Equal opportunity is one of the fundamental principles that guide recruitment and labor relations in the United States (Tomaskovic-Devey & Stainback, 2007). Employers are expected to ensure equality in their recruitment processes and in their management of their employees. For example, employers cannot discriminate against job applicants on the basis of such issues as gender, race or ethnicity. Despite the laws which forbid discrimination, there have been instances where employers display prejudice and intolerance. In such cases, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken action to defend employees (“EEOC Issues New”, 2014). The progress that the US has made in safeguarding the welfare of employees and tackling discrimination can be attributed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. The stated purpose of this Act is to “further promote equal employment opportunities for American workers” (EEOC, 1972). The Equal Employment Opportunity Act represents a milestone in the protection of workers in the US. This paper offers a discussion on various elements of the act. It begins with an overview of the history and constitutional background of the act. Next, the paper identifies the checks and balances that shape the implementation of the act. A discussion on how this act influences elections, public policy and is portrayed in the media is offered. The paper concludes with a look at how voting and the election process affect the act.
Historical and constitutional background
Historical background
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1972) has a long and complex history. This act came in the hills of a similar act that was enacted in 1964. To understand why the US Congress saw the need to enact this law, it is helpful to take a journey to the 19 th century. At this time, the US lacked laws that guaranteed the employment rights of all Americans. In fact, the US Congress actively encouraged and sanctioned discriminatory practices and policies. For example, the members of the black community were denied the employment protections afforded white employees (Rose & Chia, 1978). Racial discrimination in employment was rampant and routine. In the early 19 th century, the US made some progress in protecting such communities as African Americans. For example, the segregation policies that shaped federal employment were lifted in a number of federal agencies such as the Census Bureau (Rose & Chia, 1978). In the years leading to and following the Second World War, further progress was made as more blacks gained federal employment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1972) came into effect at a time when the US had taken steps to address racial divisions. Thanks to such laws as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the country prohibited various forms of discrimination.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Constitutional background
No discussion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1972) would be complete without an examination of the constitutional issues surrounding this act. Before the enactment of this law, the US already had laws that offered some protections to American workers. For instance, in 1883, the US enacted the Civil Rights Act. The primary goal of this act was to discourage federal agencies against favoritism in employment (Gold, 2011). In the following years, a number of significant legal developments took place. The Office of the President led some of these developments. For instance, in 1940, Execute Order 0948 was introduced. Basically, this policy prohibited discrimination on the basis of factors like one’s color or creed. Unfortunately, this policy only applied to federal agencies. Executive Order 10925 is another milestone that ushered a new era of employee rights and protections. Applying to federal agencies, this order built on Order 0948 as it prohibited employment discrimination. The Equal Pay Act (1963) and the Civil Rights Act (1964) set the stage for the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1972). As the title suggests, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 stipulated that employers must offer equal pay for the same amount of work that has been done. This act set out to address wage disparities. On the other hand, through Title VII, the 1964 Civil Rights Act transformed the employment landscape in the US. In addition to leading to the setting up of the EEOC, this act also made it clear that all forms of employment discrimination are unacceptable. The constitutional background of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 indicates that a number of policies and laws set the stage for the enactment of this act.
Checks and balances
In an effort to prevent abuses, the US has developed a system of checks and balances. This system imposes limits on laws, policies and powers. Various checks and balances are in place to limit the abuse and application of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. The doctrine of separation of powers is among the checks and balances. Basically, this doctrine holds that one arm of the government should not interfere with the operations of another (Masterman, 2010). As regard the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, the doctrine protects such arms of the government as Congress against lawsuits and interference from agencies like the EEOC (“Extending Equal Employment” 1980). While this does not mean that Congress may violate employment rules, it shields members of Congress against procedures and lawsuits which may disrupt the performance of their duties. The clause regarding speech and debate is another check which limits the application of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (“Extending Equal Employment” 1980). This clause implies that if while executing their mandate, legislators happen to violate employment laws, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1972) does not apply.
The undue disruption standard is another check that is intended to ensure balance and prevent over-reach (“Extending Equal Employment” 1980). This standard holds that an act which interferers with the constitutional mandate of an agency or branch of government may be suspended (Dishman & Murphy, 2007). Essentially, this act shields such bodies as Congress against the application of the provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. The undue disruption standard recognizes that there are exceptional yet legitimate instances where this act has to be suspended. The suspension allows government agencies to function effectively and discharge their constitutional mandates.
Public policy, elections and media
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 has had far reaching impacts on public policy and elections in the US. This act has also been the subject of extensive media coverage. Concerning public policy, this law compels government agencies to adopt fair practices in the management and recruitment of employees (Henderson, 1978). The act forbids discrimination of employees and job applicants based on issues that have nothing to do with merit. These issues include race, gender and color. Another impact that the act has had on public policy involves reporting and monitoring (Henderson, 1978). The act charges the EEOC with the mandate of monitoring the employment practices of companies to ensure compliance with the provisions of the act. As a result of the act, the US government has become a champion for equal employment.
