Question 2 Discuss working conditions around the world. What chal.docx

Question 2: Discuss working conditions around the world. What
challenges face multinational corporations? What approaches
are companies using to establish fair labor standards? Which
approaches might work better than others? Please use the below
lecture note to guide your response. Minimum of 2 academic
references and 1 data for appendix, it could be a graph or table
or piechart (2 and half pages NOT double spaced).
Working Conditions around the World
Much of this chapter has focused on the employment
relationship, and the legal and ethical norms governing it, in the
United States. Workplace institutions differ dramatically around
the world. Laws and practices that establish fair wages,
acceptable working conditions, and employee rights vary greatly
from region to region. As illustrated by the opening example of
this chapter that described a Nike contract factory in China,
these differences pose a challenge to multinational corporations.
By whose standards should these companies operate?
Recent headlines have turned the public’s attention to the
problem of sweatshops, factories where employees, sometimes
including children, are forced to work long hours at low wages,
often under unsafe working conditions. Several well-known
companies in addition to Nike, including Wal-Mart, Disney, and
McDonald’s, have been criticized for tolerating abhorrent
working conditions in their overseas factories or those of their
contractors. In recent years, student groups have pressured
companies by rallying to prevent their colleges and universities
from buying school-logo athletic gear, clothing, and other
products made under sweatshop conditions.
Fair Labor Standards
The term labor standards refers to the conditions under which a
company’s employees—or the employees of its suppliers,
subcontractors, or others in its commercial chain—work. Some
believe that labor standards should be universal; that is,

companies should conform to common norms across all their
operations worldwide. Such universal rules are sometimes
called fair labor standards. For example, such standards might
include a ban on all child labor, establishment of maximum
work hours per week, or a commitment to pay a wage above a
certain level. Others think that what is fair varies across
cultures and economies, and it is often difficult to set standards
that are workable in all settings. For example, in some cultures
child labor is more acceptable (or economically necessary) than
others. A wage that would be utterly inadequate in one
economic setting might seem princely in another. In some
countries, unions are legal and common; in others, they are
illegal or actively discouraged.
In the face of growing concerns over working conditions
overseas, a debate has developed over how best to establish fair
labor standards for multinational corporations. Several
approaches have emerged.
Voluntary corporate codes of conduct, described in detail in
Chapters 6 and 7, can include labor standards that companies
expect their own plants and those of their contractors to follow.
One of the first companies to develop such standards was Levi
Strauss, a U.S. apparel maker. After the company was accused
of using an unethical contractor in Saipan, the company
reviewed its procedures and adopted a wide-ranging set of
guidelines for its overseas manufacturing. Reebok, Boeing,
DaimlerChrysler, and other companies have followed suit.
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) labor codes have also
been attempted. For example, the Council on Economic
Priorities has developed a set of workplace rules called Social
Accountability 8000, or SA 8000. Modeled after the quality
initiative of the International Organization for Standardization,
ISO 9000, SA 8000 establishes criteria for companies to meet in
order to receive a “good working condition” certification. Other
groups, including the International Labour Organization, the
Caux Roundtable, and the United Nations, have also worked to
define common standards to which companies can voluntarily

subscribe. These efforts are further described in Chapter 7.
Yet a third approach is for industrywide labor codes. Groups of
companies, sometimes with participation of government
officials, NGOs, and worker and consumer representatives,
define industrywide standards that they can all agree to.
In 2004, for instance, three leading high-tech companies—HP,
IBM, and Dell—released a common Electronic Industry Code of
Conduct, establishing a uniform set of labor, health and safety,
and environmental standards for their global supply chains.35
Cisco Systems, Microsoft, and several other companies later
endorsed the effort. Supporters said a common code would
likely improve supplier compliance and lower the costs of
training and monitoring. Another similar effort in the clothing
and footwear industries, called the Apparel Industry
Partnership, is described in the case study on Nike, at the end of
the book.
Whatever the approach, certain common questions emerge in
any attempt to define and enforce fair labor standards. These
questions include the following.
• What wage level is fair? Some argue that market forces should
set wages, as long as they do not fall below the level
established by local minimum wage laws. Others argue that
multinational corporations have a moral obligation to pay
workers enough to achieve a decent family standard of living;
still others feel that they should pay workers a fair share of the
sale price of the product or of the company’s profit.
• Should standards apply just to the firm’s own employees, or to
all workers who have a hand in making its products? Some say
that while the responsibility of a firm to its own employees is
clear, its responsibility to the employees of its subcontractors is
indirect and therefore of lower importance.
• How should fair labor standards best be enforced? Adherence
to fair labor standards, unlike national labor laws, for example,
is strictly voluntary. Companies can adopt their own code, or
agree to one of the NGO or industry codes. But who is to say
that they, and their contractors, are actually living up to these

rules? In response to this concern, a debate has emerged over
how best to monitor and enforce fair labor standards. Some have
advocated hiring outside accounting firms, academic experts, or
advocacy organizations to conduct independent audits to
determine if a code’s standards are being met. The efforts of
one company, Mattel, to devise a verifiable procedure for
monitoring its code of conduct in overseas factories are profiled
in Exhibit 18.D.
As businesses have become more and more global, as shown in
Chapter 7, companies have faced the challenge of operating
simultaneously in many countries that differ widely in their
working conditions. For these companies, abiding by
government regulations and local cultural traditions in their
overseas manufacturing may not be enough. Many business
leaders have realized that subscribing to fair labor standards
that commit to common norms of fairness, respect, and dignity
for all their workers is an effective strategy for enhancing their
corporate reputations, as well as meeting the complex global
challenges of corporate social responsibility.
Question 3: Less than five percent of top executives in U.S.
firms are women. What factor best explains this fact: women's
education and job experience, discrimination against women by
companies, preferences of women employees, different family
roles and responsibilities between women and men, or
something else? Why do you think so?
Please use the below lecture note to guide your response.
Minimum of 2 academic references and 1 data for appendix, it
could be a graph or table or piechart (2 and half pages NOT
double spaces).
The Changing Face of the Workforce
Human beings differ from each other in many ways. Each
person is unique, as is each employee within an organization.
Individuals are also similar in many ways, some of which are
more readily visible than others. The term diversity refers to
variation in the important human characteristics that distinguish

