Table of ContentsIntroductionDiversity and CultureUniversity and Community College System of Nevada v. FarmerOutsourcing actions taken by Watchmark-ComnitelWhy it is easier to comply with diversity standards in Canada than in the United StatesAnswers to the topics presented in Sections 4 and 5ConclusionIntroductionWe live in a world where diversity plays a huge role in life people. Diversity has become enormous as we progress in this world we call “life”. It has become more complex since the “founding” of this country and continues to grow as we move forward. Currently, employers need to consider hiring people of all kinds, such as women, ethnic and cultural minorities, and people from diverse religious backgrounds. Diversity is more complicated in the United States than anywhere else, due to the great diversity of our country and the number of people who want to live in the United States. The United States is seen by other countries as being very involved in developing fair laws regarding the employment of people. . This, however, makes it extremely important that as a nation we continue to maintain our ever-changing diversity requirements in the workplace, as they are immense. This article I produced not only discusses cases of diversity in the workplace, but also the general problem facing people around the world: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayDiversity and CultureUniversity and Community College System of Nevada c. Farmer1989 AND 1991 where the years when only one percent of the University of Nevada faculty were African American, while about 89% of the faculty were Caucasian. In an attempt to reduce the racial imbalance among faculty members, the University created the “Minority Bonus Policy,” an amendment to its already existing affirmative action program. This amendment essentially gave departments permission to hire additional faculty after a minority applicant's primary employment. The University encountered a vacancy in the sociology department, which occurred in 1990. The advertisement for candidates to fill the position indicated a need for experience in teaching social psychology courses and indicated a scale salary range between $28,000.00 and $34,000.00, depending on the candidate's experience and qualifications. An African-American candidate, Johnson Makoba, and a Caucasian candidate, Farmer, were both considered for the position and their qualifications were measured. as being comparable. However, Makoba was inevitably offered the job, with Farmer being hired the following year. Although the University hired Makoba with a starting salary of $35,000.00, Farmer was offered a starting salary of $31,000.00, despite the fact that they were responsible for performing identical tasks . Personally, this is false, knowing that both candidates were qualified but were not the same in their eyes. The farmer filed a lawsuit against the University of Nevada, claiming it violated the Equal Pay Act by paying him unequal pay for equal work compared to a male employee. (Makoba), who had almost identical qualifications in January 1993. She also said the university was responsible for breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by paying her less than a man performing the same work. The positive action plan is consistentto the factors of the era aimed at increasing the number of minorities in positions of authority in large businesses and corporations (University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer, 1997). The University's attempts to diversify its faculty by creating or making available positions previously inaccessible to minorities were a good faith effort to advance the cause of affirmative action. Additionally, the Supreme Court determined that the University's actions did not in any way infringe on the rights of Caucasians. The University's Affirmative Action in 1992 report reveals that Caucasians still occupy 87 to 89 percent of all full-time faculty positions at the University. Finally, given that African Americans still fill only about one percent of available faculty positions, it is clear that, through its minority bonus policy, the University has attempted to achieve a more egalitarian racial balance. The University's affirmative action plan therefore did not violate any constitutional provisions. measures, which would be necessary for the United States Supreme Court to intervene. The University has effectively shown that its main interest is to promote the cultural and ethnic diversity of the faculty, and not to discriminate against a particular candidate (farmer). The university argued that if it did not attempt to attract minority faculty members, it would result in a Caucasian majority and limit students' exposure to multicultural diversity (University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer, 1997). Through its affirmative action policies, the University was able to achieve greater racial and gender diversity by hiring Makoba and Farmer. It is also important to note that Farmer's position was a direct consequence of the minority bonus policy, as was Makoba's. the work at a lower cost, thereby saving the company money. Employees who lost their position with the company were offered the choice of training their replacements and receiving severance pay or forfeiting severance pay by not offering to train their replacements (Cook, 2004) . The company reported that the majority of displaced employees chose to train their replacements (Cook, 2004). When the company was eventually purchased by IBM, positions opened up for new employees in the United States and abroad. From an ethical and teleological perspective, there may be some debate regarding the actions of Watchmark-Comnitel. Although the company offered employees who lost their jobs due to outsourcing a generous severance package in exchange for training their replacements, that was not the deal the company originally made with its American employees. Employees hired to work at the Watchmark-Comnitel Company had an expectation that they would take a position with the company as long as they met the requirements of their position (Cook, 2004). Therefore, by outsourcing employee positions that were fulfilling their part of the employment contract, the company could be seen as acting in a manner that was not ethically sound (Harvey and Allard, 2015). While the majority of American employees understand that the company they work for has the primary goal of making as much profit as possible, there is also an implicit understanding that companies will show loyalty to employees who fulfill their obligations to the company. company, and that these employees will not lose their positions simply because cheaper labor becomes available elsewhere. Why it is easier to comply with standards.