Anti-Nepotism and the Loss of Privacy :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

Anti-Nepotism and the Loss of PrivacyIntroductionWhen employees bring their soulal problems to work and it affects their performance or the performance of others, clearly you can coach, counsel, warn, and ultimately terminate their employment. In cases where employees did not cause a problem at work but were fired merely because of an anti-nepotism indemnity, courts in some states found the employees had been discriminated against on the basis of matrimonial status. Such policies penalize employees who are married, as compared to unmarried employees whose relationships are equally intimate. Currently, thirty-eight (38) states prohibit marital status discrimination. Having a more general policy prohibiting employees who co-habit from working in the same area would not violate marital status laws, but could be considered an invasion of common law privacy, which is recognized in most states (Risser 1997). In my paper, I will address the issue of anti-nepotism, and invasion of common law privacy. What business is it of the organization if people co-habit? How are employers supposed to make love who is living together? The prohibition against invasion of privacy by the government is enforced, yet anti-nepotism policies seem to supercede even those more strictly. Anti-Nepotism What is Nepotism? Nepotism comes about whenever an employee makes decisions affecting a unaired relative or domestic partner. Included in these decisions are those that pertain to hiring, appointment, reappointment, classification, reclassification, evaluation, promotion, transfer, discipline, supervision, or pay increases. According to the King County Board of Ethics, nepotism is a conflict of vex based on familial relationship or domestic partnership, and is inconsistent with the basic principles of ethics (Edwards 1998). The practice of nepotism is said to be inconsistent in instances that claim impartial decision-making and attempts to ensure that private interest or personal benefi t does not override the publics interest. In addition, nepotism creates situations that appear of improper specify or favor. As such, anti-nepotism policies have been written to protect public organizations from adverse lawsuits. There are many discriminatory clauses of anti-nepotism policies, as they pertain to individual modus vivendi and privacy.Although an anti-nepotism policy does not expressly discriminate against an applicant based on the condition of being married or unmarried, it may exclude a person because of the particular identity of his or her spouse. Whether spousal identity as opposed to marital status per se is a prohibited basis for discrimination is an unreciprocated question under many discrimination laws