people from one another. The primary dimensions of diversity
are age, ethnicity, gender, mental or physical abilities, race, and
sexual orientation. The secondary dimensions of diversity are
many; they include such characteristics as communication style,
family status, and first language.2 Individuals’ distinguishing
characteristics clearly impact their values, opportunities, and
perceptions of themselves and others at work. Workforce
diversity—diversity among employees—thus represents both a
challenge and an opportunity for businesses.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the U.S. workforce is as
diverse as it has ever been, and it is becoming even more so.
Consider the following major trends:3
• More women are working than ever before. Married women,
those with young children, and older women, in particular, have
greatly increased their participation in the workforce. By 2012,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 47 percent of all
workers will be women, nearly equal to their share of the
population. One effect of this trend is that more employed men
have wives who also work—changing the nature of their
responsibilities within the family.
• Immigration has profoundly reshaped the workplace. Between
2000 and 2005, almost 8 million immigrants entered the United
States—the largest number in any 5-year period in the nation’s
history. The leading countries of origin are now Mexico, India,
China, the Philippines, El Salvador, Brazil, and Vietnam.
Immigrants now make up about 15 percent of U.S. workers,
increasing linguistic and cultural diversity in many
workplaces.4
• Ethnic and racial diversity is increasing. Hispanics (defined by
the Census as persons of Spanish or Latin American ancestry),
now about 13 percent of U.S. workers, are expected to comprise
15 percent by 2012. Asians are expected to be the fastest
growing segment of the labor force. The proportion of African-
Americans is expected to hold steady at around 12 percent. By
2012, the U.S. workforce is projected to be about 35 percent
nonwhite (this category includes persons of Hispanic origin). In

some states, such as California, these trends will be much more
pronounced.
• The workforce will continue to get older. As the baby boom
generation matures, birth rates drop, and people live longer and
healthier lives, the population will age. Many of these older
people will continue to work, whether out of necessity or
choice. As one expert put it, “The American labor force will
become somewhat more brown and black in the next twenty
years, but its most pervasive new tint will be gray.”5 Employers
will have to find new ways to accommodate retirement-aged
workers.
Workforce diversity creates many new employee issues and
problems. This chapter will consider the changing face of
today’s workplace, and its implications for management. Laws
and regulations clearly require that businesses provide equal
opportunity and avoid discrimination and harassment. How to
meet—and exceed—these mandates presents an ongoing
challenge to businesses seeking to reap the benefits of a well-
integrated, yet culturally diverse work population. We turn first
to two important dimensions of workplace diversity: gender and
race.
Gender and Race in the Workplace
Gender and race are important primary dimensions of workforce
diversity. Women and persons of color have always worked,
contributing both paid and unpaid labor to the economy. Yet the
nature of their participation in the labor force has changed,
posing new challenges to business.
One of the most significant changes in the past half-century has
been the growing labor force participation of women. During
the period following World War II, the proportion of women
working outside the home rose dramatically, as shown in Figure
19.1. In 1950, about a third of adult women were employed.
This proportion has risen almost steadily since, standing at 59
percent in 2004. Participation rates (the proportion of women in
the workforce) have risen for all groups of women, but the most
dramatic increases have been among married women, mothers of

young children, and middle-class women, those who had earlier
been most likely to stay at home. Men’s participation rates
declined somewhat during this period; between 1950 and 2004,
the proportion of adult men who worked fell from 86 percent to
73 percent.
Women have entered the labor force for many of the same
reasons men do. They need income to support themselves and
their families. Having a job with pay also gives a woman
psychological independence and security. The high cost of
living puts financial pressure on families, frequently pushing
women into the labor force just to sustain an accustomed
standard of living or to put children through college or care for
aging parents. The inadequacies and uncertainties of retirement
plans and health care programs frequently mean that women, as
well as men, need to save, invest, and plan for the future. When
women divorce, they often can no longer rely on a partner’s
earnings for support.
The rapid rise of female labor force participation in the postwar
years also reflects the expansion of segments of the economy
that were major employers of women. In 1940, about one-third
of all U.S. jobs were white-collar (not requiring manual labor);
by 1980, over half were white-collar. Professional, technical,
and service jobs also grew relative to the economy. The creation
of many new positions in fields traditionally staffed by women
produced what economists call a demand-side pull of women
into the labor force. More “women’s jobs” meant more women
working.
Labor force participation rates for minorities, unlike those of
women, have always been high. For example, in 1970 about 62
percent of all African-Americans
(men and women combined) worked; the figure is about 67
percent today. Participation rates have also been consistently
high for most other minority groups; for Asians, it is 67
percent; for Hispanics, 71 percent. The key change here has
been the move of persons of color, in recent decades, into a
wider range of jobs as barriers of discrimination and

