1. Government intervention has more power than consumer boycott to end discriminatory practices
Let the record show that corporations and businesses fear government regulations for a very good reason. That reason is that it causes a slew of consequences that hit them in their pockets. There are very few examples of consumer awareness and activism bringing down a corporation or a business with absolutely no government support. There are even times where, even with big government support, consumers were unable to stop businesses from unethical practices. Lets get into how governments can be powerful tools for the people and how, without government support, consumer awareness and activism would do little good against unethical businesses. The government can make businesses disclose unethical practices that they may wish to keep hidden from consumers, they can levy hefty fines, they can wield heavy taxes, they can even go so far as to seize incredibly unethical companies or firms and/or their CEO's or owners. Even the strongest consumer bases cannot stop unethical businesses in as swift a way as governments can. It may take several years before a company "goes under" because of unethical practices and this doesn't stop the owner or majority share holders from making money and doing the damage to communities that comes with discrimination.
For an example, take Mike Jeffries at Ambercrombie and Fitch. He was accused of discriminating against plus sized women causing consumer activism, a lot of people boycott Ambercrombie and Fitch clothing including big name celebrities. Despite a slight drop in sales, the company did not stop its discriminatory messages and Jeffries kept making $1.5 Billion dollars. What really began to hit the stock price, was the lawsuits that were coming out over his discriminatory hiring practices. The company had been sued at least 5 different times for a variety of discriminant cases including ethnic discrimination and ageism. Because these lawsuits were being won, consumers decided to shop there less. The government also imposed fines on the company for discrimination and kept a heavy watch on any future cases. Through a combined effort of government legal battles and consumer pressure, Mike Jeffries had stepped down. This does not mean that the company is going to stop being discriminatory, so the battle is far from over. The point though, is to demonstrate that government intervention is a tool that can help stop discrimination in ways that consumers cannot, as well as help consumers in their own endeavors.
2. Consumer awareness and action are not always enough
This segues into the next point which is similar to the first. While the last point demonstrated government capability, this point demonstrates the shortcomings of average consumers in their attempts to stop unethical and discriminatory practices. There are many ways that companies can be discriminatory without bringing attention to themselves as being so. Michigan is an At Will state and therefore does not have to provide you with a reason for why you get fired, if they fired you because you were gay you may have no idea that was the reason. It may take a long time for people to know enough to "out" companies as being racist, homophobic, or sexist. Or say you live in a small town in the Midwest. Often times these towns have a corporate headquarters, or a mine, a factory, a mill, a corporate farm etc... that runs the monopoly of employment in that area. If they decide to discriminate against members of the community, it can have economically devastating effects. Not to mention a boycott may cost others their livelihood and is consistently unlikely in these situations. Lawsuits though, call in the government or the power of the law, to safeguard against any harm caused by employment discrimination. Many Libertarians and Republicans would argue that another company would resurface in the area creating economic opportunity, but this is an unsubstantiated theory and we will discuss this later. They might also argue that the discriminated against may move, but this limits their freedom to live where they would like to live because of economic ostracism - this does not sound like a free society to me. So given the lack of power employees and consumers have in certain situations, the government can be an effective tool for change.
To demonstrate that a boycott or consumer activism falls short without government support, the Chick - Fil - A case offers good insight. Chick - Fil - A engages in discrimination covertly by donating money to organizations that discriminate against members of the LGBT community and regularly violate gay rights. It took some serious digging to find this out. When consumers did find this out, there were widespread boycotts and condemnation of the restaurant. The restaurant continued to blunder through what many thought was a PR nightmare. It turns out though, that Chick - Fil - A is thriving, potentially doing better even. Of course, it isn't illegal to give your money to organizations that actively discriminate (I don't believe it should be, that isn't the point of this) and so there is no government intervention that turns up the pressure on this company to do the right thing. This is only one demonstration of how consumer activism can fall short without government action.
3. Free Market principles are only theories and may or may not come true
As stated before, Libertarians and Republicans believe that discrimination is wrong, but that it will be rooted out without government intervention. They think that by allowing the right to discriminate, through volunteerism and other free market theories, the problem will solve itself. Say you have a company that discriminates against black members of the surrounding community, here are some things that could happen according to free market theoretical situations: the company stops discriminating because it becomes less profitable to do so (either consumers make it less profitable via boycott or economic exclusion becomes nonsustaining), a rival business surfaces and offers business to everyone/just the discriminated against communities, internal company pressure forces new leadership (and I'm sure there are more). This is all possible, but this is also only a theory. There is no proof that these things would happen and allowing safety net regulations to be cut based on a theory with no proof is reckless and could cause greater overall harm. This is not to mention the historic examples of these theories not happening, making government intervention necessary (see the race riots Detroit). And even with government regulations and protections, there were over 93,000 charges of employment discrimination filed last year (2013), which says nothing of the unreported cases.
