Human Rights

Child labour is a curse upon the world that has, of course, existed for many centuries.  That it still exists at all, however, is a blight upon the world. 

What has changed, however, is society’s recognition of the issue – and its condemnation of it.  And, as a story in the New Zealand Herald illustrated this week, a child labour issue in one country – in which there may be no breach of law – can cause repercussions in others.  The story is about the tobacco company, Phillip Morris – which was forced to admit that child workers as young as 10 have been subjected to long hours working for it in Kazakhstan. 

What is interesting about the story is how – as a result of technology – the company could lose face in the Western world.  And – on a philosophical level – maybe it is this type of commercial and peer pressure that is more likely to redress the problem of child labour, rather than by attempting to legislate in those different countries against its existence. 

Also, this week, on a similar note – a story about Chinese labourers, and the increased pressure upon factories to recruit (and, correspondingly, the need to offer better terms and conditions for employees).  Perhaps the market has turned in favour of the Chinese labourer as well. 

Body art and tattoos traditionally pose some difficulties for employers (at least in certain industries where appearance is a key part of the role). 

On the one hand, employers like to allow an element of individuality – and must, of course, abide by Human Rights laws (which, amongst other things, do not allow discrimination on the basis of ornamentation worn as a genuine part of a religious belief). 

On the other hand, however, many workplaces wish to maintain a certain “look” or standard of appearance – which can be compromised by facial piercings and/or tattoos. 

Where lies the balance? 

This is an issue considered in the Workforce Management site – and the post is well worth a read.

A recruitment agency in the UK called Jobcentre Plus has been in the news twice over the over last fortnight after controversies over two different job advertisements.   

In the first, the agency refused to run an advertisement seeking “reliable” workers – on the basis that it discriminated against unreliable workers. 

In the second, the agency refused to place an ad for a “junior” hairstylist on the basis that it would be perceived as being aimed at young people thereby discriminating against older applicants. 

While discrimination in employment is a serious issue, surely this is at the “you must be joking” end of the scale?

A story this week from Work Matters about a US case in which the Court of Appeals will consider whether sexual stereotyping is a breach of the relevant Human Rights legislation. 

In brief, a woman who describes herself as having an “Ellen DeGeneres kind of look” was told that she was not “pretty” enough for her employer’s workplace. 

In essence, the complaint is that an employer should not have a fixed view about the way in which female employees should look. 

(and just on that note, wouldn’t you be a bit brave to say that Ellen isn’t “pretty” - or at least well presented for employment?)

In contrast, however, there is no breach of New Zealand’s Human Rights legislation if an employer chooses to hire on the basis of good looks.  In this case, therefore, if the employer considered that a prospective employee’s “look” was not “pretty” enough for its business, it could not be in breach of the Human Rights legislation for deciding not to hire her.   

This is a complex area – and the conclusion that I have offered above can be displaced if, for example, there are religious reasons for the person’s appearance.  This latest American case will be worth watching.

The Evil HR lady is, in fact, pretty much anything but evil – and her blog postings are often worth the read.   

This week she relays a situation in which an employer refused to hire a job candidate because that person’s sister had previously left the company on unfavourable terms. 

Curiously, the Evil HR lady concludes that the unsuccessful candidate would not have any basis for raising a discrimination claim under American law. 

But under New Zealand law the Human Rights Act specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of family status – which includes being a relative of a particular person. 

The more difficult issue, of course, for the candidate to confront is one of proof:  how could the woman demonstrate that she had been declined for a job because of the poor esteem in which her sister had been held? 

Food for thought.

It is, of course, quite fashionable (if not socially compulsory) to demonstrate some sensitivity towards the environment, and the sustainability of our resources.
But not everybody necessarily agrees about the way in which we should achieve our sustainability goals – and there are even those who still claim that this whole area is a fad, or a load of rubbish (no pun intended).
The English Employment Appeal Tribunal was recently asked to consider whether an employee could bring a claim alleging discrimination on the basis of a difference in philosophical belief about such issues.  It has received considerable publicity around the world as a ground-breaking consideration of the place and significance of philosophical beliefs in the workplace.

Read the rest of this entry »