segregation have fallen. Minorities have become better
represented in the ranks of managers, professionals, and the
skilled trades. These trends will be further discussed later in
this chapter.
The face of success in the United States is diverse, just as the
workforce is. Consider Jenny Ming, president of the Old Navy
division of Gap, Inc., from 1998 to 2006. Ming immigrated with
her family from Macao (an island nation off the coast of China)
when she was 9 years old. She later recalled in an interview that
as a youngster, she loved everything about America, especially
Halloween. After completing her education in the public
university system, Ming took her first job as an assistant
department manager for Mervyn’s. She moved up fast in the
retail world, becoming a top executive at Old Navy when she
was just 39. A profile in BusinessWeek attributed Ming’s
success to her “uncanny knack for predicting which hip-looking
clothes of the moment will appeal to the masses, then making
big bets on producing the huge quantities needed to assure the
chain a continual string of hits.”6
The Gender and Racial Pay Gap
One persistent feature of the working world is that women and
persons of color on average receive lower pay than white men
do. This disparity, called the pay gap, narrowed over the past
three decades, as Figure 19.2 shows. But in 2004 black men and
white women still earned only slightly more than three-fourths
of white men’s pay; black women earned about 69 percent.
(These data are based on full-time workers only.) The pay gap
for Hispanic women declined by about 7 percent during the last
two decades; and that for Hispanic men, only 1 percent. Recent
research by two economists showed that the gender pay gap,
now 77 percent, understates lifetime differences in earnings,
because women work fewer hours and are more likely to take
time off for child rearing. Over their prime working years,
women make only 38 percent of what men earn, the study
found.7
Experts disagree about the cause of the pay gap between women

and men. Some believe the continuing gender disparity in pay is
evidence of sex discrimination by employers; others believe the
gap reflects women’s choices to pursue lower paying jobs or
slower advancement because of time off for family
responsibilities. Many observers agree, however, that the pay
gap persists, in part, because of what is called occupational
segregation. This term refers to the inequitable concentration of
a group, such a minorities or women, in particular job
categories. The large pay gap for Hispanic workers, for
example, partly reflects their concentration in several low-paid
occupations. Forty-four percent of meatpackers, 40 percent of
grounds maintenance workers, 39 percent of farm workers, and
38 percent of private household cleaners are of Hispanic origin,
according to the Census Bureau, although Hispanics make up
only 13 percent of the workforce as a whole. Although women,
for their part, have made great strides in entering occupations
where they were formerly underrepresented, many remain
concentrated in a few sex-typed jobs that some have called the
“pink collar ghetto.” Women still make up 98 percent of
preschool and kindergarten teachers, 92 percent of bookkeepers,
99 percent of dental hygienists, and 92 percent of receptionists,
for example. Eliminating the pay gap will require, therefore,
business programs and government policies that create
opportunity for women and people of color to move out of more
segregated jobs into ones where the pay and chances for upward
mobility are greater.8
The most prestigious and highest-paying jobs in a corporation
are in top management. Because most corporations are
organized hierarchically, management jobs—particularly those
at the top—are few. For that reason, only a small fraction of
workers, of whatever gender or race, can hope to reach the
upper levels in the
business world. White men have traditionally filled most of
these desirable spots. Business’s mandate now is to broaden
these high-level leadership opportunities for women and persons
of color, a topic to which we turn next.

Where Women and Persons of Color Manage
About 9 million U.S. women were working as managers by the
mid-2000s. As Figure 19.3 reveals, in 2004 more than 4 out of
10 managers—and a majority of managers in some categories—
were women. Clearly, women have broken into management
ranks. Women are more likely to be managers, though, in
occupational areas where women are more numerous at lower
levels, such as health care and education. Grouped by industry,
women tend to be concentrated in service industries and in
finance, insurance, real estate, and retail businesses. Women
managers have also made gains in newer industries, such as
biotechnology, where growth has created opportunity.
Where do persons of color manage? As is shown in Figure 19.3,
African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics are underrepresented
in management ranks in the United States, making up just 7.0,
4.5, and 6.4 percent of managers, respectively. But they have
approached parity in a few areas. Blacks make up 12.8 percent
of education administrators (more than their 10.7 percent of the
workforce), reflecting less discrimination and more opportunity
in public schools. Asians are best represented in the ranks of
computer and information systems managers; Hispanics are best
represented in property management and real estate. Figure 19.3
shows the continuing underrepresentation of blacks, Asians, and
Hispanics in other management categories.
Breaking the Glass Ceiling
A few exceptional women and persons of color have reached the
pinnacles of power in corporate America. In 2006, Patricia A.
Woertz, for example, became president and CEO of Archer
Daniels Midland, the agribusiness giant, following a successful
career at Chevron, where she had risen to executive vice
president of refining and marketing, a $100 billion business.9
When Richard Parsons, an African-American, became chairman
and chief executive of AOL Time Warner in 2002, it capped an
extraordinary career rise from the streets of Bedford-
Stuyvesant, a poor neighborhood in New York City, to head one
of the best-known companies in the world.10