In the Economics of Discrimination by Gary Becker, trends of discrimination in companies are studied and labeled Taste-based discrimination. His studies show that unless drastic efforts are made to make all people as near equal as possible in the public eye and in qualification (and they are not in 2014, see section 5) then companies will continue to discriminate. He acknowledges that diverse companies have the likelihood of being more profitable, but he does not believe they have that in mind when they do their hiring or performance reviews. When the perception of a whole group of people is of a low status, companies will hire and pay that group of people less. In part 5 I will go over exactly why the perception of certain groups is of low value, but assuming they are - according to Becker hiring and paying these groups competitively is not seen as an economically profitable decision. Further, these employees, because of the societal view of them, must work harder to justify their hire and rate of pay. This means it isn't just overt forces of racism that cause discrimination to occur, it is a more subtle racism that free market theories don't even begin to acknowledge in their solutions (again, refer to section 5).
4. Religious freedoms and freedom from the government should not be manifested in discrimination
This section is short and to the point. Religious freedom is important, so is living without the tyranny of law. However protecting citizens against discrimination is not an over reach of government power. Seeking to justify discrimination because certain religions don't wish to offer goods and services to certain groups of people is cultural relativism. This means we are acknowledging that discriminating against LGBT, though wrong, is morally right for that religion/culture and therefore they should have the freedom to do it. Yet our laws should not be dictated by cultural relativism because what is right for one culture or religion is not right for everyone. If we deem discrimination as a harmful act, as we all should because it is harmful, then we should not let any religion or culture do harm to any citizen only on the grounds that their religion says it is morally admissible to do so. We would not let men stone women because their religion dictates they do this in certain instances, so too should we not allow discrimination on the grounds of religion. Put simply, the freedom of one should not inhibit the freedom of another as much as can be legally controlled. If my religious practices are forcing you to move out of the community you live in or forcing you to be serviced/provided goods at a separate and potentially unequal business, then my religious practices should not be protected under the law.
5. There are large systemic problems in America that play a role in taste based discrimination
As stated before, the Libertarian/Republican theories of free market tend to ignore the problems of a more subtle and systemic problem. This means that the problems are more a result of a broken system and the subsequent perceptions than people's overt hatred of others. Many Americans may feel uncomfortable around gay people, they may feel women in power are bitchy, they may perceive black people as lazy. The largely constructed inequality among those in power and those without it is very black and white...literally. With inherent and constructed inequalities in this system it is easy for those in positions of power to look down on the societal status of those in need (even just in need of a job) by examining their marriage status, their education, their every day economic decisions. Yet gays cannot get married in many states, minorities generally have less access to education, and those in need often make poor economic decisions. It is true that not every minority is in need, not every gay person is without a partner, not every economically disadvantaged person is economically irresponsible - however the perception exists and this feeds a subconscious, taste based discrimination when it comes to selective employment and pay grades (see section 3) as well as who you offer your products to. These subconscious tendencies can ensure that discrimination will exist until these large systemic problems are fixed and they are far from being fixed.
For example look at the inequality between blacks and whites. Humanitarian and New York Times editorial author Nicholas Kristoff points to data that shows:
The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.)The income gap is 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967, black boys have a 5 year shorter life expectancy of white boys, Black students are significantly less likely to attend schools offering advanced math and science courses than white students, they are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled, and because of massive incarceration and inequalities in the justice system, black men are 70% more likely to go to jail (making it harder to get a job). Whatever is going through your head while you read those statistics could be going through the head of recruiters, hiring managers, CEOs, small Business owners etc...These problems are deep seeded and will remain because of government action and government inaction, as well as action on the behalf of American citizens. Until these problems are widespread addressed, discrimination will be a very real institution in our nation, despite what year it is.
So...
Obviously the government is far from perfect and obviously there are exceptions to everything that was said. Obviously not every company given the right to discriminate will. Obviously there are companies run by gay men, women, minorities. The larger point is that we should not be relying on theories to protect us from unethical business practices, but rather aggressively protective legislation. Discrimination is just one unethical practice, many Libertarians and Republicans would like to do away with environmental regulations and regulations protecting against consumer fraud. Yet, with employment discrimination it is a particularly vile plot. With employment comes empowerment and to legally protect businesses who discriminate against anyone on any unethical ground, is to encourage the dismantling of the economic empowerment belonging to those who are discriminated against. It makes matters worse. If it is true that young people are forward thinking and progressive, if it is true that we value diversity, then we would send any politician cutting protections for our already oppressed fellow citizens a clear message: we will not stand for discrimination of any kind, we demand legal protection for those being discriminating against, and we demand that the government stop this insidious plan to render itself obsolete in order pad its own bank account.
No comments:
Post a Comment