How to Tackle Human Rights Issues at Work?
It is unfortunate that workplace human rights issues have not been properly understood by the managers and supervisors because of its complex nature. The onus of preventing human rights violations is the responsibility of management professionals in charge of workplace.
The third report to the UN Human Rights Council, submitted earlier this year, outlines a new policy framework for human rights at work place that comprises three core principles
-Governments’ duty to protect human rights
-Corporate responsibility to respect human rights
-The need for greater access by victims to effective remedies
These core principles have been endorsed by major international business associations and leading international human rights organizations alike. As a follow-up, chief executives from around the world have issued a call to action to renew their commitment to the protection of human rights in the spirit of the Universal Declaration. Organized by the United Nations Global Compact and already signed by nearly 250 business leaders from 68 countries, the CEO Statement is an expression of serious intent.
More than ever before, business leaders around the world seem to agree that the protection of human rights, beyond its moral and ethical compulsion, also make good business sense. Ensuring decent and safe workplace conditions, promoting non-discrimination and equitable justice and fair play in employment, respecting and safeguarding the rights of employees have all become central issues to the long-term sustainability of business.
At the same time, a lot more still needs to be done to make managements understand their basic responsibility to respect human rights and the steps companies need to take to ensure that they are living up to the laid down codes. Even the most committed managers say they need more practical and authoritative guidance on what human rights mean and how these issues can best achieved in their day-to-day operations. Many companies are yet to provide basic services such as education, healthcare or safe drinking water and sanitation.
There is growing concern that if a number of workplace issues are not successfully protected against, it can impact the human rights of employees. Human Rights policies in many companies are at an infantile stage of development. Larger organizations may have Human Rights policy to ensure they are not supporting work that impacts the human rights of others.
Many of the principles of the Human Rights Act are designed to protect the worker within the workplace. For example, the workers have the right to a private and family life. So an employer who discriminates on personal grounds, for example, may be violating that worker’s right to a private life. The employer has the right to monitor communications within the workplace as long as the worker is aware of the monitoring before it takes place. A worker’s right to a private life means he or she has the right to some privacy in the workplace. If the employer doesn’t respect this, he is breaching human rights law. If the worker believes his human rights at work have been breached, he should talk to his employer first. If it is not effective, he can follow the internal grievance procedure, if any, in the written statement of employment. If that doesn’t work, he may take legal action.
The scenario is however changing and despite the current economic crisis, a growing number of business leaders and management professionals understand that human rights issues are of direct relevance to their long term success.
Sarah Jose
http://www.articlesbase.com/ethics-articles/how-to-tackle-human-rights-issues-at-work-713203.html
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
April 21st, 2010 at 7:22 am
feedback on my history essay please :-D?
I think I’m finished, please give feedback and tell me where I’ve went wrong or any more information I could use, thanks if you do :-D! x
To what extent was Britain a democratic country by 1918’?
One definition of democracy is a system which gives equal rights to the general public, including the right to vote for a representative government. In answer to the question ‘To what extent was Britain a democratic country by 1918’? Unfortunately not at all, simply because the working class and the women were discriminated against within the public. There were many numbers of Reform Acts which pursued in trying to gain the vote for certain members of the public, such as the rich or the men.
Women did not have the vote. This was a major issue until after 1905. Neither party was prepared to tackle this due to the prejudices and divisions that existed within the parties. Although it wasn’t just the women that didn’t have the vote. By 1911 only 63% of males were registered to vote, this is a clear sign that Britain was not a fully democratic nation. The men that weren’t allowed to vote were male domestic servants, sons living at home, soldiers living in barracks and people who didn’t pay rates. These groups didn’t have much in common therefore they didn’t group together and try and fight for the franchise. Although these weren’t just the reasons men and women couldn’t get the vote, many reasons included; Not registering as it was to much hassle and not residing in the same place for more than 12 months. This all began to change for women around the World War I times when women contributed a lot of work as the men left to fight over seas. As a result the number of women employed increased from 3,224,600 in July, 1914 to 4,814,600 in January 1918. Women filled many jobs such as clerical workers in private offices. Women worked as conductors on trams and buses. A quarter of a million worked on the land. The greatest increase of women workers was in engineering. Over 700,000 of these women worked in the highly dangerous munitions industry. Industries that had previously excluded women now welcomed them. There was a demand for women to do heavy work such as unloading coal, stoking furnaces and building ships. By doing this they started to gain more appreciation and after the war they were treated a little more equally. During World War I the suffragettes, which was founded by Emmeline Pankhurst, protested a lot to gain the vote which was a major turning point in women’s rights. The suffragettes took action by setting fire to postboxes, cutting telephone wires, chaining themselves to gates, interrupting important meetings and other various methods to gain attention to there protest. They also went on hunger strikes which later then got nick named the cat and mouse act. Voting rights for women were then introduced into international law which was not until 1948 when the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As stated in Article 21 “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives"
Therefore due to the lack of equal rights within the population it is hard to support the claim that Britain was fully democratic before 1918. The system did not give equal rights to the public, including the right to vote for a representative government. Men and especially women were being discriminated against within the system, and it wasn’t until 1948 that voting rights for women were introduced.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Excellent, very informative. I have noticed one thing that needs changing, i’ll copy and paste the paragraph and put the bit that needs changed in capitals.
"The suffragettes took action by setting fire to postboxes, cutting telephone wires, chaining themselves to gates, interrupting important meetings and other various methods to gain attention to THEIR protest"
References :
April 21st, 2010 at 12:26 pm
1. Women over 30 were granted sufferage (the right to vote) in 1918. You do not appear to have mentioned or taken this into consideration. Nor have you mentioned the extension of the sufferage in 1928.
2. The "cat and mouse act" referred to the practice of releasing sufferagettes who had been imprisoned for property damage when they became dangerously weak because of their hunger strikes, not to the practice of hunger striking in general.
3. Your grammar needs so work. You use "that" in several places where you should use "who". "During World War I the sufferagettes, which was founded…" should be "During World War I, the sufferagette movement, which was founded…"
4. You don’t consider the arguements in favour of certain limitations of voting rights – the prohibitions on certain men voting were arguably out of concern that they would not be free to vote as they wished. Servants might be pressured by their masters to vote a particular way, just as sons might be, and just as soliders living in barracks might be intimidated by their officers to vote in a particular way. That last would be a very great concern if you lived in a constituency with many barracked soliders. Even if you discount these arguements, you should take them into account and mention them.
References :
April 21st, 2010 at 12:28 pm
It depends on what level you are writing for. A good essay assesses all the facts and then makes a conclusion at the end. Your conclusion is in the first paragraph. I’d personally compare it (briefly) to other countries democratic systems in 1918. This would be because 1918 was vastly different socially. Were we ahead or behind other nations? It needs to be looked at in the context of the time.
References :
History degree