Employment is a privilege in that an employer is recognizing the worth of employee skills, abilities and knowledge. On the other hand, for most employ- ers, human capital is their most valuable asset and to lose the respect of the workforce is a serious issue. Ethically, it is also important to refer to diversity and equality in a built environment context. Discrimination of certain groups on the grounds of gender, age, race, disability or religion is not permissible and yet there is a lack of diversity in built environment occupations. There are also some allegations of unequal treatment, where differences have been discrimin- ated against because of particular working conditions such as long hours, heavy manual work and poor welfare. The objectives examined in this chapter are:
•
to consider the impact of treating workforces fairly in accordance with human rights, starting from Cadbury and including reference to culture, employability, less discrimination, conditions of employment, motivation, incentives, moral climate, training, career development and progress, and the psychological contract;•
to look at the ethics of legislation and best practice such as ethical leader- ship, professional discretion, fuller employment, recruitment, trade union roles, public disclosure, fair conditions in outsourcing, harmonious work- forces, and better community engagement.Diversity and equality
Another ethical approach to employment is equality and diversity. This is reflected specifically in construction by the fact that only 9.2 per cent of the work- force are women, compared with 34 per cent as a whole, and with 1 per cent in manual trades and only 4 per cent in membership of professional institutions connected to construction and consultancy. There is 1.9 per cent of black and ethnic minorities in construction compared with 6.4 per cent in the economy as a whole. There is no compelling reason for this except that the industry has traditionally had a male image and is still in the process of change, but attempts to right this imbalance have been in place for 15 years (Gale and Davidson
2006).1 Gale and Davidson also make the point that diversity and equality is
a more positive concept and can be valued as a benefit to better change the culture, while discrimination is associated with a failure to comply. From an ethical point of view, equality of opportunity is a human rights issue for free- dom of choice, and constructive exclusion of certain categories of labour is something that should be eliminated if this is not to cause frustration. Diversity is more easily discussed as a Kantian approach where it is seen to be a duty to reflect the proportionality of the population. Equality is a justice ethic where it is seen as a human rights issue to be treated equally with others of equal ability. There is a tradition since the 1960s in the UK to apply discrimination legislation to try and enforce an equal approach on employers in particular. This has some effect, but does not tackle the underlying attitudes of the work- force where discriminatory behaviour between employees is ignored. Managers have to be seen to be complying.
Human rights
Work is a right enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)2 and it is important that employers recognise their responsibility to pro-
vide fair treatment, pay and conditions which are legally compliant. It is also ethical so there is a duty of care to engender a sense of dignity, equality and pride in the process of work and respect for all levels of the workforce. It is hard to formalise this in rules and regulations and there are many contexts unique to cultures, type and level of work and management style. The responsibility for ethical leadership applies at all levels of management. Historically, employers have managed to keep the workforce compliant by limiting educational oppor- tunities. In return, the workers received limited reward in addition to working in second-class conditions. Expectations were low, with a line drawn between the professional and working classes.
Trade associations developed towards the end of the nineteenth century and latterly trade unions had more muscle as workers grouped together to secure better working conditions and rates of pay increased the gap between worker and employer expectations. Pay had become the predominant form of remuner- ation for the modern worker and other rights were subjugated. In recent times, there has been a worker-level movement for quality of life and equality, which has been reflected in fuller market economies, and some employees have felt a greater need to find intrinsic satisfaction. The human rights movement has also become more widely interpreted in the western workplace. Globalisation of many manufacturing activities and the transfer of labour to cheaper emer- ging economies have occurred in recent years. Campaigns rage to modernise the conditions in developing countries.
The following is a quotation from the first three paragraphs of the Declar- ation for Human Rights preamble giving a rationale for the ethical and basic treatment for the workforce.
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalien- able rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of free- dom, justice and peace in the world.
. . . Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
. . . Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
It goes on to list a full 30 articles. These articles deal with such weighty issues as dignity, equality, freedom of movement, thought, and from discrimination, right to life, recognition and fair trial, treatment and asylum to escape persecution. Articles 23 and 24 refer to fair working conditions and Article 25 refers to adequate living standards and special considerations to motherhood and children (Figure 5.1).
Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable condi- tions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social ser- vices, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
These articles represent nothing more than the basic expectations of a worker and a company should expect to exceed the basics and to do more. In most cases, governments will have legislated to cover issues like a minimum wage, minimum holiday entitlements, working hour limits, maternity (and paternity) leave, unemployment and sickness benefit, equal opportunities and provisions for special needs such as disability. Broader applications such as loss of dignity are harder to protect against, and there will be a varying treatment of migrant workers. The UK situation will be considered as a typical developed economy where equal pay, employment rights, anti-discrimination and trade union laws are used to try to standardise conditions.
