DiversityEssay Preview: DiversityReport this essayIntroductionIn this paper, you will be reading about diversity and demographic characteristic and the impact that it has on individual behavior. The four major diversity problems that you will be reading in this paper are gender, age, religion, and differences in skills and abilities. I hope that this paper will be very interesting as you read along and also educative so that you get a better understanding of diversity.
DiversityDiversity is otherness or those human qualities that are different from our own and outside the groups, to which we belong, yet are present in other individuals and groups. It is important to distinguish between the primary and secondary dimensions of diversity. Some primary dimensions are age, gender, and abilities or qualities. Secondary dimensions are those that can change but are not limited such as religious beliefs: (Diversity at UMCP, Moving Toward Community Planning 1995)
Gender involves social, cultural, sexes, and psychological aspects linked to issues. In the past, all women in the workplace were automatically assigned to temporary or part-time or low-responsibility jobs because it was understood that their first priority was taking care of their families. Unmarried women were likely to quit as soon as they married. In the past, there was a widespread thought that women are not as capable as men are. Today, women are not generally seen as inferior to men. Organizations have been slowly adjusting to these changes, learning to treat women as the equals of men and not as a pool potential dates. Discriminating against female employees and treating them in a sexual manner are now against the law. However, since there remain some women in the workforce who do place family first, (Felice Schwartz) has suggested creating a “Mommy Track” which would allow them to have more flexible and shorter hours and lesser responsibility in exchange for lower pay and limited career growth. In other words, recognize the wider diversity of needs of employees today and set systems to accommodate them all. When this is done, employees especially women would be comfortable and feel good at what they are doing
Some individual tries to eliminate issues of treatment of various employee groups, such as gender. Women should be given the same career opportunities as men; homosexual couples should also be given the same health insurance benefits as heterosexual couples. Cultural discrimination in the American society has changed drastically on these issues over the last 150 years, and most organizations are asked to not only follow suit but lead the way. Organizations compete for human resources and as the workforce becomes more heterogeneous, organizations will have to serve the diverse needs of the workplace or they will lose their employees to their competitors.
Age diversity at work means employing people of all ages and not discriminating against them because of how old they are. The main factor in successfully delivering good practice is the genuine commitment by management to put it into practice and communicate it throughout the organization and beyond. Many times individuals in an organization tend to treat the people who are older as if they are not part of the environment. When individuals ask about the main reason why, many of employees would say because it is time for the young people and not for the old people. What many of these young people do not understand is that people whose ages are way higher than their own, own many of the organizations. Many times management fear to hire people who are in the average age which is 35 or over because the employer thinks that they cannot do the work and they would procrastinate a great deal. When employees realize that only young people are being hired in that organization, the older people who were already in the organization will think about giving up because they cannot handle the conflict with the young people and there is also less of them and more young people.
Age should not be a prime factor in the hiring process because management thinks that the older individuals cannot fulfill the job description. Any employer who discriminates against age should be punished or sued or better yet put out of business. Everybody is equal and should be equally treated in every aspect.
Not too long ago in American history, ones coworkers were not only Christian, but also of different denomination. This uniformity of religion in the workplace changed dramatically as new immigrant groups like my family, particularly those, who were Catholic and Jewish, immigrated to the United States and entered the workplace. Religion has to do with culture. Culture is something that everyone has to learn if we work or interact with other people. Many organizations try not to employ people who are religious because employers think that the job will not be done. Many times manager thinks that they cannot ask a particular employee who is religious to do a particular job, so they would consult
In practice, of course, the majority of our workforces are made up of immigrants. Many of those who come from the Middle East and the Muslim world can work for an extremely short time and many others are the lowest cost immigrant workers. We don’t need to change the world because immigrants can do different things. Let’s not talk about the fact that they can not only work for less, but work harder in our economy.
But then, what if they are not allowed to take a vacation or have children? What if they don’t have children — what if they are pregnant, they may try to have a child, or they might stay with the family or go away for some other reason? What if they are separated from your family, or who is sick, or who may be ill. If a family member decides to leave but is working in the U.S., does that person have authority to move back to a “right” country? How much responsibility is left to them to go to Israel or a country with a policy like that? What about the U.S. military? When do people begin to think about jobs that are outside their control?
