hrm wk 1 case home depot walmart
Week 1 home depot Case study
For this week Human Resource Management course we were asked to read the Case Study found on page 115 and answer the supplemental questions in detail. The first question asks; if Home Depot was correct in that it was not discriminating, but simply filling positions consistent with those who applied for them( and very few women were applying for customer service position) given your reading of this chapter was the firm guilty of discrimination? If so, under what theory? Yes, Home Depot was accountable of discrimination towards women due to their standards of hiring by reinforcing gender stereotyping; causing them to be guilty of disparate treatment. The disparate treatment in this case was due to women being treated differently in comparison to their male co-workers in regards to promotions, pay, and hiring. Female applicants who felt discriminated were mainly those who applied for jobs within Home Depots West Coast Division.
They felt they were being overlooked during hiring and bypassed in connection with promotions, salary, and job assignments opportunities within the workplace. Home Depot, however, felt they did nothing wrong and stated the unfairness of what they were being accused of was due to most female job applicants having experience as cashiers, so they were placed in similar positions, such as, cashier positions, clerical duties, customer service, and so forth. In addition, their explanation for the high turnaround in percentage of male employees within the home repair, plumbing, carpentry departments, etc… were due to male applicants expressing interest in those type of skilled employment. The second question asks how does the case illustrate the application of new technology to solving issues that have never been tied to technology? Can you think of other ways technology might be used to address diversity/EEO/affirmative action issues? Home Depot was able to tie technology by
For this week Human Resource Management course we were asked to read the Case Study found on page 115 and answer the supplemental questions in detail. The first question asks; if Home Depot was correct in that it was not discriminating, but simply filling positions consistent with those who applied for them( and very few women were applying for customer service position) given your reading of this chapter was the firm guilty of discrimination? If so, under what theory? Yes, Home Depot was accountable of discrimination towards women due to their standards of hiring by reinforcing gender stereotyping; causing them to be guilty of disparate treatment. The disparate treatment in this case was due to women being treated differently in comparison to their male co-workers in regards to promotions, pay, and hiring. Female applicants who felt discriminated were mainly those who applied for jobs within Home Depots West Coast Division.
They felt they were being overlooked during hiring and bypassed in connection with promotions, salary, and job assignments opportunities within the workplace. Home Depot, however, felt they did nothing wrong and stated the unfairness of what they were being accused of was due to most female job applicants having experience as cashiers, so they were placed in similar positions, such as, cashier positions, clerical duties, customer service, and so forth. In addition, their explanation for the high turnaround in percentage of male employees within the home repair, plumbing, carpentry departments, etc… were due to male applicants expressing interest in those type of skilled employment. The second question asks how does the case illustrate the application of new technology to solving issues that have never been tied to technology? Can you think of other ways technology might be used to address diversity/EEO/affirmative action issues? Home Depot was able to tie technology by
References: cited For more info see http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3700598