Implications of Affirmative Actions on Business

Implications of optimistic Action on Business approving workprograms, as we know them, argon less than 50 years old, and ar usually viewedas a serial ofpositive steps taken to find the representation of minority throngs in handle that have traditionallyexcluded them. It protects both racial and pagan minorities, as well as women, in the areas of education, business, and government. Affirmative run, whichhas its roots in the Constitutional ideal of exist opportunity, is the governments way of both eliminating inequality and making remedy for past variety.Sometimes viewed as reverse discrimination for blatantly favoring whiz group over an new(prenominal), approving accomplishment programs often differ in the extent to which they attempt to rectify discrimination by either instituting reviews of the hiring figure out for minority groups or explicitly preferring members of select groups. In some an(prenominal) ways, approbatory action has helped women and minority gr oups obtain and keep positions in either unravel or school that they would otherwise have been unable to attain.However, since the beginning of positive action in the 1960s, these policies have had many implications for businessesboth positive and invalidatingand have instituted many changes. professorship John F. Kennedy signed Executive ramble 10925 in March of 1961. The order was originally designed with governmentcontractile organs in mind, and give tongue to thatsaid contractors would take plausive action to ensure that appli give the gatets are employed, and employees are tempered during their employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Executive Order 10925 did not inspire peculiar(a) treatment of minority groups, as would later come to pass, solely was initially intended to eliminate discrimination from hiring and employment practices. In rubric VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,the governments position on the policy of favorabl e action was solidified, and a new branch of the U. S. surgical incision of Labor was created the Equal transaction Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The purpose of the EEOC was to suffice as a mediator between plaintiffs and private employers who disregarded the tenets of affirmatory action, and to ensure restitution to the affected.These changes to hiring and employment practices caused many to voice concerns Should minority groups receive preferential treatment in fields they were previously excluded from? Does this constitute a ravishment of the principle of equal opportunity in the ferment of reverse discrimination? In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government contractors to really document their efforts to ensure equality in hiring practices, and gave the Secretary of Labor the redress to investigate and rectify anyaccusations of discrimination. The government could punish violations of the order by canceling contracts, disal low companies from future contracts, and other measures (Kowalski, 27). In 1967, Johnsonsorder was furtherexpanded by Executive Order 11375 to let in women as well as minorities and, in 1968, under the administration of President Nixon, specific goals or quotas for the hiring of women and minorities wasinstituted. By 1972, the four-fifths rule was in effect, which held that firms contracting with the national government should not be allowed to hire any race, sex, or ethnic group at a rate below four-fifths that of any other group (eNotes).The EEOC was likewise strengthened in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Now, the Commission was able to file class action police force suits against corporations in violation of affirmative action policies. The Carter administration, in 1977, initiated the Public whole kit and caboodle Employment Act, requiringat least ten percent of federal money give to certain projectsto be allocated toboth minority and women business enterpris es. During the 1980s, affirmative action matte up little government support under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.Both resisted expansion in government contracting, and court closes began to negate some affirmative action programs. Universities and businesses were fight to conform to theguidelines of affirmative action while comfort maintaining certain standardsof operation. Eventually, many of these programs were either scaled-back or heap-aside altogether. In the 1990s, Clinton vowed to mend, not end affirmative action programs. He began to reevaluate the programs of several federal agencies, which some conceive had positive leave alones. There are many arguments for affirmative action in hiring and employment practices. Historically, almost 90% of all jobs are bingeed internally, with positions handout to relatives and friends of those already employed. Employers often fill these positions with hoi polloi who are under-qualified, and had the position been adv ertise properly, the hiring managers may have found a better candidate for the job. Affirmative action has encouraged many companies to engage in employment practices that set minimum standards of job definition, recruiting, outreach, and evaluation hat result in choosingthe dear person for the job (Diverse Strategies). These practices also promote diversity. When properly managed, diversity can increase creativity and innovation in organizations as well as improve decision making by providing different perspectives on problems (Judge, 20). great diversity in certain fields, such as medicine and law, get out increase the aid given to underrepresented groups. The main focus of affirmative action, however, is to direct the playing field and counter both ongoing discrimination as well as bigoted attitudes.Even in this day and age, minorities and women maintain to lag behind