered by managers and supervisors in the context of diverse work environments (Collins & Yeskel, 2005, p. 56).

It, therefore, follows that the fundamental role of interpreting the meanings and applications of EEO principles is left to the discretion of managers and supervisors of individual organizations. It is true that these managers and supervisors are prone to various levels of biases and various forms of discriminative practices against their subordinates.

This scenario is further complicated by the fact that the same managers and supervisors who are supposed to implement and administer EEO principles are also charged with the responsibility of identifying and resolving the challenges occasioned by EEO.

In this perspective, the managers and supervisors execute and police the principles and policies that are fundamental to EEO. This arrangement permits a lot of openings for abuse since the managers are left with a huge leeway to cover for their misdeeds and misconceptions of the EEO laws, especially in situations dealing with minorities and blacks.

Hiring managers shares the same rights and responsibilities with employees under EEO. However, the managers have additional responsibilities that, if not well implemented and interpreted, may lead to an increase of workplace abuses.

For example, it is the responsibility of managers to take adequate and unprecedented steps to ensure that all work practices, strategies, values and behaviors are fair in the organization (Buckley, 2004, p. 102).

In addition, it is the responsibility of managers to ensure that the work environment is free from any forms of unlawful persecution, discrimination, prejudice, and bullying. The hiring managers should also ensure that the recruitment and selection procedures are transparent and inline with the EEO laws. The procedures used in recruitment and selection must be consistent to all the candidates.

However, experts are in agreement that the above is easily said than done. In other words, the above arguments about recruitment and selection of personnel as suggested by the EEO laws largely remain a conjecture in the minds of the hiring managers rather than a reality on the ground.

While the main objective of recruitment process is to identify and hire the best talents, hiring professionals often fail in this pursuit through engaging in activities that are against the EEO guidelines (Rose, 1994, p. 48).

In the US, such activities are concealed to pass as genuine recruitment processes, and are fuelled by simple influences such as family relations, acquaintances and friends to more complicated issues touching on racial, religious and sex discrimination in the workplace. Whichever way, the above influences on hiring decisions made by managers automatically leads to a complete disregard of EEO policies in the workplace.

Under the EEO framework, it is the duty of managers, especially the human resources professionals, to identify and plan for the special training and development needs of the employees under their command (Buckley, 2004, p. 32). In addition, the managers should also assist the employees to gain admittance to the training and development opportunities.

Although objectivity is regarded by many public institutions while offering employees a chance to train and develop their careers to the fullest potential, some streaks of discrimination relating to race and sex have been observed in recommending employees to various positions in organizations.

For instance, some managers shun recommending female employees to train for top positions in the organization, preferring to offer such opportunities of training and career development to male employees. This is done in total disregard of educational achievements and level of expertise held by the female employees over their male counterparts.

According to Hunter (1992, p. 52), this form of discrimination is experienced more in the private sector than in public sector since women are thought to be affected by a wide allay of factors, including pregnancies, family obligations, and other biological factors.

However, this line of thinking hampers the principles and policies propagated by EEO by showing favouritism to male employees in career training and development at the expense of their female counterparts. In this perspective, EEO fails to be effective in the US labor market.

However, the above discussion does not insinuate that hiring procedures are never objective. When organizations and hiring managers follow the demands and requirements of EEO to the letter, objective recruitment and selection are very much possible.

According to EEO laws, the capabilities of the candidates selected to the available positions must be commensurate to the competencies and requirements needed in the respective positions. This is the starting point of any HR process (Radelat, 1999, p. 10). It, therefore, follows that EEO can greatly assist HR professionals in maintaining objectivity in the recruitment and selection processes.

If hiring managers follow the rules and regulations of EEO to the letter, the subjective influences discussed above can be curtailed. Every organization is in constant competition for the most fundamental resource: qualified and well-informed employees (Hunter, 1992, p. 8). To achieve this objective, HR professionals must harness the principles of EEO to ensure that the recruitment and selection processes remain free from any subjective interference.

Again, this is more said than done. HR professionals and recruitment agencies often falls into the trap of relying on subjective influences in the recruitment process such as discrimination based on age, race, sex, religion, family relations, and other prejudicial biases.

Experts believe that racial discrimination in employment is still a widespread phenomenon in the US even after the introduction of EEO laws and the establishment of various government agencies charged with the responsibility of stamping out the vice in both public and private establishments (ASA, 2002, para. 2).

Indeed, some experts argue that EEO laws have only served to complicate matters for vulnerable groups since racial discrimination is now practiced in a secretive and sophisticated manner. In 2002, the Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) sitting in Washington DC revealed that prospective employees of black origin face discrimination in 20 percent of the job interviews attended (ASA, 2002, para. 3).

Some American organizations are known to spend millions of dollars to conceal racial discrimination. Such organizations are always at the forefront in explaining the strategies and procedures put in place to curtail the vice yet they go ahead to create sophisticated channels that enable the organizations to successfully manoeuvre and disregard the EEO laws without blowing their covers.

