Are private beliefs the legitimate concern of employers? Essay

Employers should be concerned with most of what thither employee believes in, however tete-a-tete beliefs may be taking this too far. An employer should be watchful of their employees, to make sure that they dont get in to trouble, and are not woe from stress. It is in the employers best interests that this is done so that the employee is the most productive that he or she can be. However in a world where peoples privacy is becoming less and less, is it right for an employer to be concerned with the private beliefs of their employee? I think that it is, because the welfare of the employer and all of the workers could in the most extreme case be in jeopardy.We have controversy concerning employee privacy. Today workers every keystroke leaves a trail of information that employers generally have the legal right to examine and use as the basis for disciplinary action against employees. Employees have been fired because of the content of e-mails or for surfing to internet sites deemed inappropriate by the employer. Employees have been forced to supply piddle samples for drug testing, given personality tests in moving in interviews, and secretly videotapedeven in smart set restrooms. Yet very few laws protect employee privacy the semipolitical power of business has been able to f hold back off most attempts to limit employer discretion. A few notable exceptions exist for example, federal law prohibits employers from administering lie-detector tests in job interviews.If an employer is trying to hire a fundamentalist, or a freedom fighter for example, then I think that it is in the employers benefit that they know this information. It is in the interests of the companys security that this information should be known to them. The worlds growing diversity cultural, racial, ethnic and religious, poses significant challenges and opportunities for the corporate workplace. The transformation from a relatively homogenous familiarity to the present multicultural situat ion calls for special efforts to foster a work environment free from intimidation, harassment and discrimination, and which promotes productivity and a strong bottomline.Unfortunately, the very programs knowing to reduce problems are actually creating new ones. The issue of sexual orientation within diversity training courses is particularly problematic, and the topic of heated discussions. While there is a genuine need to address the issues raised by employees who identify as gay or lesbian, many current attempts to do so end up discriminating against other employees. Given the strong feelings and sensitivities that surround the subject of private beliefs and feelings, poses a difficult challenge to employers.If business survival depends upon contented and devoted employees who sense that their beliefs and values are respected, then focus upon sexual orientation as a diversity category is clearly counter-productive. For a great many Americans, the celebration of diversity is a th inly disguised attempt to legitimize a behavior that they believe to be immoral and, what is more, to persuade them to change their beliefs. finesse in the workplace can resolve potential religious discrimination problems before they become legal suits. If an employer is truly seeking to affirm the diversity of the workforce, for some(prenominal) moral and practical reasons, avoidance of all forms of coercive sensitivity training, of whatever kind, should be the norm. Apart from the promotion of specific social agendas, there is no need to require employees to endure lectures, presentations, role playing or simulations that are an affront to deeply held moral and religious beliefs.Civility programs recognize and acknowledge the objective differences that exist between people, differences of experience and belief. Yet, in spite of these differences, it is likely to work with others different from oneself in positive and productive ways, even when strongly held beliefs differ and c lash. It is possible to be civil toward those with whom we disagree, and to build a significant degree of unity and community in the workplace. For companies who seek to be globally competitive, this is a necessity.