DMGT Promotes Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in the Workplace - Essay Sample

Introduction

Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) is a British Media company renowned for its ownership of the Daily Mail. In Britain, it is illegal to discriminate based on age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marriage, and civil partnership status, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, race, or gender reassignment.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

DGMT is a company that believes in equality, diversity, and the inclusion of everyone. As such, it has proceeded to integrate the country’s equality legislation into its policies. Such policies ensure equal pay, benefits, and training opportunities to all. Further, no form of harassment or bullying is tolerated by the company.

DGMT has been keen to create awareness to its employees over the various form of discrimination that does exist and has proceeded to provide channels through which such complaints can be aired should they arise. Such clusters of discrimination include direct or indirect prejudice, associative discrimination, and perceptive discrimination.

Further, DGMT has a comprehensive code of conduct that helps to enhance its performance within ethical and legal frameworks. Their code of conduct cements its support for equality, diversity, and inclusion and that all decisions on recruitment, promotion, and salary increment are based on merit. That everyone has a right to equal opportunity and to be treated with respect and dignity.

DGMT provides a Speak Up Policy that provides guidance or authority for anyone having concerns or any employee who feels discriminated. Such complaints taken seriously are acted upon promptly. The goal of the company is to provide a safe and healthy working environment where everyone feels respected and appreciated.

Wal-Mart

The company has previously faced one of the most significant gender discrimination cases ever brought against any employer. The plaintiffs alleged being denied equal pay for performing similar jobs or holding similar positions to their male counterparts.

The supreme court opted against making a ruling on the merits of the claims, and instead decided that the case was too large to be regarded as a class-action lawsuit, forcing the complainant to seek individual or regional reprieve against Walmart.

Women were considered for employment but never provided with the opportunity for growth or promotion within the company. Men, on the other hand, were always placed in sections where opportunities for promotions and pay increment were adequately available.

Recently, in response to public pressure arising from advocacy groups and pending lawsuits, Walmart changed its absence policy. Previously, women who were forced to be absent from work owing to pregnancy-related issues were forcefully relieved of their duties. This was a direct violation and disregard of the New York State Pregnancy Accommodation Law. The new policy corrects this unethical malpractice.

Walmart, on the other hand, has continuously communicated and issued a response denying the allegations. Each time, it has proceeded to encourage the women who felt aggrieved or that they had been unfairly treated to take their claims to court.

Ethically, Walmart being the world’s largest employer in the private sector, it sets a dangerous precedence for all other prospective companies that look up to them. The efforts to have a more equitable society are drawn back.

How effective has this diversity law been at eliminating discrimination from the workplace?

In the United Kingdom, the UK Employment Equality Law prohibits prejudice in the workplace. It is a critical component of the UK Labor Law. The primary legislation from which they both derive their authority is the Equality Act 2010 that prohibits any form of discrimination.

DGMT has done well to base its policies on discrimination in the workplace on the Equality Act 2010. The effectiveness of this policy is that employees feel safe, valued, and respected at the workplace. As a result, equality in pay is guaranteed; any forms of harassment or bullying are unwelcome and have dire consequences. The consequences could amount to summary dismissal.

Further, to encourage their speak-up policy, their policies have incorporated an anti-retaliation system. This policy makes it unlawful to go after an employee for having reported a case of discrimination or harassment. After investigation, should there have been no case of the violation found, no action shall be taken against the employee who filed the complaint? This is in light of good faith.

On the other hand, despite the never-ending discrimination allegations against Walmart, they have released numerous policy statements shunning discrimination. Walmart insists that they are committed to ensuring a diverse and inclusive workplace for all. Further, they ask that they are focused on providing a workplace that is free from any form of discrimination to all its stakeholders, i.e., employees, consumers, suppliers, etc.

Walmart’s anti-discriminatory policies are reliant on the US federal law that makes it illegal to discriminate against an employee. It prohibits any form of direct or indirect, intentional discrimination based on the employee’s religion, sex, color, etc.

Such authoritative frameworks help provide the basis for uprooting discrimination in the workplace.

References

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/18/walmart-gender-discrimination-supreme-courthttps://time.com/5586423/walmart-gender-discrimination/

https://www.dmct.org/anti-discrimination-and-anti-harassment-policy

https://www.walmartethics.com/content/walmartethics/en_us/statement-of-ethics/our-workplace/discrimination-and-harassment-prevention.html

https://knowledge.leglobal.org/anti-discrimination-laws-in-usa/