Now that at least two large, nationwide banks and an international insurance carrier have gone under, the financial panic is on.  It's harder to pay bills because the value of the American dollar is at an all time low. In addition to that, the price of fuel, food, and everything else has gone up.  In addition to that, unemployment is also up because of the alarming number of small businesses that have gone under. 

Now is the worst time in the world for a financial institution to require a major credit as a matter of corporate policy, in order to cash a check.  Not just any check.  My paycheck.  The same bank that the check was drawn on in the first place. 

Back in the Dark Ages, when I was a young adult, living on my own, a drivers license and/or a valid passport were acceptable forms of identification in order to cash a check at the bank in which it was drawn.  That was a long time ago. 

I am sure I am not alone in the "I don't have a credit card and I don't want one" category.  But, I digress.

Today I was at a local branch of the bank where my boss has his business account.  I went there on my lunch hour to cash my paycheck.  Because I do not have a checking account, or a major credit card, I was refused help, singled out, and humiliated in public.  When I say I was mortified at the level of apathetic rudeness I encountered by both the teller, and the manager, I am not exaggerating.

I explained to the teller that I do not have a major credit card, nor do I have a check cashing card, as I also do not have a checking account.  I showed her my professional license, my atm card from the other bank, and two other pieces of perfectly viable identification, none of which were acceptable to her.  She huffed in the air, and declared loudly to the room at large that if "you do not have a credit card with a mastercard or visa logo on it, I can't cash your check.  Sorry, company policy." 

Then, I explained my situation briefly to her supervisor, who was helping someone else, and who was listening to this whole exchange.  The supervisor said she would help me, but when I got up there to her window, she stood there for ten minutes, telling me I "don't have proper identification" and when I explained to her that I felt singled out and humiliated by the treatment of the other woman, the supervisor rudely declared to me that "she is just doing her job.  That is our company policy." and she refused to help me.

So, here I am, on my lunch hour, holding a check I can't cash, in the bank where the check was drawn in the first place, surrounded by people looking down on me because I don't have a credit card or a checking account. I loudly declared to the room at large that the policy sucks, and so does the bank.  Then, I left.

Interestingly enough, I went to a second branch of the same bank chain that is located closer to my place of work.  Then, I explained what I had just been through at the first branch, and they explained to me what id's besides checkcards or credit cards are acceptable, and they called my boss to verify my employment, and they cashed my check. 

I thanked everyone at the second branch who helped me, not only releasing my money, but also teaching me a lesson.  We all pay when someone turns the other cheek.  We all pay when someone refuses to look beyond the large print and hides behind company policy. 

Why didn't anyone at the first branch think to call my boss and ask him if I worked there?  Why didn't they tell me what other kinds of id were acceptable? I have a valid passport, which is one of the forms of id they accept.  I also have a pre paid credit card I can reload at any time at check cashing stores nationwide.  Neither of the women from the first branch even considered my needs as a consumer, or even treated me like a person. 

The "If you don't have a credit card, you are not a person, and are therefore not worthy of my time" attitude I got this morning was hurtful, discriminatory, and outrageous.  I think the humiliation I faced at the bank this morning was worse than anything I faced in high school, and that is saying a lot.  I may as well have been homeless as far as she was concerned.

My view is that I worked for that money, I took the check to the bank it was drawn on, as I always did when I got paid, and today was the first time I have ever had this kind of problem.  I know that I would never treat anyone the way I was treated.  Maybe that was part of the lesson. 

The other part is that I felt, for the first time in my life, discriminated against on a financial basis.  Because I don't have a credit card.  The experience has not changed my attitude about spending money I don't have.  I still don't want a credit card, and I have no intention of applying for one.  But, what I took out of this experience is that the old adage, Treat others as you would have them treat you, still applies. It does for me.

To understand fully what the "business case for diversity management and equal opportunities" really is, it is important to know the meaning of business case. Business case pertains to a planned proposal for business change based on terms of costs and benefits. This is an initial requirement before a huge project is undertaken and is necessary for a number of project management processes.

The business case is expected to address the business need of the project. It must include the reason for undertaking the project, the perceived business advantages, options involved complete with the reasons behind choosing which option to carry out, the projected costs, risks and gap analysis.

Business Case for Diversity Management

The “business case for diversity” simply means that companies believes that employing a diverse workforce allow them to be in a position to understand the demographics of the customers they serve much better making them better able to thrive in the marketplace than companies that hire only a limited group of employee demographics. Also, a company that supports diversity of workforce is better able to address employee satisfaction and retention issues.

