Diverse Nature of the Workforce in Australia - Essay Example

Diverse Workforce in Australia Introduction Diversity within a working environment covers gender, ethnicity, age, language, cultural background, religious belief, family responsibilities and sexual orientation of the population within that environment (Cox and Blake 1991, p. 45-56). Diversity also means other ways in which the workers in a particular environment are different, or instance educational level, work experience, life experience, socioeconomic background, marital status and personality. Workplace diversity generally involves recognizing the individual differences in values and managing them within that respective workplace. The diversity of the employees in Australian context is one of its greatest. Managing diversity in the country successfully means the ability to create an environment, which utilizes and values people’s contributions with diverse experiences, perspectives and backgrounds (Michael 1996, p.215-298). Organizations generally need to develop management strategies for their employees, which are capable of accommodating differences in the background, family responsibilities and perspectives of their employees. They need to equally recognize the diverse contributions, which diversity of perspectives makes to develop new ways and ideas of doing things. The concept of workplace diversity is an inclusion of the equal employment opportunity principle. This paper discusses the work diversity topic looking deeply into issues of discrimination and the disadvantage concepts within the Australian context. Diverse nature of the workforce in Australia Australia has an extensive diversity in the respective work places. The country employs many people with diverse cultures from all corners of the globe. Australia has an inclusive and tolerant society made up of individuals from many, diverse backgrounds. Cultural diversity is a prominent feature of the national identity of Australia. Since 1900, the Australian population has been consisting of a small number of Indigenous people relatively and a substantial majority of Europeans mostly from countries for instance Britain (Cope and Mary 1997, p.178-201). By 2008, Australia’s population by far exceeded 21 million with an inclusion of people from over 200 countries. In this context, the diversity even in the work force is intolerable (Napoli 1998, p.178-198). Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal people are culturally diverse in the country, belonging to numerous language groups. Global trends and the fast growing nature of Australia has been bringing people to Australia for a long period and therefore, creating the diversity (Michael 1996, p.215-298). From the gold rush era of the early 1850s to the present globalization, the diversity in the work force of Australia has been increasing and widening by day (Patrickson 1994, p. 25-32). Discrimination and Disadvantage Discrimination is part of the concepts that feature prominently when looking into issues of work diversity. Discrimination in this context means the systematic acts, which deprive a specific group of equal treatment for instance pay rates, promotion, hiring and access among others (Brian 1999, p.530-547). This in other words is depriving particular groups of people equal opportunities within the work force without clear and justified reasons of doing so. On the other hand, disadvantage is a concept that also features broadly in this context. This involves groups of people who endure unequal opportunities for reasons without ground. In other words, it means the poorer outcomes as well as conditions being assigned to specific groups (Robin 1998, p.133-142). Such groups in the Australian context usually include women, the disabled, non-English-speaking migrants, and the indigenous Australians (Napoli 1998, p.178-198). In reality, these groups always experience difficult times in their work environment with preferences falling on fellows or work mates. The two concepts of discrimination and disadvantage apply almost the same in the working environment exhibiting themselves in varying forms. The various forms that are clear to the disadvantaged groups are higher rates of unemployment, lower rates of participation in the labour force, low-paying jobs, high-workforce turnover, and limited access to training and careers of choice (Cox and Blake 1991, p. 45-56). The respective groups endure suffering and have a hard time in making it as per their wishes within the work force because they have hurdles to clear and many challenges in their way when working within that given environment. Gender discrimination is a coherent feature in any given work force and mostly reveals the disadvantaged as the women within that given work force (Brian 1999, p.530-547). The American labor Association released a report earlier last year revealing that women continue dominating 'pink-collar' jobs within the country. This is not to say that women are not educated or that it is their preference to lower in such Jobs. The fact is that discrimination is on a high within the country and women are the disadvantaged group (Robin 1998, p.133-142). They continue working in these positions despite becoming more employed, educated, and holding higher positions. The Census Bureau data report revealed that women in the US show higher high school graduation, undergraduate graduation rates and college enrollment than men revealing that they have all that it takes to take the greater positions and perform well in the white collar Jobs (Cox and Blake 1991, p. 45-56). Nevertheless, women remain exceedingly common in the country working as secretaries, waitresses, receptionists, bookkeepers, nurses, sales supervisors and cook something that keeps on discriminating them. Gender Discrimination and Disadvantage Jacqueline Woods an AAUW Executive Director stated that, ‘Education in information technology and computer fields is critical to pursue the new high-tech economy.’ On the same, she acknowledges that over 28 percent of women have joined institutions studying within this field to prepare them for jobs in science, information technology and engineering but the worst comes in that there is still a diverse ratio in the number of men working in these fields as compared to women (Cope and Mary 1997, p.178-201). The report reveals persisting disparities in gender, particularly in managing the work-family balance. An issue released by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that over half of the mothers working in the regions working environment do not come to work when their children get sick and this has led many employers to lay off many of the women. Compared to a similar issue, rarely do men get laid off because of such reasons showing clearly that the most disadvantaged group remains as the women within a diverse work force (Napoli 1998, p.178-198). The report was also quick to note that of the groups of women being laid off, there is also another half of them who do not get paid because of missing work, and this percentage has been rising to 66 percent for low-income women and 75 percent for the exceedingly poor women (Ellen and Sharon 1996, p.56). The issue has led to more poverty rates among these women and their families and consequently high rates of turnover (Robin 1998, p.133-142). Discrimination and Disadvantage in Age Age discrimination in a brush has also been a clear indication within a working environment. The disadvantage in this case falls to the older generation as well as the youngest generation. Many companies and organizations seek productive people and the welfare of the employees comes in after the company’s goals and objectives (Napoli 1998, p.178-198). In this case, the working force within that given environment is mostly at the medium age where they are experienced and highly productive. Most of the times are when organizations lay off older employees because of their age and their lowered productivity in the organizations (Saul 1996, p. 19-36). On the same note, there have been reports of many organizations discriminating the younger people in the work force by paying them lower returns (Ellen and Sharon 1996, p.56). The main argument for this is usually that these people are learners and need experience of which it ends up mostly exploiting the younger generation. How Discrimination and Disadvantage is being handled in Australia Managing diversity as a term is being used increasingly by Australian managers. It is a process involving more than compliance with legislations. There are other philosophical principles, which underpin diversity management within a given work force (Cox and Blake 1991, p. 45-56). The entire process that involves building a culture that explicitly values differences among individuals within the same environment operates at three levels including the managerial level, strategic level, and the operational level (Saul 1996, p. 19-36). Generally, the Australian workplace diversity principles integrate with and underpin all human resource management aspects for instance selection, recruitment, planning, performance appraisal, development and training, occupational safety and health and workplace relations (Cope and Mary 1997, p.178-201). For instance, an agency's certified agreement is reinforcing its commitment to diversity and incorporating flexible working conditions therefore, allowing employees balance their own responsibilities and work. Workplace diversity strategies in this case support the building of the organization’s relationship ideally with the community, enhancing the employees’ contribution and improving the programs, services as well as its products. The most triumphant organizations focus on embedding and inculcating the principles of diversity in their management and culture systems. These organizations value diversity truly and recognize it in the way that they normally do business. Diversity in the Australian context is reflected in the approach to people management, which includes performance management. Disadvantage and Discrimination as managed in Australia In Australia, equal employment opportunity policies address persistent disadvantage experienced by specific groups of people within that given workplace that include Indigenous Australians, women, people with disabilities as well as people suffering disadvantage based on ethnicity or race (Kramar 1996, p.567). The PS Act was oriented and started operating on 5 December 1999. This Act in the country has