EM Winter 2015

5 Weeks (9 Classes) to Go end goal  an ethical approach you think is Christian workable remaining  chapter readings 9.Job Discrimination 10.Consumers 11.The Environment  quiz  codes (or algorithm)  reading assessment 3  Stonewall Salts simulation  final case

Job Discrimination articles  programs of preferential treatment  sexual harassment law

Sexual Harassment Law text is US focused  principles are similar in Canada  but process & culture different more “tribunal” than court change more than fines lawsuits less common

Sexual Harassment Law 1.QPQH  quid pro quo harassment  have sex or I’ll damage your employment and I’ll help your employment 2.HEH  hostile environment harassment

Sexual Harassment Law 1.QPQH  not complicated as an idea  complicated to adjudicate

Sexual Harassment Law 1.QPQH  not complicated as an idea authority used to get sex  punishment  reward fair employment should include  benefits and harms »based on job performance »equally administered

Sexual Harassment Law 1.QPQH  not complicated as an idea  complicated to adjudicate grey areas  consent  favouritism  secrecy “reasonable person”  or “reasonable woman”?

Sexual Harassment Law 1.QPQH 2.HEH  hostile environment harassment

Sexual Harassment Law 2.HEH  a kind of bullying not usually seen this way  violates guarantee of equality workplace conditions  “unreasonable & material interference”

Sexual Harassment Law 2.HEH  severity  frequency  who  “unwelcome”  “reasonable”

Job Discrimination text cases  Hoop Dreams  Raising The Ante  Consenting To Sexual Harassment  Facial Discrimination  Protecting the Unborn at Work

Job Discrimination meaning evidence  stats  attitudes

Affirmative Action law  US Supreme Court  Canadian courts

Affirmative Action morals  for compensatory justice fairer competition break cycles  against violates  rights  principles other methods better  nondiscrimination

Central Alberta Dairy Pool  What is the case about?  What are the ethical dilemmas? How can we analyze it ethically?  What are our options?  What should we do? What would the objections be? How could we address those objections?

Central Alberta Dairy Pool Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Supreme Court of Canada no Board of Inquiry approve employer actions?“actors” yes no

Central Alberta Dairy Pool IRP Act Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench accommodate to point of undue hardship?   individual Supreme Court of Canada BFOR? accommodate to point of undue hardship?  group intent not the issue employee made reasonable effort  employer didn’t Board of Inquiry rationale“actors” not discriminate on employ conditions  includes religious beliefs  except BFOR

Central Alberta Dairy Pool inherent right  not absolute  utilitarian? IRP Act Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench undue hardship  effect of accommodating individual  not Kantian Supreme Court of Canada BFOR almost all it takes undue hardship  effect of changing workplace rule inherent right followed process balanced effort Board of Inquiry ethical approach“actors”

Book Reviews the footnotes are much better However:  take the time to make the font the same as the font of the main text  need to learn how to use “Ibid”

Book Reviews avoid long paragraphs  more than ½ a page is too long  1 idea per paragraph avoid long sentences  never more than one “and” in a sentence  read each sentence out loud, then ask: “Is that actually a sentence?” “Did I make my point as clearly as I could?”

Book Reviews avoid  “On the flip side…”  “It bites them…”  “In today’s business world…”  …that they can base themselves off…”  “…before they kick their company off…” instead use  “On the other hand…”  “They are harmed…”  The sentence usually works fine without it.  “…that they can rely on…”  “…before they start their company…”

Book Reviews avoid  “It is because it…”  “I’m just going to come out and say…”  “The author talks about…” “The book talks about…” instead use  “Because”  The sentence usually works fine without it.  “The author claims (explores/examines)…” “The book explores (covers/addresses)…”

Book Reviews avoid  “…, however…”  “Or…”  “This bugged him…”  “mega”  “huge”  “businessman” “businessman/woman” instead use  “…. However, ….”  “…, or…”  “This bothered him…”  “large” “massive”  unless something is physically massive  “businessperson”

Book Reviews don’t capitalize ideas or abstract nouns  “capitalism”  “children”  “charity”  “manipulative advertising” only use “always” when you mean it  it’s an invitation for you to lose credibility with the reader

Book Reviews shorten the summary; expand the analysis  “I could imagine myself facing a situation such as….in my future career. This book (or article) would be (or would not be) helpful in that situation because…”