These high-achievers remain unusual, however. Although
women and minorities are as competent as white men in
managing people and organizations, they rarely attain the
highest positions in corporations. Their ascent seems to be
blocked by an invisible barrier, sometimes called a glass
ceiling. According to Catalyst, an advocacy organization for
female executives, in 2002 only 16 percent of the officers (and
1 percent of chief executives) of leading corporations were
women.11 Less than 1 percent of Fortune 500 companies are
headed by a person of color.12 In Europe, diversity in the top
ranks is also rare. A 2005 study of 360 leading companies in the
European Union and Scandinavia found that only one company,
Vodafone, had a chief executive from a minority group (he was
Arun Sarin, an American citizen born in India); only 3
companies were headed by a woman.13
Women and minorities are also scarce on corporate boards. A
2005 study reported that only 17 percent of board members of
Fortune 100 firms were women, and only 15 percent were
persons of color. A few companies stood out as exceptions; at
Alcoa, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Wellpoint Health Networks,
a majority of directors were women or minorities.14
In 2006, an unusual law promoting boardroom diversity went
into effect in Norway. It mandated that, by 2008, 40 percent of
corporate directors in large Norwegian companies be women.
“Women will have a place where the power is,” said Norway’s
minister of children and equality. “This . . . will set an example
for other centers of society.” Opponents, including many in the
business community, complained that it would force many
experienced men off corporate boards. Moreover, they said, it
would violate the basic principle that shareholders should be
able to vote for anyone they wanted. In the previous two years,
female representation on corporate boards had climbed from 8
percent to 16 percent, in anticipation of the law’s
implementation.15
Failure to attain the topmost jobs in some cases is due to lack of
experience or inadequate education. Because gender and racial

bias has kept women and minorities out of management until
recent years, few have had time to acquire the years of
experience that are typical of most high-ranking executives.
Also, in earlier years women and minorities were discouraged
from entering graduate schools of engineering, science,
business, and law, the traditional pathways to top corporate
management. Even as those barriers have been lowered, though,
these groups remain underrepresented at executive levels.
What continues to hold women and minorities back? A study in
the Harvard Business Review reported that the primary obstacle
is glass walls: fewer opportunities to move sideways into jobs
that lead to the top. Female and minority managers are often
found in staff positions, such as public relations or human
resources, rather than in line positions in such core areas as
marketing, sales, or production where they can acquire the
broad management skills necessary for promotion.16 Another
problem is that in filling top positions, recruiters rely on word-
of-mouth—the old boys’ network from which women and
persons of color are often excluded. Other causes include a
company’s lack of commitment to diversity and too little
accountability at the top management level for equal
employment opportunity. However, recent advances by both
women and minorities in the executive suite suggest that the
glass ceiling may finally be cracking.
Women and Minority Business Ownership
Some women and minorities have evaded the glass ceiling and
risen to the top by founding or taking over their own businesses.
By 2006, over 10 million businesses—48 percent of all those in
the United States—were owned or controlled by women,
according to the Center for Women’s Business Research. Of
these, about one in eight was owned by a woman of color.
An example of a successful female entrepreneur is Catherine
Hughes, founder and chairperson of Radio One, a company that
owns over 50 radio stations, mainly in urban markets. Hughes,
who is black, started the business in 1980, when she was
general manager at Howard University’s FM station, by buying

a defunct R&B station. For several years, Hughes slept in the
station, ran her own morning talk show, and pounded the
pavement in the afternoon looking for advertisers. By the mid-
1980s, the station was turning a healthy profit, and Hughes
began acquiring other stations. By 2006, the company operated
70 radio stations and programmed five channels on the XM
Satellite Radio system. “I was determined to make this work,”
Hughes said.17
In recent years, women have formed new businesses at nearly
twice the rate of men. Although most female-headed firms are
small, collectively they employ over 19 million people in the
United States and generate $2.5 trillion in sales.18
Persons of color have also used business ownership as a path to
success. -According to the Small Business Administration, there
were around 4.1 million minority-owned businesses in the
United States in 2002. Within this group, Hispanic-owned
businesses were the most numerous, followed by African-
American and Asian-owned businesses.19 Immigrants were
responsible for a good share of the entrepreneurial spirit in the
minority community; nearly half of Hispanic business owners
and more than two-thirds of Asian business owners were born
outside of the United States, according to U.S. Census Bureau
figures.
Government’s Role in Securing Equal Employment Opportunity
Eliminating workplace discrimination and ensuring equal job
opportunity have been a major goal of public policy in the
United States for four decades. This section reviews the major
laws that govern business practices with respect to equal
opportunity, affirmative action, and sexual and racial
harassment.
Equal Employment Opportunity
Beginning on a major scale in the 1960s, U.S. presidents issued
executive orders and Congress enacted laws intended to promote
equal treatment of employees, that is, equal employment
opportunity. These government rules apply to most businesses
in the following ways:

• Discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, physical or mental disability, or age is prohibited in all
employment practices. This includes hiring, promotion, job
classification, and assignment, compensation, and other
conditions of work.
• Government contractors must have written affirmative action
plans detailing how they are working positively to overcome
past and present effects of discrimination in their workforce.
However, affirmative action plans must be temporary and
flexible, designed to correct past discrimination, and cannot
result in reverse discrimination against whites or men.
• Women and men must receive equal pay for performing equal
work, and employers may not discriminate on the basis of
pregnancy.
Figure 19.4 outlines the major laws and one executive order that
are intended to promote equal opportunity in the workplace. The
provisions of the most recent equal employment opportunity
law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, are further described
in Exhibit 19.A. The major agency charged with enforcing equal
employment opportunity laws and executive orders in the
United States is the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). The EEOC was created in 1964 and given
added enforcement powers in 1972 and 1990.
Companies that fail to follow the laws shown in Figure 19.4
often find themselves facing expensive lawsuits. One of the
more sensational examples of a suit against racial
discrimination in the workplace in recent years involved
Texaco.
A number of African-American employees sued the big oil
company, charging discrimination. In the course of
investigating the case, these employees’ attorneys obtained a
copy of a tape recording, apparently of top Texaco executives at
a meeting to discuss how to respond to the lawsuit. The tape
seemed to contain offensive racial epithets as well as discussion
of destroying evidence that would be harmful to Texaco’s
position. When a transcript of the tape was published, it was

