.DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE

Discrimination in the Workplace



Abstract

Workplace violence is manifested as one form of abuse of power is considered workplace violence to any active or negligent conduct, carried out in the workplace by public officials or employees and private, using hierarchical position or in circumstances related to their function, constitutes a manifest abuse of power, embodied by threat, intimidation, wage inequality based on gender, harassment, physical abuse, psychological and / or social or offense that undermines the dignity, physical, sexual, psychological or social worker. Based on this study, organizational standards that report for heritage dissimilarities in insights of fairness and deduction in the equitable remedy of workers in worldwide backgrounds can be devised.

Discrimination in the Workplace

Introduction

In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a landmark piece of legislation that prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities (McMahon, Edwards, Rumrill, & Hursh, 2005). The main focus in the workplace discrimination literature has been on documented disabilities, but the ADA has two other definitional categories, or “prongs,” namely, “record of” (referring to those who have a record of having a disability in the past) and “regarded as” (referring to those who have been perceived as disabled by employers). Earlier, a sort of “Catch-22” situation prevailed, in which employees lost their jobs due to being considered disabled but usually could not get justice in the courts, which considered them not disabled since they were seen as “generally” functional and thus employable elsewhere.

Discussion

Evidence of negative attitudes toward people with disabilities has a long history, exemplified by the ancient Greek and Roman practice of infanticide for those born with the appearance of disability (Rubin & Roessler, 2008). Although attitudes toward disability have evolved over time, there is still evidence that people with disabilities are stigmatized and experience discrimination (Antonak & Livneh, 2000; Au & Man, 2006). Whereas stigma theory can explain the conscious prejudice against groups or individuals labeled deviant in some fashion (Goffman, 1963; Link & Phelan, 2001), causal attribution theory can explain unconscious bias in the causes assigned to the conduct of another person (Hewstone, 1989; Travis, 2002). There is theoretical overlap because automatic, unconscious prejudice assumes the existence of stigma in the first place. Attempts among the general populace to avoid dysfunctional information overload from a highly complex, technological society have led to increasing reliance on cognitive “shortcuts.” Instead of thinking through a situation requiring a judgment, snap decisions are made based on what comes immediately to mind. Although heuristics (rules of thumb) are generally efficient, they sometimes result in perceptual errors.

Scambler (2009) recommended that stigma also be analyzed more broadly in terms of social macro-structure and political economy. In the same spirit of conceptual integration, Pescosolido, Martin, Long, and Olafsdottir (2008) proposed that different levels of social life are involved in the process of stigmatization including micro, psychological and sociocultural factors at the individual level; meso, social network or organizational factors; and macro, society-wide factors. Thornicroft, Rose, Kassam, and Sartorius (2007) criticized the bulk ...