External to the small family business, all of the above practices are not appropriate, not ethical and sometimes grounds for workplace discrimination. Hence it is considered unethical using one's position of power to benefit friends and family at the cost of the customer and is considered corrupt practice and contemptible behavior. ("Nepotism: Adverse Effects on Employee Morale- Favoritism of Close Friends and Relatives in Workplace," 2007)
There is a myth that equity in employment has to do everything about quotas. But on the other hand, equality with regard to employment is not always related to 'quotas' while it is regarding objectives which are flexible, targets which are rational which the employers are able to use, similar to every business goals as planning and evaluation tools. On the other hand quotas as rigid and random thresholds that must be reached on case one is desirous of avoiding 'penalty'. Based on the federal rules relating to employment equality, employers fix their independent objectives as well as practical schedules for attaining them depending on the assessment of 'sound' as well as 'planning'. Employers fix targets with regard to calibrating growth in place of quotas, while recruiting employees from 4 specific categories. It is a fact that in most occasions, businesses fix 'targets'. For instance, in a production unit, a target relating to production is mostly fixed. Thereafter 'plans are' formulated in order for attaining 'target' goals while the growth is assessed on routine mode. ("Employment Equity- Myths and Realities," 2004)
Similar to a business, an equality plan relating to employment makes use of similar processes. It described wherein a person is on any given day and where he is desirous of at a certain time and the manner in which he plans to attain the objectives. Similar to a target relating to industrial manufacturing, a plan relating to equality in 'employment' shows the situation of the firm. Further the processes relating to goal formulation never implies that individuals would lose employment to allow for members of 'designated groups'. Objectives are formulated with regard to the scope of new job arena which is 'predicted'. There is also a myth that goes around that employment equity implies providing every qualified as well as individuals who are qualifiable having equality in the 'opportunities' and not with regard to a few selected. Further the main objective of equality in 'employment' is recruiting employees who are qualified and it is never intended to recruit employees who are unqualified so as to attain certain required targets. It is always to be remembered that equality in employment relates not to giving persons position or job primarily because those person happens to be members of a 'group' which is 'designated'. ("Employment Equity- Myths and Realities," 2004)
Equality with regard to "employment' supports 'selection', 'recruitment', 'training', 'retention' and 'promotion' of 'qualifiable' as well as 'qualified' persons." ("Employment Equity- Myths and Realities," 2004) Equality in 'employment' just guarantees that hurdles which individuals face in chosen categories outcoming from employers' system, practices as well as policies are recognized as well as removed. The 'Employment Equity Act' particularly lay down that responsibility to carry out equality in employment never needs employers to recruit or hire unqualified persons. The 'Employment Equity Act' also guarantees that recruitment as well as standards relating to promotion is not relaxed to induct people from 'groups' which are designated. Hence these 'practices' might spawn work atmospheres which are 'counterproductive'. Besides, a myth is also present that equality in 'employment' also jeopardizes the seniority principle. But on the other hand, 'seniority' and 'equality' have a 'common' objective to ensure that the 'employment' scope is justified with no 'discrimination' or favoritism. ("Employment Equity- Myths and Realities," 2004)
The 'rights' of seniority obtained due to "provisions with regard to collective agreement or which is acquired because of established practices of employers is safeguarded under the Employment Equity Act enacted in the year 1995 whereby the Act particularly declares that provisions with regard to seniority are considered not to be barriers" in employment and promotions. Nevertheless, in case "it appears that a seniority provision in a collective agreement put an adverse influence on members of 'designated groups'," that Act informs that "employers as also "bargaining agents are needed to make consultations with regard to steps which might be taken to reduce the adverse influence." ("Employment Equity- Myths and Realities," 2004)
Promoting an unqualified person constitutes an ethical wrongdoing which not only disregards talent but also proves harmful for the organization in which this is practiced. Hence it is always unethical to promote an unqualified individual debarring a deserving candidate from promotion. To go to the bottom of the problem, there are three factors which have been discussed which are seniority, inbreeding and nepotism. Out of the three, nepotism is the most serious impediment in giving promotion to the deserving candidate as close relatives gets favor in getting promotion. For example in situations where a company is a family corporation, a lot of nepotistic activities happen. In situations where people have suffered nepotism, it puts an adverse effect on the morale of the employee. Precisely, nepotism is just the act of recruiting, promoting or rewarding an individual without taking his real qualifications into account. This implies that the competencies of those who are really qualified are not taken into account. Generally, the management or the person who is at the apex level undertakes a conscious decision to disregard the qualified candidate he has advanced knowledge of the selection of the final candidate for the post. This person may be an intimate friend or a close relative or in particular instances somebody who satisfies his personal ethnic or gender preference.
Iowa Civil Rights Commission. (n. d) "Iowa Civil Rights Commission Disclaimer"
Retrieved 25 April, 2009 from http://www.iowa.gov/government/crc/docs/Affirmative%20Action%201.1.ppt
N.A. (2004) "Employment Equity- Myths and Realities" Retrieved 25 April, 2009 from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/lp/lo/lswe/we/publications/mr/myths_realities.shtml
N.A. (2007) "Nepotism: Adverse Effects on Employee Morale- Favoritism of Close Friends
and Relatives in Workplace" Retrieved 25 April, 2009 from http://www.trap17.com/index.php/nepotism-adverse-effects-employee-morale_t49393.html
N.A. (2008) "The Context of Discrimination at Work" Retrieved 25 April, 2009 from http://vig.pearsoned.co.uk/catalog/uploads/Willey_C04.pdf
Padilla, R. (2004) "Business Ethics"
Rex Bookstore Inc.
United Nations. (2000) "Promoting Ethics in Public Sector" Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Public Economics and Public Administration. Retrieved 25 April, 2009 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan000111.pdf