very embarrassing for the company. Texaco settled the lawsuit
out of court, agreeing to pay $176.1 million over five years,
then the largest settlement in the history of racial
discrimination suits in the United States. The company also
created organizational programs promoting racial sensitivity at
work.20
Potentially costly lawsuits can involve other forms of
discrimination as well, such as those based on age, gender, or
disability. A class-action lawsuit involving alleged
discrimination against women at the nation’s largest private
sector employer, Wal-Mart, is described in the discussion case
at the end of this chapter.
Affirmative Action
One way to promote equal opportunity and remedy past
discrimination is through affirmative action. Since the mid-
1960s, major government contractors have been required by
presidential executive order to adopt written affirmative action
plans specifying goals, actions, and timetables for promoting
greater on-the-job equality. Their purpose is to reduce job
discrimination by encouraging companies to take positive (that
is, affirmative) steps to overcome past employment practices
and traditions that may have been discriminatory.
Affirmative action became increasingly controversial in the
1990s and 2000s. In some states, new laws (such as Proposition
209 in California) were passed banning or limiting affirmative
action programs in public hiring and university admissions, and
the issue was debated in Congress and in the courts. Backers of
affirmative action argued that these programs provided an
important tool for achieving equal opportunity. In this view,
women and minorities continued to face discriminatory barriers
and affirmative action was necessary to level the playing field.
Some large corporations backed affirmative action programs,
finding them helpful in monitoring their progress in providing
equal job opportunity. General Electric, AT&T, and IBM, for
example, have said that they would continue to use affirmative
action goals and timetables even if they were not required by

law.
Critics, however, argued that affirmative action was
inconsistent with the principles of fairness and equality. Some
pointed to instances of so-called reverse discrimination, which
occurs when one group is unintentionally discriminated against
in an effort to help another group. For example, if a more
qualified white man were passed over for a job as a firefighter
in favor of a less qualified Hispanic man to remedy past
discrimination in a fire department, this might be unfair to the
white candidate. Critics of affirmative action also argued that
these programs could actually stigmatize or demoralize the very
groups they were designed to help. For example, if a woman
were hired for a top management post, other people might think
she got the job just because of affirmative action preferences,
even if she were truly the best qualified. This might undermine
her effectiveness on the job or even cause her to question her
own abilities. For this reason, some women and persons of color
called for less emphasis on affirmative action, preferring to
achieve personal success without preferential treatment.21
In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in an important decision that
affirmative action plans were legal but only if they were
temporary and flexible, designed to correct past discrimination,
and did not result in reverse discrimination. Under this ruling,
quotas (for example, a hard-and-fast rule that 50 percent of all
new positions would go to women, say, or African-Americans)
would no longer be permitted in most situations. The court
confirmed this general approach in 2003 when it ruled in a case
involving admissions policies at the University of Michigan that
a “holistic” approach that took race into consideration along
with other factors in the admissions process, without using
quotas, was legal. More than 60 corporations, including Boeing,
Pfizer, Steelcase, and even MTV, had filed briefs in support of
the university’s affirmative action program. In one such brief,
General Motors said that “the future of American business and,
in some measure, the future of the American economy”
depended on diversity in higher education.22

Sexual and Racial Harassment
Government regulations ban both sexual and racial harassment.
Of the two kinds, sexual harassment cases are more prevalent,
and the law covering them is better efined. But racial
harassment cases are a growing concern to employers.
d Sexual harassment at work occurs when any employee, woman
or man, experiences repeated, unwanted sexual attention or
when on-the-job conditions are hostile or threatening in a sexual
way. It includes both physical conduct—for example, suggestive
touching—as well as verbal harassment, such as sexual
innuendoes, jokes, or propositions. Sexual harassment is not
limited to overt acts of individual co-workers or supervisors; it
can also occur if a company’s work climate is blatantly and
offensively sexual or intimidating to employees. Women are the
targets of most sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is illegal,
and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) is empowered to sue on behalf of victims. Such suits
can be very costly to employers who tolerate a hostile work
environment, as the following example shows.
North Country, a 2005 film starring Charlize Theron, was based
on the true story of the first sexual harassment lawsuit to be
certified as a class action. A group of women employed at a
mine operated by Eveleth Taconite in northern Minnesota sued,
charging they had been victims of brutal harassment. As
portrayed in the film, male workers had called the women
obscene names, grabbed and threatened them, and even knocked
over a portable toilet when one woman was inside. The lawsuit
was finally settled in 1998, when the company agreed to pay the
plaintiffs $3.5 million. The case “put employers on notice that
sexual harassment was going to be taken very seriously,” said
the president of the National Partnership for Women and
Families.23
Harassment can occur whether or not the targeted employee
cooperates. It need not result in the victim’s firing, or cause
severe psychological distress. The presence of a hostile or
abusive workplace can itself be the basis for a successful suit.

