VII. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (AA)/ EMPLOYMENT EQUITY (EE) POLICIES AND PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, SOUTH AFRICA, THE EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES AND NETHERLANDS

DISCUSSION

TREVOR BAIN
University of Alabama

      The three papers provide the reader with a comparative view of affirmative action (AA) and employment equity (EE) policies and programs. Although each of the papers discusses a different country or countries, there are six generalizations that can be made. In no particular order, these are:

(1) The three papers deal principally with political, judicial, and legislative attempts to effect economic, social and organizational behavior.

(2) The general thrust in the countries covered, including the United States, has been to improve the labor market position of minorities and women through hiring, selection, placement and promotion.

(3) A group of disadvantaged, or minority groups, are specifically identified as the recipient of policies and programs.

(4) The government sector is often the primary target for these policies and programs. Government agencies are required to take action to improve the labor market position of the designated groups and women. Also targeted are private firms that do business with the government. Together, these two sectors will make up a large part of any economy whether socialist or free market. Private firms, without government ties, are often impacted on a voluntary basis, and small employers are exempt.

(5) AA and EE programs seek employment opportunities for the protected classes in each occupational category in proportion to their percentage of some defined population.

(6) The three papers briefly touch on the issue of evaluation of these AA and EE programs.

      I will discuss each of the three papers before turning to some concluding comments. John Wrench’s paper is different from those of Gunderson, Hyatt and Slinn and Jain in that it is written from the management perspective. Many of the public labor market programs in the United States have sought to influence the supply side of the market, leaving the demand side to macroeconomic policy. However, Wrench makes the point that employers may be sold on EE and diversity management if it can be shown that these programs improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency. For European politicians, the “angle”, and this is Wrench’s term, could be social inclusion in a Europe with continuing immigration issues. His paper is an excellent overview of what has been going on in diversity management and is a good introduction to the literature.

      I conducted a cursory review of a couple of the leading U.S. textbooks in managing human resources and found that they provide an excellent review of U.S. programs and policies--particularly, the proper and improper actions of managers in conforming to AA. Each of the texts now also includes a chapter on diversity management and point out to potential mangers, not only the ethical argument for diversity, but that discriminating against qualified employees hurts the organization in a changing labor market, where mergers, alliances and globalization require different cultures to work together.

      The paper by Morley Gunderson, Douglass Hyatt and Sara Slinn provides a brief review of legislated EE in Canada and the United States. Among its benefits is informing the reader of the issues related to collective bargaining. The authors point out that AA provisions are not common in agreements in Canada but that antidiscrimination provisions are found in more than half of the agreements. I find in my work as a labor arbitrator the same results for the United States. Agreements have very little on the subject of EE, but most contracts do include an article that prohibits discrimination and particularly sexual harassment. This is a difficult political issue for unions, since the aggrieved employee, as well as the person being charged, may both be union members.

      The paper by Harish Jain is different from the others. In Europe, Canada and the United States, there are white majorities and nonwhite minorities. However, in South Africa there is a nonwhite population that has transformed itself into a majority at the ballot box but not at the time clock in managerial the state of compliance.

      The major weakness of these papers is that they only brießy touch on the evaluation of programs. Evaluation is critical to public policy. The Gunderson, Hyatt, Slinn paper cites the best review of the U.S. economic literature in an article by Holzer and Neumark in the Journal of Economic Literature, September 2000.

      The reader is left with the thought that successful AA and EE in those countries discussed is a long ways from realization; that the political will is crucial if there is to be enforcement and a budget to Þnance this enforcement; that there is considerable resistance by employers and the public, as evidenced by reverse discrimination rulings, California Proposition 209, and other attacks on preferential treatment in university admissions.