Affirmative action is consistent with the values and ideals of the United States: our democracy is based on ideals that people are created equally; that men and women should enjoy liberty and equality of opportunity; that individuals should act responsibly on their own behalf and toward each other; and that we should sacrifice for the common good. To Diversity Initiatives these concepts imply that various groups in our society will be integrated in education, work and other settings.
In spite of substantial effort and progress, we are not the society we aspire to be. Minorities are disproportionately poor, and most of our communities and institutions are not well integrated. Housing is still highly segregated, not just by income or choice but also by informal steering practices. Schools in minority communities are typically less well equipped than schools in white communities. And, as the Tomas Rivera policy Institute has shown, they offer fewer advanced placement courses, which are the key to competitive college admissions.
So, the question is: what does it have to do with personnel management, and, to be more precise, the role of public personnel managers? Now, let us try to contemplate together. It is more than simply true that the main duty of a personnel manager is to search for the best from the people to offer work for them. Professionals in this role are involved in selecting the right sort of staff and promoting practices which ensure they are managed effectively. That is, speaking simple English, personnel managers to a great extent decide upon the people who will work the good of this or that company.
What is more, a personnel manager not only develops a friendly ‘team’ atmosphere inside the office doors, but also, and the situation is more than frequent, confirms decisions as to rewards and punishment a staff member will get. So, what is the current situation with democratic allocation of funds and workforce diversity within the US borders? The United State professorate is overwhelmingly white, and according to a survey by the University of California at Los Angeles, predominance appears to be increasing- 91. 7 percent today compared with 90. 4 percent in 1989.
Labor economist Mac Bendick's hiring-practice studies, which matched pairs of minorities and whites, found evidence of discrimination in 20 percent of the cases. A 1999 study by catalyst found that only 5. 1 percent of the jobs from chief executive to executive vice president at fortune 500 companies are held by women, and we know also that women made in average 73 cents for every dollar a white male makes for the same job with the same qualifications. As well women often encounter barriers and harassment in formerly all- male work such as policing, construction and fire fighting.
As you can see, public personnel management, in its majority, has not been thoroughly following the Affirmative Action requirements, showing complete or partial ignorance as to what Workforce Diversity is and how the rights of the minorities and women should be protected. By people in charge, by those responsible for implementing resolutions, instructions specially devised with these intentions. We do believe that we are currently living in democratic society; however, purely democratic society differs from artificial exactly by its attitude to those who do not represent the majority.
A public personnel manager should clearly see that equality at the workplace favors the creation of pure friendly working atmosphere, subsequently leading to better results, more efficient and productive personal achievements. On the contrary, creating minorities and majorities approach is not valid, for it causes the deterioration of overall companies’ indicators. If we start talking about Affirmative Action in HR or Personnel Management concerning race or nationality, we will also come to understand that fragile personnel manager’s shoulders have to withstand multiple difficulties in choosing the labor.
As Affirmative Action is observed today, it all boils down to the essence of the following: manager, faced with two similarly qualified applicants ought to choose the minority over the white. Racial prejudice in the US has long and very painful roots, so, to unroot it all, personnel mangers and HR officers have been doing their best for decades and decades now. If workers are segregated by age, public personnel manager loses a good deal in future results. Senior workers alone gradually lose interest to their work.
They have already seen a lot, they gradually get used to everyday routine, they have exhausted their creativity. Such a team would never be on top, lacking energy and drive, enthusiasm and confidence so necessary to achieve success. Pure youngsters, on the other hand, could appear failures to the same extent. Business is a thing which demands cautiousness, prudence, heed; young people tend to forejudge, their reckless, rash decisions (or very often one suffices) is able to spoil months of painstaking, assiduous work.
Personnel manager should provide for this, making a team of people of different age, a harmony of energetic youth and prudent experience, when the skills are tutored and acquired ‘live’, seeing how things ought to be done with your own eyes. Critics of affirmative action often evoke images of qualified white males being denied jobs so that lesser qualified women and minorities might have them, all in the name of racial and gender fairness. But this is one of the worst myths about affirmative action.
Affirmative action works by determining what percentage of qualified women and minorities are available to a company, and then setting a goal for hiring that percentage. For example, suppose a minority makes up 30 percent of the local population, but only 15 percent are qualified for the company's jobs. The goal for the company is 15 percent, not 30 percent. And if the company makes a good-faith effort to reach this goal but fails, then it incurs no legal penalty -- the goal is simply reset for the next year, and the next, and the next, if need be.
The courts step in with quotas only in the case of blatant discrimination against clearly qualified minorities. Seen in this light, it is really quite difficult to criticize affirmative action, because not meeting a goal suggests that the company is discriminating against qualified people from one group in favor of qualified people from another group. A company shouldn't care about the ethnic background of its employees as long as they're qualified; indeed, intelligent companies will recognize that it expands their talent pool.
This is the reason why major companies like IBM have openly declared their support for affirmative action; they realize they are not being forced to hire less qualified individuals. To crown it all, Public Personnel Management in any country which respects itself, the US for one, ought to maintain Affirmative Action in the very first place for the reason that it respects itself, respects the rights proclaimed thousands of years ago by Greek and Roman philosophers about equality of people; when it is absolutely irrelevant where you come from, what skin color you have or what gods you pray.
Those programs should be explained to common people on the daily basis, but you should always start with officials or people who jerk the reins according to the requirements stated by the government. Thanks God, the programs have been designed considerable time ago, thus, the only thing left for the public management is to raise the prestige of their occupation and of their country is to follow one of the main principles in their ethics standards: provide for democracy and equality, protected by Affirmative Action.