I don’t know if you need more proof to support the claim that our workplaces today have all kinds of laws against religious discrimination, but then I wouldn’t call it that. We all knew that, for example, the only way you could possibly have a family is by saying, “God gave you this privilege and gave it to you over some other person, right?” How many people in the U.S. today are under such a ban? What’s the cost of your job? Did you ask someone before you left? I’m not talking about you asking someone for a job at a coffee shop after you left or going to the store after you left. It’s really about what kind of job you want, how much time you want it to last, and that sort of thing. If you only gave it to somebody of the other faith, you definitely didn’t think of those things as discrimination. It might be wrong that you felt uncomfortable asking someone for something specific, but that’s not discrimination.
The Supreme Court has ruled that religious organizations no longer have a right to refuse service. In a 2013 ruling, the lower court reasoned that the California Constitution doesn’t allow religions to be excluded from service. Instead, the Court held that even religious organizations can get “qualified” to serve. In the case of Good, Inc., California State University v. Good, which began in 1994, the justices held that secular groups simply couldn’t be excluded from service because the state law wasn’t clear and it could create challenges to a claim like Good. Even in cases that didn’t involve religious discrimination, like the case of Citizens United, the Court of Appeals said, “In the light of the facts, it would be a pretty simple action” for a religious organization to refuse service to a corporation that does not take public action. In other words, there was no basis for a religious organization to deny someone an appointment to a business because of their religious beliefs, which is what the case of Good is about.
Many religious organizations have been sued in court for the rights of their employees. They’ve been sued because, when an employer refuses to serve one or more employees, the employee’s religious conviction is invalidated.
On the issue of religious services, the Supreme Court sided with a state district judge over religious organizations in religious matters. In its opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer ruled that a Christian business owner can refuse a woman’s requests to run his shop. In Breyer’s opinion, he decided a lawsuit for that plaintiff, who felt that his church discriminated against men and women because it refused to serve women customers on same-sex salutes, and instead offered the prayer services that the woman had refused. The woman would have been able to ask for another employee to join her while the shop was running, and the woman would likely have been able to ask for something at the other end of the street instead of having the other man come inside the shop, Breyer found.
1
On the issue of religion, Justice Breyer found that an Indian girl in her 20’s was a candidate for religious service. The girl was admitted by the groom to give a gift to the groom, who proceeded to show her the Bible on display. The groom demanded that he pay the bride a fee and the girl refused to pay, and she was refused a fee because she was not an Indian. After the student finished reading and the groom had finished, he informed the girl that he had promised her a gift. Then the groom proceeded to kiss the girl. The school also told the students that they did not take religion into account. The decision by the court in the case was to impose a penalty of up to $2,500, in addition to the fine, in an attempt to intimidate or discourage the student and ensure his continued employment. 2
The case was settled in 1994.
Although the case is based on the case law of a private school where a few, such as the Hindu woman, were excluded from the religious service, there exists still a general rule for persons in schools and in the government that, if a person is a student or the principal is not a religious person, the school must make that person an employee of the school. This law also applies to employees of non-religious organizations.
In all courts in this country, the government typically establishes its own rules for religious organizations and religious organizations have an affirmative obligation — both secular and religious — to treat each other equally in the use of their resources and resources. The federal standard for religious organizations consists of:– “(1) The employer shall establish a uniform program of practices for each employer on their individual employee employment policy, including in respect of religion and, where practicable, other important social, cultural, educational and occupational characteristics. “(2) There shall be an affirmative and voluntary duty to recruit, retain and, where practicable, participate in the religious service of each employee. “(3) There shall be an affirmative and voluntary obligation to pay for and maintain the religious services of its employees. “(4) There shall be an affirmative and voluntary obligation to provide adequate and timely education for every employee and every staff member of the organization; “(5) The religious service of each employee is subject to religious principles, the religion of the group and the nature and purpose of the religious service, and it is the duty of each social service organization to act in accordance with these principles within the limits of its own laws and regulations. “(6) <
In 2005, the Federal Trade Commission approved a plan to regulate the business. It established a framework that regulates “personal religious service.” The FCC, in its initial proposal, did not apply the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Equal Protection Clause to cover private religious activities.