For instance, Instead of recruiting employees through Job training programs, HR professionals in such organizations use sophisticated hiring processes such as recruiting workers from principally white schools to discriminate against minority groups in the US.

Such a recruitment process makes it possible for the organizations to discriminate against minorities without employing deliberate racist practices reminiscent of earlier days. In this perspective, EEO laws remain largely ineffective.

Government agencies and managers continue to claim that they have achieved success in terms of implementing EEO in organizations operating in the US. While this may be the case, the success is not in anyway commensurate to a decline in wage gap between employees of various racial orientations.

Consecutive studies reveal that workplace discrimination negatively impacts victims in terms of lower salaries and lack of upward mobility. Studies have also revealed that the white-black salary gap “…has continued to be more than 10 percent, about the same as in the 1970s” (ASA, 2002, para. 6).

This is despite all the efforts that have been done by federal agencies and other stakeholders in ensuring the implementation and enforcement of EEO principles. One of the basic tenets of EEO is that employees should be accorded equal access to benefits and resources, including pay (Gillin, 1996, p. 77).

However, the wide salary gap that exists between whites and minorities with equal skills and expertise is a vivid pointer to the fact the EEO laws and principles are still practiced in the abstract.

In the US, research has also revealed that the earning gap between whites and minorities becomes greater as employees advance in age, guaranteeing the white workers a handsome retirement package while leaving the minorities exposed to harsh economic conditions in retirement.

This goes against the basic tenet of EEO, which suggests that all employees, regardless of their age, race and creed, should be offered an equal opportunity to realize their fullest potentials.

Discrimination against women in employment have continued to persist despite sustained pressure from the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other interest groups to push for equality in educational opportunities, employment openings, and other civil rights (Radelat, 1999, p. 10).

According to Cosby & Stockdale (2007), “…sex discrimination occurs when a person is or people are treated unfairly in the work context because of gender” (p. 3). Although many Americans legitimately disapprove the act of putting female employees at a disadvantage relative to their male counterparts, the practice is still widespread in terms of unfair treatment in compensation, opportunities and on-the-job treatment.

According to the EEO laws, workplace environment should be free from any form of discrimination based on sex. However, sophisticated cases of sexual favouritism and exploitation are still found in the US. On June 22, 2004, Wal-mart supermarket was accused by over 1.6 million women who cited sexual discrimination in their dealings with the supermarket chain (Cosby & Stockdale, 2007, p. 3).

Although this particular case is yet to be determined, it reveals a trend that reinforces the proposition that EEO laws and principles are largely practiced within the realms of abstractions and conceptions. On the ground, managers and other stakeholders completely disregard the laws or come up with strategies that enable them to hide their real meanings and intentions regarding EEO.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed the most basic fundamentals of the EEO laws and how they continue to be disregarded in the US, especially in the recruitment and selection of employees to various positions within organizations. Although EEO has immense potential in ensuring the objective recruitment and selection of employees, its concepts and aspirations largely remain in the abstract.

According to the paper, various forms of abuses still persists in the workplace environment although violations are conducted in a more concealed and sophisticated manner. As such, it can be vehemently concluded that EEO has failed to achieve its intended objective of guaranteeing a work environment that is free from any forms of discrimination.

In this perspective, policies designed to curtail discrimination, especially in relation to the EEO laws, should be strengthened and prolonged to deal with the various abuses that still persist in the workplace (ASA, 2002, para. 8).

To level the playing ground, HR professionals and organizations must intensify their affirmative action efforts so as to identify, recruit, promote, train and retain the most qualified employees from both mainstream and minority communities.

Reference List

American Sociological Association (ASA). (2002). Illegal job discrimination persists in the US workplace as affirmative action weakens. Web.

Buckley, J. F. (2004). Equal employment opportunity compliance guide 2004. New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Burstein, P. (1994). Discriminating against minorities and women: some historical background. In: P. Burstein (Eds) Equal employment opportunity: labour market discrimination and public policy. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine Transaction. Web.

Collins, C., & Yeskel, F. (2005). Economic apartheid in America: a primer on economic inequality and Insecurity. New York: New Press.

Cosby, F. J., & Stockdale, M.S. (2007). Introduction: Understanding sex discrimination: In F.J. Cosby, M.S. Stockdale, & S.A. Ropp (Eds) Sex discrimination in the workplace. Garsington Road, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Gillin, C. T. (1996). Political elites and regulatory bureaucrats: A case study concerning aging discrimination. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, p. 77.

Hunter, R. (1992). Indirect discrimination in the workplace. Federation Press. Web.

Radelat, A. (1999). EEOC fights sexual harassment of migrants. Hispanic, Vol. 12, Issue 6, p. 10.

Rose, D. L. (1994), Twenty-five years later: Where do we stand on equal employment opportunity law enforcement? In: P. Burstein (Eds) Equal employment opportunity: labour market discrimination and public policy. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine Transaction. Web.

United States Department of Labour (USDOL). (2009). Equal Employment Opportunity. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!