The effect of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 on elections in the US is rather limited. The main effect of the act is that its provisions have become a policy issue. Those wishing to occupy political office have used the provisions of the act to seek public support. For example, the defining provision of the act is the requirement that all employers must adopt fair recruitment and employee management practices. To ensure compliance with this requirement, the act empowered the EEOC to pursue violators. In 1980, Ronald Reagan took a stance against the act, its provisions and the EEOC (Stainback & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2013). When he assumed office, he set out to limit the powers of the EEOC and allow employers greater freedom in how they run their affairs. The example of Reagan illustrates that the Equal Employment Opportunity Act has been a subject of elections.
Before examining the media portrayal of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, it is necessary to point out that for the most part, the media has hampered the implementation of this act. In addition to failing to ensure diversity in their workforces, the media also reinforces stereotypes regarding such issues as gender and race (Robinson, 1979). While news organizations have been negative in their depiction of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, there are some outlets and journalists who have been passionate defenders of this act. For example, female journalists led the campaign to promote inclusive and fair recruitment policies (Whyte, 2017). They worked tirelessly to challenge media organizations to move away from discriminatory recruitment practices. Time, Newsweek and NBC are among the news organizations whose female employers strived to ensure equality and fairness (Whyte, 2017). Overall, media organizations seem reluctant to support the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. Journalists who have borne the brunt of unfair labor practices are the ones pushing for strict compliance with the provisions of the act.
Voting and the election process
One is unable to gain a full understanding of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 without examining other laws which pursued similar objectives. For example, the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to promote civil liberties. The Voting Rights Act accorded all American citizens the right to vote (Schuit & Rogowski, 2017). This Act is responsible for the encouraging progress that the US had made in the representation of minorities in government. The act has not achieved this alone. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 has also emboldened and empowered communities. Before the enactment of this act, these communities endured discrimination and lacked equal access to employment opportunities. Therefore, since it pursues similar objectives as other laws which aim to promote civil liberties, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act has enhanced the voting and electoral processes in the US.
In an earlier section of the discussion, it was stated that Ronald Reagan turned the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 into an election issue. Consequently, this act had an impact on the voting process in the country. Since he won the 1980 elections, it is reasonable to argue that a majority of the American people were opposed to the provisions of the act. Reagan’s opposition to the act suggests that he did not defend civil rights. In his article, Drew Day III (1984) accuses Reagan of undermining the effort to promote civil rights in the US. This accusation reflects the impacts of such laws as the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 on the voting and electoral processes. This law galvanized the American people to oppose efforts to deliver reform and liberty to groups that had suffered discrimination for decades.
Conclusion
The US is leading the world in promoting the welfare of employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 is one of the tools that it uses to achieve this. This act stipulates that employers must refrain from using discriminatory practices when recruiting employees. This act was enacted after years of efforts to end discriminatory practices and policies. The act has transformed public policy and has had some effect on the voting and electoral processes in the US. Overall, this act has improved labor affairs in the US. For this reason, no resource should be spared in strengthening the act and ensuring full compliance with its provisions.
References
Days, D. S. (1984). Turning back the Clock: The Reagan Administration and Civil Rights. Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository. Retrieved March 19, 2018 from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2465&context=fss_papers
Dishman, M. L., & Murphy, D. R. (2007). The Fair Labor Standards Act in American Schools: A Guide for School Officials. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
EEOC Issues New Guidance Protecting Pregnant Workers. (2014). Retrieved March 19, 2018 From https://www.aclu.org/news/eeoc-issues-new-guidance-protecting-pregnant-workers
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1972). Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. Retrieved March 19, 2018 from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eeo_1972.html
Extending Equal Employment Opportunity Law to Congress. (1980). Retrieved March 19, 2018 From https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12em714.pdf
Gold, S. D. (2011). The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Marshall Cavendish.
Henderson, L. J. (1978). The Impact of Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 on Employment Opportunities for Women and Minorities in Municipal Government. Policy Studies Journal, 7 (2), 234-239.
Masterman, R. (2010). The Separation of Powers in the Contemporary Constitution: Judicial Competence and the Independence of the United Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, B. S. (1979). Achieving Diversity in Media Ownership: Bakke and the FCC. California Law Review, 67 (1), 231-255.
Rose, W. H., & Chia, T. P. (1978). The Impact of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 on Black Employment in the Federal Service: A Preliminary Analysis. Public Administration Review, 38 (3), 245-251.
Schuit, S., & Rogowski, J. C. (2017). Race, Representation, and the Voting Rights Act. American Journal of Political Science, 61 (3), 513-526.
Stainback, K., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2013). Research: Your Firm Probably isn’t an Equal Opportunity Employer. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved March 19, 2018 From https://hbr.org/2013/06/is-your-firm-really-an-equal-o
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Stainback, K. (2007). Discrimination and Desegregation: Equal Opportunity Progress in U.S. Private Sector Workplaces since the Civil Rights Act. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 609 (1), 49-84.
Whyte, M. (2017). Newsroom in Revolt. Retrieved March 19, 2018 from https://www.historytoday.com/marama-whyte/newswomen-revolt