white Anglo-Saxon pro tryoutant men in the business world. Male employees may be promoted over women, beca use some companies hush up put women on a mommy track without their consent, and many citizenry publicly lie about how they feel with regards to race. Studies have shown that many people found it easier to link womens names with home-related address than with career-related nomenclature (Kowalski, 45), and test subjects are often quicker at linking black sheaths with negative words than with positive words (Kowalski, 45). With all of these arguments for affirmative action, there are still critics that believe these policies not only perpetuate continued racial tension, and alsolead members of these groups to believe they cannot succeed on their own. Supreme Court Justice Clarence doubting Thomas is quoted saying It neer ceases to amaze me that the courts are so willing to take over that anything that is predominantly black must be inferior. Affirmative action is also seen to stigmatize people.Others may assume that someone obtained their position because of affirmative act ion, and this breeds impertinence and anger. People relate to each other as either within or outside the groups benefiting from affirmative action, and it becomes a them versus us mentality. Managers,who have never done anything wrong, may feel painted with a bigot or flag-waver brush. Opponents of affirmative action also believe itviolates the idea of a chastity system. Choices in hiring, raises, and promotions should benefit the people who worked hard and deserve them.Any hiring decision istheresult of an interview, given bymanagers who already have ideas about the qualities an employee should have, and as such, should be found on the skills and education the candidate brings to the table. Managers feel constrained by words such as quota and preferential treatment when it comes to hiring decisions, and developa negative outlook on the idea of affirmative action. Not only do managers find it interferes with hiring decisions, many businessesalso feel that affirmative action is a burdensome procedure.Scores of businesses protested they were blow too oftentimes time on paperwork and spending too oftentimes money defending themselves against discrimination charges (Anderson, 167). During the Reagan years, research into the cost of affirmative action policies for businessesestimated that a contract compliance review cost a contractor over $20,000, and that such appraisals were costing the Fortune 500companies $1 billion annually (Anderson, 167that estimate has only grown. Another issue is that some employees, or latent employees, now use affirmative action as a form of revenge if they feel they have been slighted in some way, such as by not being hired or notreceivinga promotion. It is very severe to prove that someone was discriminated against based on their race or gender, entirely the case can still take many court hours and much money. Because of this, many businesses are more likely to settle out of court, instead than tie up thousands of doll ars in court fees.This ends with the company taking a financial hit and the angry employee with a settlement. Since the introduction of affirmative action in the 1960s, affirmative action has had many implications for businesses. Businesses now have to fill certain quotas based on how many people they have working(a) for them, they are subject to reviews of their policies and procedures,and businesses owned by minorities and females are given special privileges and loans that are not offered to others.Businesses arealso responsible for the financial burdens placedon them as a result of affirmative action. Many employees feelthat affirmative action is reverse discrimination,because hiring managers are openly favoring one group over another based on their race or gender,and many believe affirmative actioncontinues to perpetuate racial tension. With all of these issues, its no wonder that some peoplehave negative feelings and attitudes toward affirmative action.They feel that jobs should be given to the people that most deserve them, and that raises and promotions shouldbeawarded basedon the moral excellence system. It is impossible for businesses to operate fairly to all within the guidelines of affirmative action since, by definition,it requires businesses to base their hiring standards on what the government requires rather than ontheir business needs. Hiringthe best(p) possible candidate for a job, no matter what race or gender, should be the main goal when making hiring decisions, and not what minority group may be underrepresented in your company.As long as affirmative action is law, businesses will have to finda way to meet its requirements or face harsh fines and lawsuits, and while there are many compelling arguments against affirmative action, its policies will not be changed any time soon. Works Cited cyclopedia of Small Business/ Affirmative Action. eNotes. com. April 8, 2009 http//www. enotes. com/small-business-encyclopedia/affirmative-actio n. com. Anderson, Terry H. . The Pursuit of blondness A History of Affirmative Action. New York, NY Oxford University Press, Inc. , 2004. Coulter, Ann. How to Talk to a tolerant (If You Must).New York, NY Crown Forum, 2004. Grapes, Bryan J. . Affirmative Action. San Diego, CA Greenhaven Press, Inc. , 2000. Judge Timothy A. , and Robbins, Stephen P.. organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson Education, Inc. , 2009. Kowalski, Kathiann M. . Open for Debate Affirmative Action. Tarrytown, NY marshal Cavendish Benchmark, 2007. Skrentny, John D.. The Minority Rights Revolution. Cambridge, MA The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002. Tong, Clifford M.. Diverse Strategies. Diverse Strategies Incorporated. April 8, 2009 http//www. diversestrategies. com/Affirmative_action. htm.