replaced the detailed prescription ideally of the Public Service Act of 1922 by broad heads and principles of power. Responsibility for decisions of employment has been devolved generally to Agency Heads, giving them more flexibility to help in the management of their own workplaces, within the general framework of the subordinate legislation and Act, predominantly the Code of Conduct and the APS Values (Krautil 1995, p.67-87). Australian lobby groups and Government Acts have also looked into issues of discriminating and disadvantage within the diverse working force by providing guidelines on Workplace Diversity with excellent designs of assisting agencies meet their obligation in the development of a Workplace Diversity Program and in helping them embed the workplace diversity principles in their management systems and their culture (Krautil 1995, p.67-87). This has been on the frontline of solving the discrimination problem, as well as catering for the disadvantaged within the diverse working force. These Guidelines as offered are broad and they cover the legal framework that is of use for workplace diversity within the Australian Public Service offering suggestions regarding how to implement, and establish a working workplace diversity program that would look into issues of discrimination (Stone 1996, p. 21352-401). Diversity within the Australian Public Service covers gender, ethnicity, age, language, cultural background, religious belief, and sexual orientation and family responsibilities. Within the Australian context, the legal framework has been on the front line of finding solutions to disadvantage and discrimination. The legal framework that applies to agencies, which employ staff under the PS Act, indicates the expectations of the community and the Government about a fair, productive and inclusive public service. A part of the legal frame work is that Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Krautil 1995, p.67-87). This act in the country makes it unlawful to show prejudice in employment on the grounds of national, race, colour or ethnic origin. In this context, any discrimination is liable to punishment with stipulations laid down on the legal frame work within the judicial systems. Therefore, it is possible to sue any employer who discriminates persons on these bases (Thomas and Ely 1996, p. 79-90). The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is also a part of the established legal frame work that has also been valuable within the Australian context (Stone 1996, p. 21352-401). This makes it unlawful to show prejudice in employment on the person's sex, pregnancy, marital status, potential pregnancy grounds or to harass another person sexually. The penal code stipulates the punishments that follow once any of these acts is broken in the process of employment. On the same note, Australia has the Equal Opportunity and the Human Rights Commission Act 1984 that is an excellent approach used in handling issues of discrimination (Thomas and Ely 1996, p. 79-90). The acts are excellent in providing for the rights of people who suffer mental or physical disabilities as well as addressing complaints of prejudice in employment (Thomas 1995, p.267-287). Therefore, the act is well able to handle the disadvantaged who undergo such discrimination within the work place. Under the Occupational Safety and Health (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991 as applied within Australia, all employees and employers must maintain a secure, safe and healthy working environment (Krautil 1995, p.67-87). It is mandated that an employer should take practical precautions in preventing harassment within the work force. The act is excellent in avoiding issue to do with favors as well as providing everyone with equal opportunities, as well as space for innovations within the work force. In Australia, there is also the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 that has been excellent in making it unlawful for any employer to practice any form of discrimination against an employee on the grounds of disability; this includes even a disease (Thomas 1995, p.267-287). On this note, the Act covers sick leave, which has been a main feature when it comes to layoffs (Krautil 1995, p.67-87). Many employees have sacked many employees on the basis of not attending work with sickness excuses. The act is excellent in protecting such employees from been disadvantaged or treated different from the others when they resume work within the same environment. More to the legal approach in Australia is the Workplace Relations Act 1996 that is purely fantastic in prohibiting discrimination in agreements and awards and (subject to exemptions) in the employment termination (Loden 1995, p.16-27). Guidelines are offered in the context of work relations where favors and discrimination are avoided on matters pertaining to awards, punishments or termination of employment ensuring that these guidelines are followed and there is fairness within a working environment (Thomas 1995, p.267-287). Australia has also been developing policies on Work and family that have been on the frontline of solving issues of discrimination of women (Thomas 1991, p.92-108). The women as earlier discussed are an endangered