Racism In The Workplace Research Papers Example

Abstract

Racism is an abhorrent policy, whether it is in the criminal justice system, the community, and the workplace. Regrettably, racist intolerance is still active in contemporary American society. Even though there have been laws that have been adopted designed to reduce if not completely eradicate racism, it is not decreasing, but even thriving. The paper seeks to determine the reasons that racism is still prevalent as well as the factors that fuel racist tendencies in America’s corporate sector.

Racism in the Corporate World

Simply put, “racial discrimination” is a hostile treatment of another person owing to the person’s race of particular inalienable features that are innate in that person’s race, such as the skin, hair, or other facial or skin traits. Harassment of the person can be committed in a number of ways. These can come in the form of “racial slurs,” derogatory utterances regarding the person’s skin color, or wearing and displaying symbols that are offensive to that particular race.
Though the law does not penalize isolated incidents, mocking, or casual remarks, the law is applied when the aggravation comes at a frequent pace or is so relentless that the workplace environment becomes too hostile and obnoxious or when the discrimination adversely impacts the employment of the person; the person is either demoted or even terminated from their positions (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d., p. 1).
One of the more delicate instances in claims for race-related workplace discrimination is establishing the circumstances when these actually occur. It is easy for these instances to go unnoticed; unless the employer publicly admits that there was an act of discrimination, there will be no verifiable declaration that can counter allegations of bias. The employer can simply state that the other person was more deserving than the claimant or was simply “employer prerogative?” Nevertheless, there are some indicators that employers will evidence some intolerance towards workers or applicants.
Cases of racism in corporate America not only tarnish the image of companies in particular and the communities these businesses are located in, but also lay a heavy cost on American businesses. These events are components of a widespread system of racial intolerance in America’s workplaces. After more than four decades after the adoption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that accorded equality to minorities before the bar of justice, allegations of provocation founded on the person’s racial origin or nationality have doubled since 1990 to more than 9,000 incidents per year, according to information from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The issue is not mainly embedded in small cities or Southern urban centers. Companies such as Boeing, Lockheed, and Texaco and other well-known household brands have been taken to court in jurisdictions from San Francisco to Detroit, with the latter having one of the largest African American populations in the United States. Though it is true that the portion of the work force has been taken over by minority sector members in the past 10 years, this is one of the reasons that can be attributed to the increase in the number of intolerance cases in the US workplace.
However, cases for racism in the workplace has leapfrogged 100 fold since the 1990s; during this same period, employment figures among minority groups rose only 36 percent. In addition, many of the cases involve multiple victims; here, it is believed that this inordinately increases to tens of thousands of employees, not only African Americans, but also Hispanics and Asians as well (Arndt, 2001, p. 1).
Companies such as Coca-Cola and Boeing Co. have settled claims of racial intolerance and badgering by their workers. These instances have emboldened other victims in knowing that are remedies available to them to get relief. These types of legal motions were greatly aided with the passage of a 1991 law that permitted the conduct of trial by jury as well as consideration for the awarding of remunerative and retaliatory damages in cases involving racial discrimination.
Nevertheless, commentators are noting an alarming trend in the number of cases involving race-related factors. Members of the minority in the work place suffer the most archaic of racial denigrations that can be hurled against them. Many of them are asked if these eat “monkey meat,” maligned as a substandard race compared to “whites,” or have “KKK” symbols and other harassing scribbling written on their work places. Regrettably, office workers are not exempt from this derogation. One incident saw existing as well as former African American employees of Xerox Corporation at their Houston office to file provocation charges at the EEOC.
One employee averred that she was subjected to racial brickbats from a fellow employee; a “white” co-worker fabricated a photograph to give the impression the worker was a hustler. When she complained to her superiors, the supervisor had the photo printed out and displayed the same on the wall of the office. However, having one’s bootlegged photos hung on office walls for everyone to see is not the worst.
