Masters Law Essay

Question

Case and Instructions attached. Please answer all questions. Thank you

Answer

Case Study: Jobless Discrimination

            Jobless discrimination refers to the setting apart of people or groups due to their unemployed status when applying and seeking recruitment for job positions. Companies and job agencies have traditionally preferred to hire and place people who are already employed. Legally, some issues arise in regard to job discrimination such as violation of worker’s rights, equal opportunity, as well as disparate and disparate impact. Jobless discrimination is a violation of workers’ rights. Every worker has a right to compete equally for job positions without any unfair treatment. This can be resolved by sensitizing workers regarding these rights as well as encouraging workers’ unions to act upon such reported cases. America is often referred to as the land of equal opportunity, but surprisingly, jobless discrimination goes against the very ideals this country is known to stand for. Equal opportunity can be enforced by enacting legislation that clearly stipulates the exact representation of all minority groups that a company needs to have. Disparate treatment, which is the discrimination of individuals based on race, religion, gender or national origin and disparate impact, acting in a way so as to affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than others, can also be countered by careful legislation. (Masters Law Essay)

ORDER A LAW PAPER NOW

            The president’s legal proposal to ban jobless discrimination can both be said to comply withutilitarianism in some ways and to contravene it in others. The utilitarian theory simply states that actions may be considered to be morally right or wrong based on their effects. In line with this definition, the President’s proposal to ban this kind of discrimination can be viewed as correct as it will result in equal treatment and fair competition for all job seekers. On the other hand, this action can also be seen contravene utilitarianism as it will result in the hiring of less competent and possibly inexperienced personnel at the expense of equality, leading to poor organizational outcomes.

            The president’s legal proposal to ban jobless discrimination does not adhere to Kantian ethics in any way. Kantian ethics states that the correctness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the effects but rather, on whether or not it fulfils its duty. The approach proposes that individuals or agenciesshould always follow a moral principle that does not change in spite of circumstances. Banning discrimination in this case would not be pursuant to fulfilment of an actions duty as it would only result in employers making recruitment decisions that do not necessarily tie in with their companies’ goals, desires and aspirations. It would take away the freedom of choice by employers and instead replace it with compulsion.

            An ethically egoistic company would approach this whole issue of jobless discrimination and the proposed presidential law from an entirely different point of view. Ethical egoism states that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. A company that it out to serve its own interest would not be keen to eliminate jobless discrimination or to promote inclusiveness of unemployed persons in their recruitment drives. The company in question would include verbal connotations that exclude the unemployed in job adverts such as stating that continuous work experience in the said field is required. Such a company would also choose to weed out previously unemployed applicants.

            The President’s voluntary approach in his State of the Union address that seeks to have employers willingly agree to adopt hiring policies to discourage jobless discrimination is not the “socially responsible” thing for a company to do. This is because social responsibility does not consist in carrying out directives as a result of some sort of pressure or compulsion but in taking initiatives to adopt policies that would benefit both the employee and the employer. Adoption of this law would not benefit the employer but only the employee.