It is important to note that diversity in workforce means employing people without discrimination to gender, age and ethnic or racial backgrounds. Since globalization is the current overwhelming trend in business, diversity in the workplace is a better accepted and applied concept now more than ever.

The business case for diversity has been examined by a number of researchers and no research support was found to support the “diversity business case”. Also, in US companies are not allowed to hire on the basis of race or ethnicity for whatever profit reason it may be.

An important requirement of the business case is how a company uses its diversities. This is called inclusion. If the company has a diverse workforce yet the employer does not take advantage of the wide range of experience within his organization then it could not enjoy the advantages offered by background diversity.

Diversity issues change with time. Implementation of diversity is more often than not limited to the Human resources department. UK companies see it as a tool to a good economic case that enables them to reach new markets. Diversity then becomes an extra marketing tool to bring in new customers.

Diversity could either be superficial or deep-level. Superficial diversity refers to differences in gender, race and nationality. Deep-level refers to differences brought about by knowledge and cultural values. It is often noted that in a company setting increase interaction among a diverse workforce lessens the significance of superficial diversity and increases the importance of deep-level as the team learns how to function as a unit. According to studies, in deep level diversity, the informational diversity or the differences in knowledge contributes positive results to the performance while value diversity or differences in cultural views could lead to negative results.

Certain processes could have positive contribution to deep level informational diversity. One is the need to share unique views with others. In a group setting though, members tend to discuss what they have in common rather than their differences. In order to encourage sharing of unique knowledge, it is important to let the group know who has knowledge on certain things.

Also, instead of group information sharing, debate should be encouraged so as to allow members to challenge the ideas of other members. Processing deep information that way could lead to positive results.

Critics of business case for diversity believe that it is not effective because there is currently no published research that shows how surface-level diversity can improve the organization. Also, most research shows surface diversity to have no or even negative results to employees' performance.

Legal Issues Surrounding Diversity

UK employers are cautioned in using “diversity programs” because no court has ever found programs to be enough reason to have hiring preferences. This is in compliance with anti-discrimination laws practised by UK companies. This forces UK companies to comply with diversity laws.

The Business Case for Equal Opportunity

The "business case for equal opportunity” strives to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace in order to reap the following benefits: more productivity among employees, higher moral in the workplace, higher staff retention, reducing complaints and the time involve in resolving them and to make the company more appealing to employees.

According to Guy Russo, McDonald"s CEO, “commitment to Equal Opportunity makes good business sense because it ensures a company attracts and retains the best people. EO policy also provides confidence to employees that they will be treated fairly and receives equal access to opportunities."

The business case for equal opportunity intends to create an environment where people are not excluded from activities on the basis of permanent traits such as race, disabilities, creed, religion, gender and others. The "business case for equal opportunity" must enable employees' similar access to education, employment and health care. Also, employers are required to implement action plans that allow participation of minorities and women in the workplace. The "business case for equal opportunity" must provide an equal opportunity policy statement, analysis of the current work force, recognition of problem areas, creating goals and timetables for employment opportunities, particular action programs to address problem areas, promote community action programs, and creating an effective internal audit and reporting system.

To indicate that an employer practices equal employment opportunity, abbreviations such EOE or MFDV (or Male, Female, Disabled, Veteran) are added in job advertisements.

Critics of the "business case for equal opportunities" pointed out that methods of finding out if equal opportunity is carried out is not complete. Opportunity as a matter of fact is difficult to measure. In reality, equal opportunity in employment is considered to be present if people of similar abilities achieve similar results after doing similar amount of work.

Similarities of Business Case for Diversity Management and Equal Opportunities

Both "business case for diversity management and equal opportunities" aim to employ people without discrimination as to age, sex, race, creed and others. These thrusts are intended to maximize opportunities within the organization.

Business cases for both diversity management and equal opportunities must comply with the legal frameworks of the country like the anti-discrimination laws in the UK.

Both "business case for diversity management and equal opportunities" rely on the results of the implementation of business cases. A company that does not take advantage of its diversity or in the implementation of equal opportunities will not most likely reap its desired benefits in the end.

Both business case diversity and equal opportunity aims to promote positive results in employees' performance.

Culture is an important emphasis to both business cases.

Emphasis in differences in cultural or informational views is considered important in business case diversity. While, business case for equal opportunities would much rather emphasize employee similarities.