There were cases where “hangman’s nooses” were given out; these symbols were potent icons of the mob killings done against African Americans that are bloodily chronicled in US history. The EEOC has acted and addressed these types of cases where theses violent symbols were used. There are those that place the blame on the upswing of these types of cases on blue collar “white employees” who argue that affirmative action policies have given minorities an undue advantage in the workplace. This sentiment may have been fueled by the long term decline in wages for workers with inferior skill sets. As a great number of “whites” do not notice any significant act of discrimination, the remaining number of bigots believes that these have a legitimate right to throw brickbats at fringe groups, whom these believe have been given undue aid solely on the basis of their racial aggregation.
However, many of these incidents go deliberately unnoticed. Workers who have been victimized refuse to cooperate or divulge their identities fearing that management will terminate their jobs. However, companies have a greater desire to bury incidents of racism or discrimination in their companies; employees that allege discrimination are usually “silenced” by extra monetary damages (Arndt, 2001, p. 1).
As mentioned earlier, intolerance takes an enormous toll on the companies and on its victims. Litigations in recent times have evinced this factor, as multinational and even small companies have had to settle with the victims for millions of dollars in compensation. In addition, the companies had to pay for damages for their part in engendering a biased working environment or cultivating an existing racist attitude in the workplace (Guerin, 2014, p. 1).
When employers target applicants that originate from a particular race for adverse treatment, this can be construed as “disparate treatment” intolerance; when the employers implements the same policy on all employees, but the strain is inordinately placed on the members of a particular race, this is termed as “disparate impact” intolerance. Employees that are claiming for “disparate treatment” is alleging that he/she was given a different treatment compared to the conduct given to other employees placed in similar instances.
Employers that commit this infringement (disparate treatment) when it upgrades the employment position of individuals solely on the basis that these are “white,” obligates members of a certain minority group to submit themselves to “drug tests,” or remove members of a certain race to serve as front line personnel who transact with clients. In addition, employers that single out employees on the factors of the person’s skin color, hair characteristics, physical appearance, or even the color of the person’s hair, commits “disparate treatment.” With regards to “disparate impact,” the claimant/employee does not allege that the employer deliberately centered on employees coming from a specific minority or fringe group; rather, the claim here is that the purportedly “neutral” policy, practice, or regulation of the employer has an unequal adverse effect on the members of a particular racial group.
If an employee displays that a certain policy, practice, or regulation has an inordinate impact on the members of a specific race, the employer can justify his/her position by stating that the action is a legal, significant, critical, and job-attendant position and this mandates the adoption of the policy. For example, the height requirement can be a legitimate factor if the employer can prove that the height limit is needed to operate certain types of machinery. However, if the job opening would be for a clerk in an office, employers would find it extremely difficult to justify the height requirement.
Discrimination can also inflict enormous costs for companies that either voluntarily or involuntarily practice this policy. In a recent disclosure of the Center for American Progress, workplace intolerance anchored on the tenets of “race, gender, or sexual preference” cost US companies more than $60 billion yearly. Businesses bring upon themselves this cost by way of turnover costs-discriminatory practices result in nearly 2 million employees leaving their jobs owing to hostile discriminatory policies. Lawsuits cost employers a significant amount of money. In one example, FedEx settled a $3 million discrimination motion alleging that the company discriminated against applicants by using race and gender as the basis in 15 states (Bradford, 2012, p. 1).
Whether it is against one’s skin, race, hair, or other inborn traits, discrimination is never to be tolerated. However, there are posits that seem to justify them. Here, there are limitations, not demarcations, which must be respected. An acknowledgement of these limitations will help in reducing discrimination claims. Nevertheless, if the discriminations are meant to solely disparage, then these must be punished as to leave strong reminder to those that might consider following or pursuing this policy.

References

Arndt, M (2001) “Racism in the workplace.” Retrieved 23 March 2015 from <http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2001-07-29/racism-in-the-workplace
Bradford, H (2012). “Workplace discrimination costs businesses $64 billion every year.” Retrieved 23 March 2015 from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/workplace-discrimination-costs-businesses-cap_n_1373835.html
Find Law (n.d.). “Racial discrimination in the workplace” Retrieved 23 March 2015 from <http://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/racial-discrimination-in-the-workplace.html
Guerin, L. (2014). “What is race discrimination?” Retrieved 23 March 2015 from <http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fighting-race-national-origin-discrimination-29672.html
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.) “Race/color discrimination.” Retrieved 23 March 2015 from <http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm