In any discussion on affirmative action and its challenging effects on business and government the two key words are: discrimination and justice. The root of the word discrimination comes from discrete, from the Latin meaning to sift apart (Shipley 163). The root of the word justice comes from the Latin word ôjus,ö which means law (202). A legal stance such as that of Affirmative Action seeks to use justice, or the law, to combat discriminatory practices, which have literally separated and categorized people according to their gender or race. In seeking justice, however, sometimes there is more harm done than good. Studying the ethics in a given situation helps to find the moral middle ground whereby justice is best done to all parties concerned. This essay will examine the circumstances at AT&T and the Pasadena City Council and discuss the key ethical challenges these organizations have in coming to a resolution in regards to their affirmative action practices.
In 1973, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) agreed to a consent decree that not only paid $45,000,000 back pay to women and minority men, but also established a Model Affirmative Action Plan, which would permanently alter the recruiting, transfer, and promotion policies of the company (Fullinwider 287). This was a landmark decision that created a benchmark for dealing with discrimination and affirmative action within the workplace across the United States (Bernard 16).
Historically, AT&T had been the largest private employer of women in the United States, with fully half of its employees, or 400,000 out of 800,000, being women -- 80 percent of them, however, employed in clerical, administrative, or operator positions (Bernard 16; Fullinwider 285). Jobs had been categorized as ômaleö or ôfemaleö jobs, with men usually employed in the higher paying craft positions or as managers and executives. In fact, as Fullinwider points out, jobs within AT&T were...