Employee satisfaction and retention are important to both.

Differences

Diversity business case is sometimes used as a marketing tool to penetrate new market shares. Equal opportunity is a tool to achieve the best employees by providing a safe and equal social environment.

Business case diversity is more concerned of managing diversity to the company's advantage. Business case equal opportunity is aimed to promote employees' well-being.

Cooperation among employees is strongly encouraged in business case for equal opportunities. In business case diversity management, there is more to be gained if employees do not focus on common grounds but in their diversity of knowledge especially in informational diversity.

Business case for equal opportunities is more concerned with employee relations rather than contributions as practiced in business case diversity. Maintaining or promoting high morale among employees is an important tool to achieve equal opportunities for employees.

However, the law in many countries restricts what you can ask or cannot ask candidates at job interviews. Established practice and common decency also dictate how you should conduct a job interview. The purpose of these laws restricting some areas of inquiry is to prevent discrimination, so that every human being gets a fair chance of being recognized for true worth and contribution rather than on grounds of skin colour, ethnicity, gender or age etc.

Though the majority of interviewees are genuinely interested in getting the jobs they apply for, a small number of dishonest people purposely plan misusing the interview system by finding out what is illegal, going for interviews and then suing the company for discrimination when the interviewer has asked the wrong questions. Corporate HR interviewing policy usually learns to take account of these unfortunate malpractices after some expensive litigation.

Though they vary from country to country, some overall guidelines could be given. Some of these restricted areas of inquiry at job interviews are:

• Nationality
• Birthplace
• Ethnicity or race
• Religion
• Sexual orientation
• Marital status
• Health conditions and physical disabilities

The following list of questions gives only some very broad guidelines. You should always check with your company's HR department or with someone who really knows to see if your state or locality, or even your company, has additional restrictions on what you may not ask.

1. Where were you born?

   This question might seem like innocent small talk, but it could also be used to gather information about the candidate's national origin. You should ask whether a candidate is authorized to work in the country, but avoid asking about citizenship. But some jobs are restricted to nationals of that country so you need to ask that question with proof of such citizenship.

2. What is your native language?

   You can ask whether the person speaks a language required for carrying out the job. For example, if job responsibilities include supporting French-speaking customers, it's fair to ask whether the candidate speaks French fluently.
   
   Race or ethnicity is an irrelevant factor affecting the employee's capacity to do the job though there might be some exceptional cases relating to employment in roles that require involvement with particular ethnicities or nationalities. Many employers are aware that discrimination on the basis of race is unlawful so they try to go around by asking questions like “Is that a Jewish name? But enquiries into the ethnicity of candidates are illegal in many countries.

3. Are you a lesbian? Are you married?

   This question is off limits at job interviews as the information gained can be used as a basis for discrimination. Achieving the balance between work and private life is considered the individual's own affair and does not concern the employer.

4. Do you have children?

   This might sound like an innocent question in most setting, but in a job interview it is illegal. There are general prohibitions about discrimination over parental status, so avoid asking this question.

5. Do you plan to get pregnant?

   This information is insulting, private and also can be used as a basis for discrimination so it should never be asked.

6. How old are you?

   Age discrimination is illegal, and you should avoid asking this question. Usually people write their age on their CVs. It's equally ridiculous to ask a senior level applicant with decades of job experience “Are you sure you are over 18 years old?&rdquo

7. Do you observe Ramadan or Yom Kippur?

   You can't discriminate candidates on the basis of religion, so this question is illegal. If you're concerned about the candidate's availability during certain times of the year, you could ask whether he or she can work on holidays and weekends. But you cannot ask about the observance of particular religious holidays, as this question is discriminatory.

8. Do you have a disability or chronic illness?

   This information is illegal as a factor in recruitment, so the question is illegal. If the job requires some specific physical skills, such as installing cables in high places or standing for most of the day, you may ask whether the person could perform those tasks in those particular circumstances.

9. Are you in the National Guard or liable for conscription?

   It's illegal to discriminate against someone because he or she belongs to the National Guard or is liable to conscription.

10. Do you smoke or use alcohol?

    Almost all jobs forbid drinking being under the influence of alcohol while on the job but consuming alcohol on free time is a private affair. Smoking is also forbidden indoors in many countries. Though people can be fired for drinking or being under the influence of alcohol or other narcotics while on work, and spontaneous tests can be conducted at the workplace, asking about these can be problematic. So make sure what is allowed or not in your country or state.

Most of the articles on the Internet on the topic of what is legal or illegal in job interviews focus on the USA. As legislation and established practices differ in different countries, please make sure of local conditions before designing your own job interview questions.

The existence of difference and discrimination in society, due to inadequate access to socially valued resources such as healthcare, housing, employment and the justice system, permits social differentiation and enables the formation of social classes. Social classes are a chief mechanism of organisation and social control in Australian society, allowing the distribution of power, wealth and privilege as well as the formation of socioeconomic statuses and thus a form of identification, which ultimately reinforces difference rather than commonality. They are, however, also an important mechanism of self and group identity. Those at the top of the social class hierarchy attain power, authority, wealth and political privileges, generally presenting a vested interest in maintaining their social position and socioeconomic statuses, thus consolidating and reasserting their power and authority. This action of consolidating ones power may lead to institutionalized discrimination, which is evident with evaluation of Indigenous Australians.

Indigenous Australians are overtly represented as underclass and underprivileged citizens, living in relative poverty. The mere of fact of being aboriginal can lead to identification in the lower rungs of the social class ladder, thus constituting a form of institutionalized discrimination, as they do not possess the power and authority to redress their situation, which ultimately gives those members of society with the power to redress, the ability to reassert their own power, status and authority. This is evident in the past protectionist policies adopted by the Australian "white" government, which throughout the 20th century adopted a range of assimilation, protection and integration policies placing Indigenous Australians at the whim of politicians and upper class socialites. The assimilation policies allowed breaches of human rights, presenting a level of conflict, with the forced removal of children, constituting cultural genocide and ultimately led to the degradation of that society and culture. Furthermore, the government's refusal to acknowledge native title and land rights until the Mabo v Wik cases of the early 90s constituted a form of discrimination as it provided belief that Australia was settled, as determined by the English law of terra nullius.

When considering the significance placed on equality of opportunity in Australian society, it is important to note the notion of a welfare state, which involves a belief that the government has a moral and ethical responsibility to protect those least able to protect themselves, in this instance, Indigenous Australians, supported through government policy regarding access to socially valued resources, such as education through the NSW department of education, public housing via the housing commission, Medicare to promote public health, Centrelink presenting a social security network providing financial assistance as well as Legal Aid to increase access to legal representation.

However, Indigenous Australians continue to have a very limited amount of power to redress their situation, presenting a great reliance on the government to do so. This is evident in the low level of access to socially valued resources and the poor living standards afforded to them, reinforced by minimal access to housing and healthcare, with an inquiry into Australia's health in 1994 revealing that indigenous Australians were three times more likely to die of childhood diseases than other Australians, with males being 7.3 times more likely to die of respiratory infections than non indigenous males and mortality rates being some 15-20 years lower then non Indigenous Australians. Furthermore, there is a significant disparity between the living conditions and health status of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and those of other Australians. According to 1996 census data 6.2% of indigenous households include more than one family, compared with 1.1% of other Australian households. Overcrowding leads to faster deterioration of housing and exacerbates environmental health problems.

Access and the ability to effectively use information and communications technologies (ICT) to obtain information and services are increasingly important to fully participate in contemporary Australian economic, political and social life. However, conflict still arises in online access and use especially for indigenous Australians. Due to their socioeconomic status they have a lack of access to ICT. This is known, as the "Digital Divide" and is best understood as part of a socio-economic context and related to the issue of social exclusion. Furthering digital inclusion will require a detailed understanding of the digital divide, policy and projects to focus attention on the social, cultural, economic, educational and material factors that continue to exclude people from participating in society and the information economy. With the potential for new technologies as a platform for stronger social cohesion and underpinning social development it is crucial that reforms be made to allow greater access and educate indigenous Australians of ICT in order to increase equality.

Pat returned to work that next day excited and eager to start her new job. The first day is what they call the day of observance. She was not the only new hire that day so she would not be training alone. First she and the other new hire were given an overview of the company and their job description. Afterwards they had to rehearse the script that they would have to pitch to people as they canvassed various neighborhoods. They didn't quite have the script memorized but they had familiarized themselves with it.

Once that was complete they met up with all the other employees and then were assigned to their areas. Pat was assigned to an area that was predominantly white in another city. She was at first a little uncomfortable because she was the only black female and had been paired up with a white male who was well over 6feet tall. But she really wanted to work so she just rolled with the punches.