In an important legal case decided by the Supreme Court in
1993, a woman manager at a truck-leasing firm was subjected to
repeated offensive comments by the company president. For
example, he asked her in front of other employees if she used
sex to get a particular account and suggested that the two of
them “go to the Holiday Inn to negotiate [her] raise.” The
manager quit her job and sued. The Supreme Court upheld her
charges, saying that the president’s behavior would reasonably
be perceived as hostile or abusive, even though it had not
caused severe psychological injury or caused the woman to be
unable to do her job.24 The court also ruled, in another case,
that a company could be found guilty as a result of actions by a
supervisor, even if the incident was never reported to top
management.
Women employees regularly report that sexual harassment is
common. From 38 to 60 percent of working women have told
researchers they have been sexually harassed on the job.
Managers and supervisors are the most frequent offenders, and
female office workers and clerical workers are the main targets.
As many as 90 percent of incidents of harassment are never
reported. This kind of conduct is most likely to occur where
jobs and occupations are (or have been) sex-segregated and
where most supervisors and managers are men, as was the case
at the mine portrayed in North Country.
In 2002, the European Union recognized sexual harassment as a
form of gender discrimination and required its member states to
bring their laws into compliance by 2005. Evolving norms about
appropriate interactions at the workplace came as a shock to
many, particularly in eastern and central Europe, where obscene
jokes, suggestive remarks, and unwelcome advances at work
were commonplace. One study found, for example, that 45
percent of Czech women had been sexually harassed, although
most did not identify the behavior by this term. “Sexual
harassment is something like folklore in the Czech Republic,”
said one researcher.25
Racial harassment is also illegal, under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act. Under EEOC guidelines, ethnic slurs, derogatory
comments, or other verbal or physical harassment based on race
are against the law, if they create an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment or
interfere with an individual’s work performance. Although
fewer racial than sexual harassment charges are filed, their
numbers more than doubled during the 1990s (to about 9,000 a
year), and employers have been liable for expensive
settlements.26 For example, FedEx was sued by two ground
drivers, both of Lebanese descent, who charged the company
had created a hostile work environment. The drivers said in
their lawsuit they had been called “terrorists,” “camel jockeys,”
and other epithets by their terminal manager. In 2006, a jury
awarded the men $61 million. The company said it would appeal
a verdict it called “wrong and excessive.”27
What can companies do to combat sexual and racial
harassment—and protect themselves from expensive lawsuits?
In two important court cases in 1998, the Supreme Court helped
clarify this question. The court said that companies could
deflect lawsuits by taking two steps. First, they should develop
a zero-tolerance policy on harassment and communicate it
clearly to employees. Then, they should establish a complaint
procedure—including ways to report incidents without
retaliation—and act quickly to resolve any problems.
Companies that took such steps, the court said, would be
protected from suits by employees who claimed harassment but
had failed to use the complaint procedure.
Developing mechanisms for preventing sexual and racial
harassment is just one important action companies can take.
Others positive steps by business are discussed in the following
section.
What Business Can Do: Diversity Policies and Practices
All businesses, of course, are required to obey the laws
mandating equal employment opportunity and prohibiting sexual
and racial harassment; those that fail to do so risk expensive
lawsuits and public disapproval. But it is not enough simply to

follow the law. The best managed companies go beyond
compliance; they implement a range of policies and practices to
make the workplace welcoming, fair, and accommodating to all
employees.
Companies that manage diversity effectively take a number of
related actions, in addition to obeying all relevant laws.
Research shows that these actions include the following.
Articulate a clear diversity mission, set objectives, and hold
managers accountable.
An example of a company that has done so is mortgage lender
Fannie Mae. The company’s overall mission is to increase the
availability and affordability of housing for low, moderate, and
middle income Americans. This means, of course, that the
company works with a very diverse group of customers. Fannie
Mae recognizes that one way to do this well, in the words of
one of its written core commitments, is “to fully capitalize on
the skills, talents, and potential of all our employees.” The
company’s Office of Diversity and Work Life develops goals,
conducts training, administers a mentoring program, and
monitors compliance at all levels.28
Three-fourths of Fortune 500 companies have diversity
programs, mostly _training designed to promote sensitivity and
awareness. At United Parcel Service, senior-level managers are
required to attend a one-month diversity and leadership course.
Another important step is to reward managers. At Monsanto, for
_example, a portion of all bonuses paid to “people managers” is
based on how well their departments meet various diversity
goals.29
Spread a wide net in recruitment, to find the most diverse
possible pool of qualified candidates. Those in charge of both
hiring and promotion need to seek all workers who may be
qualified—both inside and outside the company. This often
involves moving beyond word-of-mouth networks, which may
produce a pool of applicants who are similar to people already
working for the company or in particular jobs. One company’s
successful effort to promote diversity in its hiring and

promotion practices is described in the following example.
As part of an agreement to settle a sex-discrimination class
action lawsuit, Home Depot, Inc., introduced a new innovation:
a computerized hiring and promotion system called Job
Preference Program, or JPP for short. The company installed
computer kiosks in every store, where job applicants could take
basic skills tests and fill out questionnaires about their
experience and career goals. Existing employees were
encouraged to register their long-term aspirations. The JPP
computer then made suggestions about needed skills, forwarded
resumes to managers seeking to fill positions, and told
applicants about jobs they might not have thought about that
matched their ambitions. In the first year after the system was
introduced, the number of female managers at Home Depot
increased by 30 percent, and the number of minority managers
by 28 percent.30
Identify promising women and persons of color, and provide
them with mentors and other kinds of support. What techniques
work to shatter the glass ceiling? One study of a group of highly
successful women executives found that most had been helped
by top-level supporters and by multiple chances to gain critical
skills. Some companies have promoted mobility by assigning
mentors—more-senior counselors—to promising female and
minority managers and by providing opportunities that include
wide-ranging line management experience. At American
Express, for example, managers are held accountable for
developing diverse talent; in 2004, 2,000 women participated in
the company’s mentoring program. Amex’s chairman and CEO,
Kenneth Chenault, is African-American.31
Set up diversity councils to monitor the company’s goals and
progress toward them. A diversity council is a group of
managers and employees responsible for developing and
implementing specific action plans to meet an organization’s
diversity goals. Sometimes, a diversity council will be
established for a corporation as a whole; sometimes, it will be
established within particular business units. An example of a