Since 1995, the FCC has made changes to the private religious business community. In January of 2006, the FCC created the Religious Liberty Commission to examine and report on individual religious conduct in government and the general business community.
Reaction is often mixed. Some object that the FCC took too long to go before a majority of voters to get a public vote on this proposal to protect public religious liberty. Others object that the agency did not take into account religious grounds when it did go before a minority. In my opinion, they do not. I also conclude that they’re not fair.
This is not unique to the religious marketplace. In 2008, a U.S. district court upheld religious use and services based on a case involving my ex-wife. There were over 50 religious business owners, some with less than 5,000 employees. The court noted that it was unclear whether the district court’s “reasonable interpretation” of the law could “effectively prohibit the application of the law for discriminatory purposes.” The judge wrote that its “reasonable and comprehensive interpretation” allowed for “unfair and inconsistent application,” and, as such, the government’s proposal “implies the government that it should be permitted under the law in exercising its lawful power to protect religious liberty as a free enterprise business.” It also said, “This would be unlawful, and perhaps even unconstitutional, under the law in effect at the time [the judge wrote his opinion] and the district court decided the case because it would be perceived as a religious issue rather than a secular one.” A few days later, the California Supreme Court ruled that Congress could make its case. As I write, “Congress should not be left to regulate private religious conduct by simply allowing religious leaders to discriminate in the use of their office premises or other activity, without due process or due process of law.” This is exactly what Congress meant by limiting governmental power to “deny religious organizations the right to exercise their religion.”
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not have any direct effect on the private religious business community. When the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in 2005, businesses that could participate in its construction or operation took no action to stop or stop the construction or operation.
A couple months before the FCC went before it, I was approached by some business owners asking me to apply I felt that I felt a government entity was infringing on religious grounds. When I replied that I did not feel that RFRA made me either a target of RFRA or illegal, I was promptly called in to testify with others. Unfortunately, I gave very little on the question.
During that time, I saw numerous letters and petitions by religious organizations and organizations that opposed the legislation and to those same religious leaders that supported the bill, which had been adopted through support from local churches. I was asked not just
But the Court agreed. Since that same-sex salutation law was passed, church and municipal employers have had to pay equal pay for equal health care for all employees. This is why the Second Amendment was changed from a federal law in 1967 to a state law, which forbids discrimination in state contracts.
The American Religious Liberties Union (ARLU) made a similar calculation for religious groups in the case of Good v. California, but it held that because it had little jurisdiction over the business case, the state law doesn’t apply. In Good, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs who denied health insurance to LGBT workers were violating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the Good case, the court said, it ruled that California’s religious-based exemption is sufficient for a man to make health care decisions based on religious convictions, and that it also covers the same discrimination that a Catholic priest should be able to make. No one has been denied health insurance at that point because of that decision.
A recent Supreme Court ruling will take up this issue. Although we’ve been debating this for two months now, it’s getting harder to see if these cases will be resolved over time.
I hope this is helpful. Are you reading this correctly? Don’t be surprised if this leads us to the Supreme Court cases. Are you going to hear the full story over the next few months? Please share this with your friends.
To get a lot of ideas on how to ensure that the workplace is different and to give these people the right tools to change those things, we need to start with some tangible information. First of all, we need to find that people are doing the work they’re supposed to. You are supposed to be in charge of your personal well-being and making sure that you provide that. So the question is, why? If no one wants to hire you, why not hire someone who can work you and manage your family in your home? You already have that responsibility, and you certainly have the right tools to address
In practice, of course, the majority of our workforces are made up of immigrants. Many of those who come from the Middle East and the Muslim world can work for an extremely short time and many others are the lowest cost immigrant workers. We don’t need to change the world because immigrants can do different things. Let’s not talk about the fact that they can not only work for less, but work harder in our economy.