The group Pat was with consisted of 5-people1 white male, 1 black male, and two white females and Pat. Pat was being trained by John who was also one of the organizations directors. As the group reached their destination they were a little about the weather as it looked like a storm was lurking. So they designated a checkpoint to meet back at if the weather got bad and the driver would be there to pick them up. So everyone went off on there separate ways to canvass the neighborhood.

As John and Pat began to walk together Pat noticed that she was often left lagging behind. Pat is 4feet 11.5 inches tall and her strides are way shorter than John's who's over 6feet tall. She could sense that he was becoming annoyed but she was walking as fast as she could.

So eventually he has asked her if she would wait at the beginning of the driveways of each home as he walked up to the door. Pat was supposed to be shadowing John to observe what he was doing and learning from him so basically she was unable to do that because he felt she was holding him up. The trainee was slowing down the trainer, isn't that why training is incorporated so that the trainee can eventually work at the same capacity as the trainer? Well after about 20 minutes of leaving her at driveway entrances they came upon a street that was a dead end.

He told Pat that he felt that she needed to rehearse the script alone. So he found her a spot under a tree and wanted her to sit upon a rock for 2 hours studying the script. He said that he was going on to finish his work and that in about 2 hours he would come back for her. Pat was in shock! It was about 90 degrees, she was miles away from home, she had no phone, no food, no water, and she was basically stranded. After about 30 minutes or so it began to get really gloomy and sounds of thunder was rumbling so she headed to the checkpoint which was about s half a mile from where she was.

When she got there no one had showed up. It was now pouring down rain and she waited, and waited. Finally another one of the group members arrived and she waited for about a half-hour and then left to go back to the area she was working, someone had previously invited her into their home, which was against the rules. So after waiting for well over an hour the rain and wind started to subside and Pat had to use the bathroom.

There was not a single public place in site where she could use the bathroom and she knew that it was against the rules to enter anyone's home but she really had to use the bathroom. She knew people would give her a hard time because she had no proof that she was working for an environment organization; she had no uniform, or any other representation, and she was a little black girl in a white neighborhood. She began to ask people if she could use their bathroom and she was given excuses such as, it's out of order, and we don't allow strangers in our home.

Pat had no way of contacting John or the driver to help her find a bathroom so she began to walk searching for a bathroom. She remembered that they stopped at a police station so she figured she'd find her way back there. After walking for almost two hours she finally found a pharmacy. She was now dehydrated, wet from head to toe, tired, soar from all the rigorous walking, and crying because she was hurt, and lost. The manager of the store was very pleasant to her he allowed her to use the bathroom to clean herself up and to use the phone to let her group know that she was lost.

When Pat finally spoke with John she explained to him the events that led up to her ending up at the pharmacy and asked if someone could come and get her. John wanted her to walk back to where she was and finish working and she refused. That was just cruel and she had already suffered enough. So he told her that she would have to stay there until everyone else was done working and that wouldn't be for another two hours. Pat had no choice and had to stand outside of the pharmacy for two hours. At the same time it began to rain like a monsoon. Pat humbly waited until the group came and picked her up.

The group finally arrived no one said anything to Pat. Everyone was also wet from the rain and John said that he didn't feel as though the weather was bad enough to stop working. The lightening wasn't near us he claimed. Not one time did Pat complain or show how upset she truly was. The entire time that she waited she prayed and sang songs to God and was thanking him for the job and for keeping her safe. God gave her peace of mind and therefor she had forgiven the events of the day.

When everyone returned to the office they handed in their profits Pat had none she was told that she could leave and was also invited to a Party that John was throwing at his house. She declined, as she was desperate to get home, which required more walking and was very glad that it was the weekend and could rest and recuperate.

Pat had no intentions on quitting. She was just grateful for the job. On Sunday afternoon Pat received a message that she was being let go from the job and that if she had any questions to call and so she did. She Spoke with Tom who is the other director and she asked him why she was being let go and he said that John had complained that she walked too slowly and he needed to get to his work. I thought he was supposed to be training me, not doing his work, Pat replied. Tom said well that was what he said and that you didn't seem too interested in the job. Tom was not aware of the events that Pat had to endure that day and after she had told him he really didn't show any concern. All he was concerned with was the fact that I hadn't gotten any donations.

When Pat finally spoke to John he said that he didn't feel as though she was the best person for the job and did not want to go into further details. Pat was not paid for the day and still has not received any retribution. Was she fired because she walks too slowly?