company that has used diversity councils effectively is Pitney
Bowes, a maker of business communication machines. The
company adopted a series of diversity strategic plans, each
setting specific goals for the next five-year period. Diversity
councils were set up in each business unit to implement
programs to meet these objectives, and each year progress was
assessed. A Corporate Responsibility Committee of the board
oversaw the program as a whole. Pitney Bowes has repeatedly
been named to lists of the best employers of women and persons
of color.32
Businesses that manage diversity effectively enjoy a strategic
advantage. While fundamental ethical principles, discussed in
Chapters 5 and 6, dictate that all employees should be treated
fairly and with respect for their basic human rights, there are
also bottom-line benefits to doing so.
• Companies that promote equal employment opportunity
generally do better at attracting and retaining workers from all
backgrounds. This is increasingly important as the pool of
skilled labor grows more diverse. Nortel, the
telecommunications firm, has attributed its low turnover rates,
relative to the industry, in part to its strong diversity policies.
The company partners with
nonprofit organizations to develop and place talented minority
students, sponsors networking groups for African-American and
Latino employees, and works closely with minority and women-
owned suppliers.33
• Businesses with employees from varied backgrounds can often
more effectively serve customers who are themselves diverse.
Explained Steve Reinemund, CEO of PepsiCo, “If we don’t have
people from the front line up to the boardroom who represent
the consumers we sell to, we’re not going to be successful.” He
offered the following example: “We had an urban market where
our market share was half of what we had in the suburban
market. By changing the sales force for the urban population
and changing some products, our market share went up. That
demonstration helped us get a lot of traction [for diversity

initiatives] within PepsiCo.”34
• The global marketplace demands a workforce with language
skills, cultural sensitivity, and awareness of national and other
differences across markets. For example, Maria Elena
Lagomasino, senior managing director of Chase Manhattan’s
Global Private Banking Group, credited her Cuban heritage with
helping her do her job more effectively. “When I got into
private banking with Latin American customers,” she
commented, “I found my ability to understand their reality a
great advantage.”35
Finally, companies with effective diversity programs can avoid
costly lawsuits and damage to their corporate reputations from
charges of discrimination or cultural insensitivity.
Another important step businesses can take to manage diversity
effectively is to accommodate the wide range of family and
other obligations employees have in their lives outside work.
This subject is discussed in the next section.
Balancing Work and Life
The nature of families and family life has changed, both in the
United States and in many other countries. The primary groups
in which people live are just as diverse as the workforce itself.
One of the most prominent of these changes is that dual-income
families have become much more common. According to the
latest U.S. Census data, in two-thirds of married couples with
children (65 percent), both parents worked at least part-time.
This was up from just a third of such families in 1976. (To
round out the picture, in 30 percent of married couples with
children, just the father worked; in 4 percent, just the mother
worked. In the remainder, both parents were unemployed.)36
Families have adopted a wide range of strategies for combining
full- and part-time work with the care of children, elderly
relatives, and other dependents. Commented the president of the
Work and Family Institute, speaking of dual-career families,
“It’s time to move beyond, is it good, is it bad, and get to: how
do we make it work?”37 How to help “make it work” for
employees trying to balance the complex, multiple demands of

work and family life has became a major challenge for business.
Child Care and Elder Care
One critical issue for business is supporting workers with
responsibilities for children and elderly relatives.
The demand for child care is enormous and growing. Millions of
children need daily care, especially the nearly 7 out of every 10
children whose mothers hold jobs. A major source of workplace
stress for working parents is concern about their children; and
problems with child care are a leading reason why employees
fail to show up for work.
Business has found that child care programs, in addition to
reducing absenteeism and tardiness, also improve productivity
and aid recruiting by improving the company’s image and
helping to retain talented employees. In 2003, 95 percent of
large U.S. companies provided some type of child care
assistance, including referral services, dependent-care accounts,
and vouchers. One in 10 large companies provided on-site child
care services. An example is Johnson Wax, a consumer products
firm that cares for 400 children in a state-of-the-art center at its
Racine, Wisconsin, headquarters. “This isn’t a benefit,”
explained a company spokesperson. “It’s a good business
decision because we want to attract the best.”38
In addition to caring for children, many of today’s families have
responsibilities for elder care. Employees’ responsibilities for
aging parents and other older relatives will become increasingly
important to businesses in the coming decade as baby boomers
pass through their forties and fifties, the prime years for caring
for elderly family members. More than 1 in 5 adults in the
United States now cares for an older person, and 59 percent of
caregivers are currently employed.39 This is a concern for
employers because 6 in 10 working caregivers have had to go to
work late or leave early to attend to these duties.40
Many businesses have adopted programs to support workers
caring for older relatives. Almost half of the large corporations
surveyed by Hewitt Associates, a benefits company, offer some
such assistance. The most common kind is providing

information and referrals to services for the elderly. “It was
great to have someone to talk to, someone who cared,” said a
customer service representative for AT&T who used the
company’s referral program to find help for her mother, who
had Alzheimers and lived with her. Also available at many firms
are dependent-care accounts, long-term care insurance, and
emergency backup care. One of the best steps companies can
take is to give people the time off they need to deal with the
often unpredictable crises that occur in families caring for the
elderly. In addition to its referral services, AT&T, for example,
also has a policy that permits employees to take up to 12
months of unpaid leave in any 24-month period to care for an
older relative.41
When a mother or father is granted time off when children are
born or adopted and during the important early months of a
child’s development, this is called a parental leave; when the
care of elderly relatives is involved, this is called a family
leave.Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), passed
in 1993, companies that employ 50 or more people must grant
unpaid, job-protected leaves of up to 12 weeks to employees
faced with serious family needs, including the birth or adoption
of a baby. Smaller companies, not covered by the FMLA,
usually do less for expectant and new parents and for those with
ill family members.
Work Flexibility
Companies have also accommodated the changing roles of
women and men by offering workers more flexibility through
such options as flextime, part-time employment, job sharing,
and working from home (sometimes called telecommuting
because the employee keeps in touch with co-workers,
customers, and others by phone or over the Internet). Abbott
Laboratories, a global health care company, demonstrates the
benefits of the many kinds of work flexibility for both business
and employees.
Many of Abbott’s employees—men and women—work flextime
schedules, beginning and quitting at different times of the day.