But then, what if they are not allowed to take a vacation or have children? What if they don’t have children — what if they are pregnant, they may try to have a child, or they might stay with the family or go away for some other reason? What if they are separated from your family, or who is sick, or who may be ill. If a family member decides to leave but is working in the U.S., does that person have authority to move back to a “right” country? How much responsibility is left to them to go to Israel or a country with a policy like that? What about the U.S. military? When do people begin to think about jobs that are outside their control?
I don’t know if you need more proof to support the claim that our workplaces today have all kinds of laws against religious discrimination, but then I wouldn’t call it that. We all knew that, for example, the only way you could possibly have a family is by saying, “God gave you this privilege and gave it to you over some other person, right?” How many people in the U.S. today are under such a ban? What’s the cost of your job? Did you ask someone before you left? I’m not talking about you asking someone for a job at a coffee shop after you left or going to the store after you left. It’s really about what kind of job you want, how much time you want it to last, and that sort of thing. If you only gave it to somebody of the other faith, you definitely didn’t think of those things as discrimination. It might be wrong that you felt uncomfortable asking someone for something specific, but that’s not discrimination.
The Supreme Court has ruled that religious organizations no longer have a right to refuse service. In a 2013 ruling, the lower court reasoned that the California Constitution doesn’t allow religions to be excluded from service. Instead, the Court held that even religious organizations can get “qualified” to serve. In the case of Good, Inc., California State University v. Good, which began in 1994, the justices held that secular groups simply couldn’t be excluded from service because the state law wasn’t clear and it could create challenges to a claim like Good. Even in cases that didn’t involve religious discrimination, like the case of Citizens United, the Court of Appeals said, “In the light of the facts, it would be a pretty simple action” for a religious organization to refuse service to a corporation that does not take public action. In other words, there was no basis for a religious organization to deny someone an appointment to a business because of their religious beliefs, which is what the case of Good is about.
Many religious organizations have been sued in court for the rights of their employees. They’ve been sued because, when an employer refuses to serve one or more employees, the employee’s religious conviction is invalidated.
On the issue of religious services, the Supreme Court sided with a state district judge over religious organizations in religious matters. In its opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer ruled that a Christian business owner can refuse a woman’s requests to run his shop. In Breyer’s opinion, he decided a lawsuit for that plaintiff, who felt that his church discriminated against men and women because it refused to serve women customers on same-sex salutes, and instead offered the prayer services that the woman had refused. The woman would have been able to ask for another employee to join her while the shop was running, and the woman would likely have been able to ask for something at the other end of the street instead of having the other man come inside the shop, Breyer found.
1
On the issue of religion, Justice Breyer found that an Indian girl in her 20’s was a candidate for religious service. The girl was admitted by the groom to give a gift to the groom, who proceeded to show her the Bible on display. The groom demanded that he pay the bride a fee and the girl refused to pay, and she was refused a fee because she was not an Indian. After the student finished reading and the groom had finished, he informed the girl that he had promised her a gift. Then the groom proceeded to kiss the girl. The school also told the students that they did not take religion into account. The decision by the court in the case was to impose a penalty of up to $2,500, in addition to the fine, in an attempt to intimidate or discourage the student and ensure his continued employment. 2
The case was settled in 1994.
Although the case is based on the case law of a private school where a few, such as the Hindu woman, were excluded from the religious service, there exists still a general rule for persons in schools and in the government that, if a person is a student or the principal is not a religious person, the school must make that person an employee of the school. This law also applies to employees of non-religious organizations.
