Friday 6 August 2010

Equality in the Workplace

The government recently announced that it was going to abolish the compulsory retirement age of 65 in the UK. This means that, while people can retire at 65 if they want to, they do not have to retire if they want to carry on working. Many people thought that forcing people to retire at 65, when they are perfectly healthy and capable of doing their jobs, was an example of "ageism", or discrimination against older employees in the workplace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1170047.stm

The last 50 years has seen a lot of legislation in the UK intended to force employers to treat their workers, and prospective workers, equally. For example, it is now illegal to pay an employee less because she is a woman. Also, when firms interview applicants for a job, they can not discriminate against a prospective employee on the grounds that they are a woman, or disabled, or gay, or anything else that is not directly connected with how capable they are of doing the job.

What's more, a lot of pressure has been put on employers to get rid of the "glass ceiling" whereby there is an invisible limit on how high in the organisation an employee can rise, if they are from one of the aforementioned groups.

Another target of legislation has been nepotism, a practice whereby the family members of high ranking employees are given jobs within the organisation, not because they are qualified to do the work, but simply because they are family members.

Successive governments in Britain have set themselves the target of turning Britain into a meritocracy- in other words a society in which people progress and do well not because they belong to a particular group or class, but though their own hard work and ability. How well they have succeeded is open to question, but the importance of creating a meritocracy has been widely accepted.

What do you think? Is a meritocracy the best way to organise the workplace, or are there sometimes other considerations? Perhaps you believe that a private company has the right to employ whoever they want? What is the situation in your country? Is it a meritocracy? Does it try to be, or is this not considered so important?

Write a comment or a new posting and tell us what you think.





5 comments:

  1. I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT, IF ANYONE HAS THE ABILITY TO DO HIS JOB GOOD ENOUGH, HE CAN STAY AS LONG AS HE WANTS.


    REGARDS,
    AZIZ
    HAN
    :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi

    We agree that about what written in many points.
    We think that Mertiocracy is the best way to organise the work place and we have to avoid some negative things such as ageism, sexism, discrimination and racism.

    Best Regards,
    Mohammed Alshomrany and Taraq

    ReplyDelete
  3. In our opinion meritocracy seems to be the best way to organise because working opportunities should be provided to everyone equally. However, family businesses have effective aspects such as good relationships.
    Carry and Yukiko

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am agreed with that to some extent.Sometimes elites can make a high-effcience in the work because people who is self-ego and full of confidence.Moreover,they can cooperate with each other very well.In addtion,hiring the employment depends on different companies.Sometimes companies are focus on employee's ability,other times,it depends on their relationship with bosses or leaders of companies.


    Yufei WENG
    faisal ALSUBAIE

    ReplyDelete
  5. it is obvious that all the people would like to gaurantee their life by keeping their jop.Whereas, other young people might have no opportunity to find job.Therefore,old people should give chancr for the young
    i totaly agree with age 65

    ReplyDelete