Others share jobs, with each working half a week. Many jobs
are held on a part-time basis, leaving the worker time to be at
home with children or elderly parents. Other Abbott employees
telecommute from their homes. “After my son got sick, I needed
to . . . drop down to part time and work from home a few days a
week,” said one manager. “Abbott gave me the flexibility I
needed to take care of my family.” The company, whose
work/life programs have been widely honored, says that its
employees return the investment through their increased
productivity, innovative thinking, and loyalty.42
Abbott is not the only corporation using these practices. One
survey of large companies revealed that 71 percent offered some
kind of flexible work schedules. Fifty percent allowed
employees to telecommute or work from home, and 44 percent
offered compressed workweek schedules.43
However, many observers believe that most careers are still
structured for people who are prepared to put in 40 hours a
week at the office—or 50 or 60—giving their full and undivided
commitment to the organization. Many women and men have
been reluctant to take advantage of various flexible work
options, fearing that this would put them on a slower track,
sometimes disparagingly called the Mommy track or Daddy
track. In this view, businesses will need to undergo a cultural
shift, to value the contributions of people who are prepared to
make a serious, but less than full-time, commitment to their
careers.
In the United Kingdom, the government’s Equal Opportunities
Commission publishes an annual update called “Who Runs
Britain.” Recent reports have shown little progress for women
in entering top positions in business, politics, and other areas of
public life. The problem, according to the government agency,
is employers’ failure to accommodate women’s need to manage
multiple responsibilities at home and work, a phenomenon that
in the U.K. is sometimes called the “mummy track.” The
commission called for adoption of more workplace practices
that provided high-quality, highly paid flexible and part-time

work for those who have caring responsibilities.44
What would such a cultural shift look like? Some have used the
term family-friendly corporation to describe firms that would
fully support both men and women in their efforts to balance
work and family
responsibilities. Job advantages would not be granted or denied
on the basis of gender. People would be hired, paid, evaluated,
promoted, and extended benefits on the basis of their
qualifications and ability to do the tasks assigned. The route to
the top, or to satisfaction in any occupational category, would
be open to anyone with the talent to take it. The company’s
stakeholders, regardless of their gender, would be treated in a
bias-free manner. All laws forbidding sex discrimination would
be fully obeyed. Programs to provide leaves or financial support
for child care, elder care, and other family responsibilities
would support both men and women employees and help
promote an equitable division of domestic work. And persons
could seek, and achieve, career advancement without
committing to a full-time schedule, year after year.45 An
example of an executive who has taken the lead in promoting
family-friendly policies is given in Exhibit 19.B.
An important step businesses can take is to recognize, and
provide benefits to, nontraditional families. Some firms now
offer domestic partner benefits to their gay and lesbian
employees, extending health insurance and other benefits to the
same-sex partners of employees. Although U.S. law does not
explicitly bar discrimination based on sexual orientation, some
local laws do; and many firms have found that extending health
insurance and other benefits to the same-sex partners of
employees is an effective strategy for recruiting and retaining
valuable contributors. Domestic partner benefits are further
described in Exhibit 19.C.
No other area of business illustrates the basic theme of this
book better than the close connection between work and life.
Our basic theme is that business and society are closely and
unavoidably intertwined, so that what affects one also has an

impact on the other. As the workforce has become more diverse,
businesses have been challenged to accommodate their
employees’ differences. When people go to work, they do not
shed their identities at the office or factory door. When
employees come from families where there are young children
at home, or where elderly parents require care, companies must
learn to support these roles. Businesses that help their
employees achieve a balance between work and life and meet
their obligations to their families and communities often reap
rewards in greater productivity, loyalty, and commitment.
• The U.S. workforce is as diverse as it has ever been and is
becoming more so. More women are working then ever before,
many immigrants have entered the labor force, ethnic and racial
diversity is increasing, and the workforce is aging.
• Women and persons of color have made great strides in
entering all occupations, but they continue to be
underrepresented in many business management roles,
especially at top levels. Both groups face a continuing pay gap.
The number of women-owned businesses has increased sharply,
and many minorities, especially immigrants, also own their own
businesses.
• Under U.S. law, businesses are required to provide equal
opportunity to all, without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, disability, or age. Sexual and racial harassment
are illegal. Affirmative action plans remain legal, but only if
they are temporary and flexible, designed to correct past
discrimination, and do not result in reverse discrimination.
• Companies that manage diversity effectively have a strategic
advantage because they are able to attract and retain talented
workers from all backgrounds, serve a diverse customer base,
and avoid expensive lawsuits and public embarrassment.
• Successful diversity management includes articulating a
mission, recruiting widely, mentoring promising women and
persons of color, and establishing mechanisms for assessing
progress.
• Many businesses have helped employees balance the complex

demands of work and family obligations by providing support
programs such as child, elder care, flexible work schedules,
domestic partner benefits, and telecommuting options.

Question 2 Discuss working conditions around the world. What chal.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Question 2 Discuss working conditions around the world. What chal.docx (20)

More from wraythallchan (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Question 2 Discuss working conditions around the world. What chal.docx