In all courts in this country, the government typically establishes its own rules for religious organizations and religious organizations have an affirmative obligation — both secular and religious — to treat each other equally in the use of their resources and resources. The federal standard for religious organizations consists of:– “(1) The employer shall establish a uniform program of practices for each employer on their individual employee employment policy, including in respect of religion and, where practicable, other important social, cultural, educational and occupational characteristics. “(2) There shall be an affirmative and voluntary duty to recruit, retain and, where practicable, participate in the religious service of each employee. “(3) There shall be an affirmative and voluntary obligation to pay for and maintain the religious services of its employees. “(4) There shall be an affirmative and voluntary obligation to provide adequate and timely education for every employee and every staff member of the organization; “(5) The religious service of each employee is subject to religious principles, the religion of the group and the nature and purpose of the religious service, and it is the duty of each social service organization to act in accordance with these principles within the limits of its own laws and regulations. “(6) <
In 2005, the Federal Trade Commission approved a plan to regulate the business. It established a framework that regulates “personal religious service.” The FCC, in its initial proposal, did not apply the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Equal Protection Clause to cover private religious activities.
Since 1995, the FCC has made changes to the private religious business community. In January of 2006, the FCC created the Religious Liberty Commission to examine and report on individual religious conduct in government and the general business community.
Reaction is often mixed. Some object that the FCC took too long to go before a majority of voters to get a public vote on this proposal to protect public religious liberty. Others object that the agency did not take into account religious grounds when it did go before a minority. In my opinion, they do not. I also conclude that they’re not fair.
This is not unique to the religious marketplace. In 2008, a U.S. district court upheld religious use and services based on a case involving my ex-wife. There were over 50 religious business owners, some with less than 5,000 employees. The court noted that it was unclear whether the district court’s “reasonable interpretation” of the law could “effectively prohibit the application of the law for discriminatory purposes.” The judge wrote that its “reasonable and comprehensive interpretation” allowed for “unfair and inconsistent application,” and, as such, the government’s proposal “implies the government that it should be permitted under the law in exercising its lawful power to protect religious liberty as a free enterprise business.” It also said, “This would be unlawful, and perhaps even unconstitutional, under the law in effect at the time [the judge wrote his opinion] and the district court decided the case because it would be perceived as a religious issue rather than a secular one.” A few days later, the California Supreme Court ruled that Congress could make its case. As I write, “Congress should not be left to regulate private religious conduct by simply allowing religious leaders to discriminate in the use of their office premises or other activity, without due process or due process of law.” This is exactly what Congress meant by limiting governmental power to “deny religious organizations the right to exercise their religion.”
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not have any direct effect on the private religious business community. When the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in 2005, businesses that could participate in its construction or operation took no action to stop or stop the construction or operation.
A couple months before the FCC went before it, I was approached by some business owners asking me to apply I felt that I felt a government entity was infringing on religious grounds. When I replied that I did not feel that RFRA made me either a target of RFRA or illegal, I was promptly called in to testify with others. Unfortunately, I gave very little on the question.
During that time, I saw numerous letters and petitions by religious organizations and organizations that opposed the legislation and to those same religious leaders that supported the bill, which had been adopted through support from local churches. I was asked not just
But the Court agreed. Since that same-sex salutation law was passed, church and municipal employers have had to pay equal pay for equal health care for all employees. This is why the Second Amendment was changed from a federal law in 1967 to a state law, which forbids discrimination in state contracts.
The American Religious Liberties Union (ARLU) made a similar calculation for religious groups in the case of Good v. California, but it held that because it had little jurisdiction over the business case, the state law doesn’t apply. In Good, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs who denied health insurance to LGBT workers were violating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the Good case, the court said, it ruled that California’s religious-based exemption is sufficient for a man to make health care decisions based on religious convictions, and that it also covers the same discrimination that a Catholic priest should be able to make. No one has been denied health insurance at that point because of that decision.
A recent Supreme Court ruling will take up this issue. Although we’ve been debating this for two months now, it’s getting harder to see if these cases will be resolved over time.
I hope this is helpful. Are you reading this correctly? Don’t be surprised if this leads us to the Supreme Court cases. Are you going to hear the full story over the next few months? Please share this with your friends.
To get a lot of ideas on how to ensure that the workplace is different and to give these people the right tools to change those things, we need to start with some tangible information. First of all, we need to find that people are doing the work they’re supposed to. You are supposed to be in charge of your personal well-being and making sure that you provide that. So the question is, why? If no one wants to hire you, why not hire someone who can work you and manage your family in your home? You already have that responsibility, and you certainly have the right tools to address