Maximizing Employee Performance: Challenges of HRM - Essay Sample

Introduction

Human resource management (HRM) is a practice of managing an organization employee's, deploying, hiring, and recruiting. In most organizations, human resource managers also deal with issues concerning employee training, motivation, wellness, safety, organization development, performance management and compensation. As such, human resource is a section that deals with employment and managing workers. However, there have been challenges that have befallen the area in most organizations, such as discrimination during hiring, among others. This lead to the development of various labour acts that are meant to safeguard the well-being of employees both in private and public organizations. As it may, it is a duty of the HRM, to ensure that these acts are followed to the latter in their organization. Though some of these acts have not produced the most desired results, most of them have improved the well-being of employees. This essay analyses various human resource legislation acts, their effects on the workplace, workers and managers.

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

Save 25%

Civil Rights Act (Title VII) (1964)

This is one of the human resource legislation. The right public act is a federal law that prohibits employers from any form of discrimination toward employees in terms of religion, nationality, colour, race and sex. For this act to be applicable in a public organization, it must have at least 15 employees and above which include local government, state or federal government. However, the act is also applicable to labour organizations, employment agencies, and public and private universities and colleges. The enforcement of the civil right act is conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Whenever a potential employee or an employee faces any discriminatory laws by an employer or potential employers in bases of aspects highlighted under Civil Rights Act (Title VII) (1964), the victim has the right to report the matter to EEOC for enforcement. If the employer or the potential employer is found guilty of an act of discrimination, he/she will be entitled to employment discrimination damages. Damages might include payment for pain and suffering or payback for the wage lost (Brief, 2018). An employee may also be entitled to promotion, reinstatement, or other corrective measures.

However, there are specific requirements for an individual to file a case with the EEOC. One of the requirements is that a victim must have experienced any form of discrimination covered in this act. The other thing is that a victim must file a case with the EEOC within 180 days or 300 if local or state law applies after the incident. The organization must also have 15 employee and above, 20 and above in case of age discrimination, but gender discrimination is applicable for virtually all employers (Weiss, 2019). However, if EEOC fails to pursue an example, a victim also has a right to file a lawsuit.

In my opinion, the application of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) (1964) has been effective in reducing overt discrimination in the workplace, such as sexual assaults and gender discrimination in the workplace. For example, an analysis that was conducted by (Kugele et al., 2017), indicated that women now occupy more than 30% of the jobs that were traditionally meant for male-only since the introduction of the civil right act (1964). However, most of the covert discriminations persist. We can say that reduction of its effectiveness has been due to continuous interpretation of the act which has been narrowing its coverage. A good example is how the Supreme Court has limited the law from protecting the minority group in employment discrimination. In a case between Griggs v. Duke Power Co (1971), Griggs the plaintiff had sued Duke Power Company for discriminating him over lack of requirements that do not involve his job performance. According to the civil right act 1964, asking for conditions that are not related to job performance to the minority group is a violation of the statute even when there is no discriminatory intent. However, in this case, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no intent for discrimination, and hence this action did not violate this act (Siegel, 2019). This, therefore, limits the scope of the law to safeguard the rights of minority groups' employment rights.

Civil Rights Act (1991)

This act was passed as a response to particular issues that were found in the human right act of 1984. This act limited the right of the employee who sues the employer for discriminatory. It provided aspects such as freedom for a trial by jury. It introduced the possibility of emotional distress as damage and the right for women to correct punitive and compensatory damage for sexual harassment and discrimination. However, it also set the maximum award that one can receive to $300, 000. Unless in the human right act 1984, this act has no limit on several employees should have to be covered by this act. EEOC is the institution responsible for enforcing this act, but filling a lawsuit is also allowed. A victim should report the case within 60 days.

In my opinion, the Civil Rights Act (1991) has been effective in reducing some covert discrimination that has not been controversial in civil right act 1984. According to (Bagyi & Becker, 2012), human right act 1991 was influenced by different cases that involve employers while neutral in their faces which end up being detrimental to the protected group in human right act 1964. The essence of business necessity was examined in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989), which involve hiring practices of two companies in Alaska. In this case, Supreme Court ruled that employers can avoid liability by showing a business justification that causes a particularly disparate impact which would shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff to prove a specific action lacked business justification. This case, therefore, narrowed the scope of human right act 1964 in protecting minority groups in particular jobs. However, the CRA of 1991 altered this by placing the burden of proof to that individual practice is required in a business necessity where issues with less impact on the protected group would be considered as insufficient. As such, this acts helps in reducing some hidden discrimination such as religious discrimination where members of a specific religion are denied employment. However, their faith has less or no impact on that job necessity.

