Table of Contents
Scholars describe the process of interview during hiring of employees as a detailed process that needs strict adherence to legal considerations. Different business firms are charged with the responsibility of conforming to the stipulated legal considerations in carrying out their recruitment (Karsten, 2006). However, not all business agencies achieve a hundred percent adherence to the legal requirements. One such business firm which fall short of these requirements was an Asian based company called Weir Minerals that at one time discriminated most of interviewees on varied basis. This occurred while recruiting its employees in East Africa. This paper examines the various aspects of legal infraction committed by this company during the interview process. The aspects examined include the cause of infraction, that could have been done differently to prevent this outcome, lessons learnt from this experience and finally the negative implications posed to this company as a result of this.
What led to the legal infraction for the company?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that job requirements should be uniformly administered to everyone without any sort of discrimination (Nittle, 2011). The inception of this company in East Africa was characterised by rampant discrimination based on race during interview. Several discriminatory ways clearly discouraged by the interview legal framework graced virtually every recruitment exercise. Though not directly displayed, it was evident that Weir Minerals Company favoured interviewees of Asian origin than other racial groups of people. For instance, interviewees from other races were subjected to questions about knowledge and skills not related to the job in question. For example, the engineers were asked questions related to accounting. This had the sole goal of making them fail the interview which is against the legal requirements of a fair interview.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Later revelation showed that this company opted for this legal infraction because it had least trust working with employees of other races. This resulted from previous prejudgement of these races as they were displayed as lazy and irresponsible. (Paetkau, 2007). However, this stereotyped perception lacked substantive background. As a result, this company opted to use that form of discrimination to avoid hiring these people, which is contrary to the law.
What could the company have done differently to prevent this outcome?
To prevent this outcome, the company is required to do a detailed research about people of other races and their attitude towards work prior to its establishment in the region. Through this, a possibility of coming up with policies and values that unite all employees irrespective of their race in achieving a common goal for the company is guaranteed. People’s attitude towards work and trust are personal irrespective of their racial origin and thus, a collective opinion cannot be used to judge a given race.
How did this situation hurt the company?
This situation posed adverse effects on the operation and viability of this company in this region. The company faced rebellion from the locals as they viewed them as those who came to exploit their resources without benefiting the locals. The business environment turned extremely hostile to Weir Minerals Company with its profits dropping down to unbearable levels.
What was the lesson learned from this experience?
From this experience, the company learnt that the need to incorporate everyone and treat every person equally in the business market is essential. It became evident that the legal considerations of governing the interview process are meant to benefit both the business people and employees at the same time.
In summary, racial discrimination due to stereotyped beliefs proved the major legal infraction to face Weir Minerals Company during its establishment in Africa. The prevention of this included researching about job beliefs of these people and setting objective policies to achieving a common goal. This legal infraction set a hostile business environment to the company showing the need to adhere to legal considerations during the interview.