“HRM Role in EEO ： Sheep in Shepherd’s Clothing ？”

1. “HRM Role in EEO：Sheep in Shepherd’s Clothing？” Bennington, L. (2006), Journal of Business Ethics, 65:13-21.

2. Outline • Abstract • Explanations of Discriminatory Conduct • The HRM Role • This Study • Conclusion

3. Key words • Discrimination in employment • Equal employment opportunity • Human resource managers • Illegal/unlawful behavior • Affirmative action

4. Discrimination in employment • 就業歧視 • 憲法第十五條規定人民之工作權應予保障，故人民得自由選擇工作及職業，以維持生計。 • 依就業服務法第5條規定：「 為保障國民就業機會平等，雇主對求職人或所僱用員工，不得以種族、階級、語言、思想、宗教、黨派、籍貫、性別、婚姻、容貌、五官、身心障礙或以往工會會員身分為，予以歧視。」若事業單位構成就業歧視，亦即違反就業服務法第5條規定，則依同法第65條規定，可處三十萬至一百五十萬之罰鍰。

5. Equal employment opportunity • EEO 的由來 • EEO 法令:1964 人權法案(Civil Rights Act, Title 7) • 禁止在僱用員工時有任何歧視(包括聘任、解聘、晉升、轉任、薪資、受訓…等各種條件)

6. Equal employment opportunity • 被保護的類別 • 差別待遇(DISPARATE TREATMENT)(Intentional) • 不利衝擊(DISPARATE OR ADVERSE IMPACT) (Unintentional) • 性別歧視 EEO

7. 差別待遇 (Disparate Treatment) • Applying different standards to different groups from protected categories or classes • BFOQ 容許雇主以宗教、年齡、性別或出生地作為僱用的考慮因素，但必須出於對該特定行業正常營運的合理需要 • Bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) may justify discrimination • must be a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason

8. 不利衝擊(ADVERSE IMPACT) • 有些僱用的規定看似中性客觀，但實施之後，對被保護的族群類別卻產生不利的衝擊

9. 性別歧視 • 單身條款: 有些企業對於女性員工有結婚就必須離職的傳統習慣，即所謂單身條款 • 就業服務法對此己有具体的禁止規定. • 性騷擾 (Sexual harassment)可視為性別歧視的一種 • 性騷擾的兩種形態: • 對價型(Quid pro quo) • 環境型(Hostile work environment)

10. Equal employment opportunity 公平就業機會 • 政府於民國91年3月8日通過施行「兩性工作平等法」 我國的勞動基準法 • 我國在民國七十三年七月三十日公布勞動基準法. • 勞動基準法規定了勞動條件的最低標準. • 勞動基準法在勞工法令中位階不高，但最實用，影響最大 • 從起草到完成立法，費時最久，爭議不斷.

11. Affirmative action • Affirmative action • 平權措施計畫 • 即所有的組織都必須遵守某項機會均等的方針，積極促進機會均等和消除歧視現象。 • 就業平權措施的目的，在於讓所有人均有公平的就業機會，準確地反映合格員工之人口統計比例的工作團隊。

12. Recruitment stage of employment • A New Zealand study found that 88% of job application forms violated at least on provision of its antidiscrimination law (Harcourt and Harcourt, 2002). • 63% of application forms studies in the U.S. retail industry had legal deficiencies (Fine and Schupp, 2002). • An Australian study founds two grounds of unlawful discrimination, age and family responsibilities (Bennington, 2001).

13. Recruitment stage of employment • Job applicants reported being (unlawfully) asked their age in 20% of cases and in over 27% of case they were told that employers had an age preference for the successful applicants. • An analysis of Australian job advertisements has founds either direct breaches of the law or perceptions of ageism based on the wording used. • In jobs interviews, up to 44% of candidates reported being asked questions prohibited by the antidiscrimination legislation (Bennington and Wein, 20000).

14. Explanations of Discriminatory Conduct • Morrison and Von Glinow (1990) outlined three broad categories: difference theories; stereotyping and bias theories; and structural and systemic discrimination theories. • “rational bias” theory (Trentham and Larwood, 1998).

15. Predictors of Discrimination • White men have been found to be less supportive of AA than other groups in of interest. • 85% of discrimination was perpetrated by men. • Women see discrimination by other as occurring more frequently than men.

16. The HRM Role • HRM should be the guardian of ethical values in employment. • HR was always involved in selection processes, but increasingly, this role has assumed less important.

17. The HRM Role • Seldom has HRM been viewed as source of value creation. • Hart (1993) argued that HRM is concerned with adding value but often in the ways that are managerial and amoral. • HR managers were described as inflexible and focused on rule policies and procedures.

18. The HRM Role • HR manager will be employee focused, and advocate for their rights, the changes over the last decade or so have clearly tipped the balanced towards a corporatist focus. • HRMs to be required to continually justify their existence to prevent their roles from being outsourced or downsized.

19. This Study • This study addressed the degree to which prohibited (unlawful) questions were asked in selection interviews and whether decisions were made on the basis of unlawful grounds of discrimination. • Self-reported

20. The propositions • 1a. HR managers would acknowledge less discrimination than line managers, even if their behavior might be inconsistent, simply due to their expected higher level of awareness and knowledge of the legislation. • 1b. Alternatively, HR Managers would acknowledge a similar or greater amount of discrimination than line manager, due to rational bias theory.

21. The propositions • 2a. Female managers would discriminate less than male managers – on the basis of the preferential treatment of women in the legislation, and women’s supposed greater sensitivity to discrimination. • 2b. Alternatively, female managers would discriminate in broadly similar ways to men in similar positions.

22. Method • 180 telephone interviews were conducted with HR managers and with line managers who had interviewed and selected people in the previous 6 months. • 273 employers appeared to meet the eligibility criterion, 66 declined to participated, 23 were unavailable for the period of the project (January 1999), and 4 withdrawal). • Response rate of 66.2%.

23. Method • A structured interview • 10-15 mins. • Responses were recorded anonymously.

24. Conclusion • Discrimination is quite common in employment selection. • It found men to be less supportive of EEO. • HR managers do not seem to be adding very much value. • “mandatory woman” & “window-dressing”

25. Conclusion • HR managers should recreate a role for themselves as guardians of EEO. • HR managers will need to remember their “personnel” roots and take confidence in their ability to contribute without trying to mimic the role and attitudes of line managers.