species meaning that their protection against discrimination should be on the limelight of all working environments (Loden 1995, p.16-27). In the Australian context, policies developed to guide work and family relations include the right to request for up to 24 months’ parental leave after delivery, right to request part-time work in the period of parental leave, personal leave entitlement ranging from 10 to 15 days per year and a right to take up to 2 days’ leave for dealing with emergencies in the family (Thomas 1991, p.92-108). Without a doubt, such policies are a measure to the right way forward in taking care of employees especially the women who engage in family issues more than me do. It is from this that many of the women can have a chance to combine both family and work issues and duties without enduring a form of discrimination. Strengths in the Australian Work Diversity Approach To be this successful, the Australian work force has been on the frontline of adopting strategies that help in handling issues on work diversity. They prepare a workplace profile, analyze the issues that face women in the workplace, identify priority issues needing fast address within the organization, develop a plan to tackle the respective issues and evaluate the effectiveness of the established programs. The routine or such a procedure being followed is an indication that the Australian program is effective in its operations (Loden 1995, p.16-27). This is clear that the approach has its process, and no step is skipped therefore, formulating a solution to many problems within the system. Another great strength of the Australian approach is the involvement of all bodies that take part or interact with the employee as well as the employers all engaged in the workplace diversity. The involvement of all bodies is an indication that there is full representation and the approach is successful with everyone playing a critical role in the solutions and decision making relating to workplace diversity (Loden 1995, p.16-27). The involvement of the legal framework and the establishment of the rule are also quite excellent for the Australian approach in handling issues of discrimination and diversity. This is because, in all circumstances, laws and rules are the guiding factor to any prospective approach and program. Without them, there are no guiding principles and ultimately programs collapse. Weaknesses of the Australian work diversity approach However, the Australian approach in dealing with discrimination and disadvantage has weaknesses. The application of the laws and rules has not been to the letter, and this is an indication that the approach is weak. The approach in this case concentrates much on the laws and rules as well as implicating policies to govern the approach, but in the real sense, it is evident that social matters are of essence same with the legal applications. The training and development of managers and other leaders within the work force on matters relating to discrimination and disadvantage would be rather a better approach in handling the practices at the local level and preventing such from developing to the extremes (Loden and Loeser 1991, p. 21­25). It is rather weird for the programs in the Australian context to concentrate on the aftermath of the practices of discrimination rather than looking into ways that could prevent the same from happening. The program and approaches are problem solving oriented rather than focusing on the establishment of work diversity from the onset. The evaluation of the programs and approaches in Australia is also not one of the best as they do not have practical evaluations to see whether they apply well and work within the environment. In this context, the laws and rules formulated are rather in writing, but their application requires an assessment to look into it and see whether they can apply within that given context. Following the Diversity programs in the Australian context, it has come with many advantages and benefits. Increased innovation is one key feature within the Australian context where the working force has increased their level of innovativeness following the solutions to discrimination and disadvantage. The programs have been appreciating the diverse workforce with a range of diverse perspectives and backgrounds therefore, giving organizations a variety of insights and ideas to draw on in policy development and decision making. Diversity on the other hand, has been featured as improving service to clients within the Australian context (Loden and Loeser 1991, p. 21­25). A workplace, which reflects the Australian community, understands its clients better therefore, leading to improvement of services (Bennington 1996, p. 3163-76). The solution offered to discrimination within the workplace has had the establishment of appropriate communication with the broader context of clients based on the understanding of the community needs (Michael 1996, p.215-298). Therefore, there is a lot to learn from the Australian context regarding the approaches used to handling discrimination and disadvantage. This is following the fact that it has been successful and played an influential role in the development of the country. We can learn from the Australian system