The code of ethics for the nations largest professional HR organization states that the HR manager is supposed to make the fair and equitable treatment for all employees a primary concern while simultaneously stating expectations to maintain loyalty to the employer, even while upholding all laws and regulations relating to the employers activities.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against and employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant for employment has opposed any practice made an unlawful by this title or because the employee or applicant has filed charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation under this title. - 42 U.S.C.
THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FROM THE ANTIRETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII
How are HR managers with the equal employment opportunity responsibility can be assertive concerning compliance and with the violations of the Title VIIs express terms and policies when he or she is totally deprived of any protection from retaliation
IN SUMMARY
Clearly there is a need to re-examine the roles, rights, and responsibilities of the HR manager The HR manager is expected to be the catalyst to promoting voluntary compliance, he or she needs to be able to be more of an intermediary and not jus a management employee whose job is to make a claim go away.
IN SUMMARY (CONTD)
The dual roles of HR managers in attending to the needs and upholding the legal rights of employees while at the same time looking out for the interests and needs of management involves a difficult balancing act. This holds true especially when it comes to Title VII Act.
IN SUMMARY (CONTD)
Until congress will adopt a different rule of law, internal compliance will remain as is. Provisions of Title VII will remain undermined and circumvented in the workplace. HR Managers need to get together and try and get congress to provide HR and EEO managers protection against anti-retaliation so internal compliance can operate more effectively.
ANY QUESTIONS?