Social Security Act (1935)

This act was established in 1935 as a system for aid for the physical aid, the blind, dependent children and mothers, unemployment aid, benefits for victims of industrial accidents, and old-age benefit for workers. The requirement for a person to be covered by this act is in these categories as defined by law. For example, for any person who gets an accident in the workplace is entitled to compensation by an organization (Marmor & Mashaw, 2017). The social board is the institution that is supposed to register the beneficiaries of social security acts.

In my opinion, social security act has improved the well-being of many Americans in the workplace and after retirement. For example, a study that was conducted by (Whitman, Freedman, & Emerman, 2018) indicated that the life expectancy of the American employees after retirement has increased by 18% after introduction of social security act of 1935. The other aspect is the improvement of employee safety in the workplace. In addition to ensuring various elements that affect the lives of employees, safety is also a necessity. HRM is supposed to ensure the safety of the employees. Before social security act 1935, there was no compensation for employees who are injured in workplaces. This led to an increase of injuries at workplaces which resulted in no positive response from the HRM side. However, according to (Marmor & Mashaw, 2017), workplace safety has gradually improved by more than 50% since the introduction of social security act 1935.

National Labor Relations Act (1935)

National labour relation act (NLRA) was enacted by the senate in 1935 to protect the rights of employers and employees. It was meant to enable collective bargaining and to prohibit certain management practices and private sector labour practices which are detrimental to the general welfare of U.S economy, businesses and public well-being or workers. The act requires fare payment and treatment for employees. This act covers most private-sector employees, but supervisors, independent contractors, agricultural labourers and government employees are not included. The enforcement of NLRA is done by the labour relation board, which protects employees' right to engage in a concerted. The requirement is the presence of two or more employees who decide to take action regarding the improvement of their mutual terms of employment condition. This act has improved the rights of employees in workplaces. Human resource managers have also been cautious not to violate employee rights to avoid possible collective reaction of the workers (Frymer, 2019). Besides, through labour unions, employees from different sectors have been able to bargain in terms of jobs such as working hours and salaries.

In my opinion, though the National Labor Relations Act (1935) has been viewed as a dismal failure in improving the rights of the employees, it has done a recommendable job in promoting industrial peace. According to Wachter (2012), before the enactment of NLRA, and the amendments that followed, such as Taft-Hartley amendments, there was intense and frequent violence in our industry which threatened the American economic stability. A good example is the Great Railway Strike of the 1870s, which spread through numerous major cities interrupting business operations. In the strike, more than 20000 cars were destroyed, about 80 buildings and 24 people died. However, statistic shows that there has been a period of industrial peace with no such significant strikes. It proves that NLRA has provided workers and employers with the firm ground to conduct their bargains.

Fair Labor Standards Act (1938)

This act was created to set the minimum wage to overpay of time-and-a-haft when an employee works over 40 hours in a week. It also protects oppressive labour for the minors. In this case, juveniles are defined as children below the age of 18 years. This act applies for workers engaged in the production of goods for commerce or enterprise engaged in trade. As such, every employee in for-profit are protected by this act where the burden to prove that particular employment does not fall in this act requirement is for the employers. Both part-time and full-time employee in local, state and federal category are covered in this act. However, the bill excludes employers with less than $500,000 in sales annually (Bailey, DiNardo, & Stuart, 2018). As such, it covers nearly all the workplaces.

In my opinion, FLSA is among the labour act that has been successful in improving the well-being of workers in America. It also increased employment opportunities and reduced children who lacked the education to work in industries. According to Bailey, DiNardo, and Stuart (2018), the establishment of FLSA was an equivocal success. Before its introduction, there was a lot of workers mistreatment, especially during the great depression. Adults, as well as underage workers below 14 years, were forced to work for long hours with low wages. However, unique research that was done by the Bureau of Statistic realized that after the enactment of this act, various labour issues changed. Pays for more than 70000 employees rise, the working hours for more than 1.5 million workers reduced, and more than 600, 000 children were saved from under-age employment. As such, the act increased employment chances for adult Americans while guaranteeing them right working conditi...