Auto Workers vs. Johnson Controls
Today, in twenty first century; Health and Safety, diversity and involvement are of outmost importance for the multibillion corporations like Johnson Control Inc. The management of the company makes sure that employees are selected fairly, have safe workplaces and comply with general corporate ethics – “We work to eliminate discrimination and harassment in all of its forms, including that related to color, race, gender, sexual preference, age, pregnancy, caste, disability, union membership, ethnicity or religious beliefs.” 1 – But this was quite different before 1991, when Corporation’s safety and health regulations first came into conflict with equal opportunity laws and regulations. Back at that time, “fetal protection” policy adopted by the country’s biggest automobile battery manufacturer, kept young women capable of bearing children out of unsafe workplaces. The policy (adopted by Johnson Controls Inc. in 1982) applied to all women, except those who could provide medical proof of sterility. However, this ‘ethical behavior’ of the company is deemed discriminatory and unlawful. The problem is that any policy of this sort violates the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 2, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. The reason for this is that policy of the J.C. specifically excluded females with certain biological characteristics. Another issue is that male individuals were also subject to health hazards, but policy failed to exclude them - “There is also a growing body of evidence that lead affects sperm and can harm the offspring of men” 3
There is only one exception when employment discrimination is justified and criteria for that is ability to do a job. In our case, despite the health risks associated with the job, pregnant women can still perform pretty well. It’s only up to the individuals applying for the job to decide whether to take the risks or not – companies shouldn’t judge on the behalf of the employees.
In 1991, after facing the decision of Supreme Court, Johnson Control Inc.’s management had to make a decision – they didn’t have an easy choice, decision had to satisfy ruling of the court and at the same time protect interests of the business. If I were the manager facing the same issue, I would revise whole exclusion policy. My suggestion is to remove whole section related to pregnancy and sterility – instead, a little advice or notification, on the behalf of company, of the risks involved would be enough. It’s not up to the company to decide instead of certain individuals, it’s better to let them judge on their own.
I’d provide a brief informational video about the hazards of working with lead – this would be allot easier, both time and expense wise, than going through individual medical statements to find sterile women. And it would work well for scaring off potential mothers. In the new policy, I would eliminate part where its asked to provide medical documentation that particular women is unable to bear children – this would make human resource managers life a bit more easier, and recruiting new employees allot more easier. This new policy would be neutral, apply to male employees in the same way as it applies to females.
While applying for the job in the Johnson Control, in addition to the informational video, I would require every person despite sex, age or race, to sign document that lists all the negative effects of the workplace. This document would make sure that every person is knowledgeable about risks, and if he/she still wants to continue with the application process it’s all up them to decide – I would make sure that individuals aren’t limited to workplaces through policies which come in conflict with law. I would suggest including detailed research on the effects of lead, and in what way it’s dangerous for people who want to have kids. Everything this, with the video to have strong visual impact on the person watching, will make sure that people who don’t really want to sacrifice their offspring for the job stay away themselves and don’t get involved. So workforce will be filtered on their end, not on through company policies.
To sum up what has been said already, it’s important to remember that managerial decisions have greater impact on the life of the organization - therefore, the changes should be planned in the scope of law. Manager should always think about the legal rights of participating sides and make sure that nothing crosses the line of law. Manager should deal with the current issues always having future perspective in mind – establishing ethical practices to avoid future problems is a good idea. Different manager might come up with different solutions for similar problems, but I believe amending policy to comply with sex neutrality, occupational safety and health care regulations is an important way of guaranteeing long life and profitability of the company.
1http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/corpvalues/ethics.htm
2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
3http://nytimes.com/