on the facilitation of the programs. The Australian approach has been excellent in facilitating their programs on solving discrimination and disadvantage within the work place. The formula on how to do it is what the respective systems globally can have a glance and learn from to facilitate equality within the work place and promote diversity. The rules and laws to govern the workplace diversity are also something that the Australian system has been excellent in formulating (Bennington 1996, p. 3163-76). It is therefore, from this that we can also borrow most of the rules and laws to govern the workplace as we aim at promoting diversity and prevent discrimination. Borrowing from these rules is ideal in helping with the guidance in to how we handle practices of discrimination. More to what can be learned from the system is the work place ethics in all practices including issues to do with recruitment, retention, human welfare among many other issues that promote equity and fight discrimination. The Australian system is an effective one and would be of considerable help with some of these elements and as a guide to proper maintenance of workplace diversity. Conclusion Diversity within a working environment covers gender, ethnicity, age, language, cultural background, religious belief, family responsibilities and sexual orientation of the population within that environment. Work place diversity management provides ways of building an organization emphasizing individual and organizational performance. At the same time, it acknowledges the needs of the individual within the work place. This approach to management is an excellent one in the Australian context nut requires building an organizational culture that supports diversity among contributors within the organization through strategic processes for instance a cultural audit (Thomas 1991, p.92-108). It also engages the development of human resource policies that attempt to deal with the stereotypes of employees explicitly as well as other contributors and conditions of employment required to enhance performance. Discrimination and disadvantage are two broad concepts that feature in handling work diversity and this are what an organization should work to control. The Australian system has been an excellent example in providing the way forward including legal formulation of policies and acts governing the workplace diversity. The system has been an extraordinary strength and has seen work diversity practice succeed. Even with its weaknesses, learning from the same is ideal and incorporating an improvement to make the approaches better and facilitate work diversity. References Bennington, L 1996, Older workers: Myths, Evidence and Implications for Australian Managers, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 34, no. 3163-76 Brian, D 1999, Human resource practices and workforce diversity: an empirical assessment, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 20(8) p.530-547 Cope, B and Mary, K 1997, Productive Diversity, a New Australian Model for Work and Management, Pluto Press, p.178-201 Cox, T.H. and Blake, S 1991, Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness, Academy of Management Executive, vol. 5(3) 45-56 Ellen, E and Sharon, A 1996, Managing Diversity: Human Resource Strategies for Transforming the Workplace, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, p.56 Kramar, R 1996, “Equal employment opportunities,” in Warner; M. et al (Eds) International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, Routledge, London, p.567 Krautil, F 1995, "Managing Diversity in Esso-Australia,” in Davis E.M. and Harris C. (eds) Making the Link, no. 6, Affirmative Action Agency and Labour Management Studies Foundation, Sydney, p.67-87 Loden, M 1995, Implementing Diversity: Best Practices for Making Diversity Work in Your Organization, Irwin Professional Publishing, p.16-27 Loden, M. and Loeser, R. H 1991, Working Diversity: Managing the Difference, the Bureaucrat, spring: 21­25 Michael, L 1996, Corporate Practices in Diversity Management: a Research Report, Report No. 1164-96-RR, Conference Board, Ottawa, p.215-298 Napoli, J 1998, Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity: a Guide for the Workplace, Prentice Hall, Australia, p.178-198 Patrickson, M 1994, Workplace management strategies for a millennium, International Journal of Career Management, vol. 6, no 2:25-32 Robin, K 1998, Managing diversity: beyond affirmative action in Australia, Women in Management Review, 13(4) p.133-142 Saul, P 1996, Managing the Organization as a Community of Contributors, Asia-Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 34, no. 3:19-36 Stone, D 1996, A Model of Factors Affecting the Treatment of Disabled Individuals in organizations, Academy Management Review, vol. 21, no. 21352-401 Thomas, D. A. and Ely, R 1996, Making Difference Matter: Anew Paradigm for Managing Diversity, Harvard Business Review, September-October: 79-90 Thomas, R 1995, "A Diversity Framework,” in Chemers (ed.) Diversity in Organizations: New Perspectives for a Changing Workforce, Sage Publications, p.267-287 Thomas, R 1991, Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the power of your total workforce, New York: Amazon, p.92-108 Read More