138 ANALYSING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
and job applicants: ‘respecting persons and not using them solely as means to
one’s own ends, not doing any harm, telling the truth, keeping promises, treat-
ing people fairly and without discrimination, not depriving people of basic
rights, such as the right to free speech and association’. Although these authors
do not specifically refer to legal compliance, it is implicit both in their general
specification of duties as well as in their expanded list that this includes being
truthful in recruiting, equal pay for equal work, fair policies, and avoidance of
the use of invalid and discriminatory selection and other HR systems.
The behaviour of some employers would suggest that not all agree with
each and every one of the objectives stated by the Society for Human Resource
Management. Certainly one would not have to ponder for long about whether
many HR managers comply with the Fisher, Schoenfeldt, and Shaw (1999)
ethical behavioural requirements. In the first case, American survey evidence
tells us that a little more than half of the HR professionals who responded
to a 2003 business ethics survey felt at least some pressure to compromise
their organization’s ethical standards (Schramm 2003). Second, there are not
many HR practitioners that would be willing to tell applicants that there were
unsuccessful because they were considered ‘too old’, or the ‘wrong race’ or
whatever other bias the line manager (or they) may have brought to bear in
the selection process!
Yet, it is HR managers that are often cast into the role of guardian of
organizational ethics, so what is the HRM role and what does this mean in
reality? In this chapter the focus will be on the ethical duty of legal compliance
so the question that will be addressed is ‘Can or should the HR managers be
the agents of the state in ethical issues?’ Although the discussion could address
any number of HR areas, I have chosen to focus on one specific area that is
clearly within the bailiwick of HRM and one that has a clear legal foundation,
that of EEO/AA.
Background
In most countries the volume of both common law and statute law that
imposes duties on employers has burgeoned over the last 20–30 years. This
is particularly the case in respect to the functions often associated with per-
sonnel or HRM departments (e.g. recruitment, selection, occupational health
and safety, promotion, separation). The responsibility is often delegated to
people with titles such as HR managers, personnel managers, HR advisors,
AA managers, EEO managers, diversity manager, EEO counsellor, people and
performance managers, compliance officers, governance officers, and so on;
the title varying depending on a variety of factors including the origin of the
company and the nomenclature of its relevant legislation.