Article 23 is about fair and ethical employment with adequate remuneration.
This also refers to the conditions of work and to the right to have equal pay for equal work. Most of these conditions have been in place for some time in developed economies. For example, in the UK a minimum wage in 1997 was enshrined in law. There are, however, situations where people fall through these safety nets, as in the case of immigrant and home workers who have no choice but to be on piecework which may not be proportionately remunerated to achieve minimum wages. It is also not a guaranteed source of work.
Dignity is associated with choice and the fallbacks that are available through a social security network. Social security means that people have some choice of work to claim dignity rather than a totally forced employment. There is also a right to join a trade union which can provide collective support and represen- tation. In construction, many workers are self-employed and this is a choice also, but there are some situations where the status of workers is being shown as self-employed, but because of the dependency on a single source employer, they are effectively employed by them, but without the built-in benefits and security. This means that some people lose their basic employment conditions – notice, minimum pay, holidays and redundancy and pension entitlement for a slightly increased pay rate. Some employers have tried to get rid of TU representatives and have an agreed no-union situation. This has to be agreed by 100 per cent of the workforce
Article 24 is an attempt to give rights for a balanced life. The working time
regulations refer to a working week not exceeding an average of 45 hours, with allowance for rests. Many workers in construction choose or are pressured to opt out of this privilege in order to earn more. The opt-out indicates that many depend on a low wage and also that many on a salary actually do very long hours for no extra pay.
Article 25 is about an adequate minimum wage and other basic benefits for
living. The industry is not very good at flexibility because of the amount of self- employment and also because there is a need for supervision of others who do long hours. This means that it is harder to recruit females and mothers though there are enlightened ways to introduce part-time, job sharing and other flexible working arrangements for managerial and professional staff.
The development of an ethical framework for employment of personnel and
the elimination of either direct or indirect discrimination is based on this con- tention of human rights that were confirmed in the UN 1999 ethical code (see Chapter 4). There is also a UK Human Rights Act 1998 to ratify the rights enshrined in the UN Declaration of Rights.
The aim of such legislation is to ensure basic rights, but also to provide some liberty by employers and other authorities to police these rights so that they can exercise normal powers such as law and order and the restriction of activ- ities which inequitably affect the freedoms of others. The Cadbury case study considers the historical development of these rights.
Case study 5.1 The Cadbury Brothers3
When George and Richard Cadbury moved their chocolate-making factory premises to Bournville in Birmingham in 1847 they were acting upon a corpo- rate vision to improve the working and living conditions of their workers. The Victorian industrial scene was harsh and Birmingham was no exception. One quarter of the population of Birmingham (220,000 people) lived in 2,000 streets in back-to-back housing. The streets were undrained and flooded regularly with sewage. Poor quality water was sourced from wells or brought on carts which were sold at extortionate prices and sewage was often into open channels. The back-to-back houses consisted of 120–130 sq ft of living/kitchen space on the ground floor with a bedroom above and an attic room. The terraces faced out onto the squalid street scene with another row of houses directly attached behind, facing out onto a parallel street or built into small courtyards. This arrangement left little communal space and the cramped conditions cut out the daylight. Houses were also mixed in with private slaughter houses which, together with the flooding and sewerage, created seriously unhealthy condi- tions. Workers’ lives were foreshortened and families had high rates of infant mortality. The factories nearby that employed these people were losing prod- uctivity through sickness, extensive absence from work and early loss of skilled workers.
John and Richard Cadbury were aware of these conditions through their work with adult education which involved visits to worker areas to improve the lot of the workers. It made them ask: Why should an industrial area be squalid and depressing?, Why should not the industrial worker enjoy country air and occupations without being separated from his work?, and If the country is a good place to live in, why not to work in?
Their vision for their new factory was a ‘factory in a garden’. In order to stop the factory being hemmed in by a demeaning street pattern as described above, they bought land around it. They set about creating a village worker community
called Bournville on the River Bourn which they rented out, or sold to workers. This was designed to improve the lot of the workers on the basis that a healthy worker was not only a happy worker, but a productive and loyal one. The village was open to a mixed community. It was not tied worker housing and provided affordable housing to a range of workers as states the Bournville Village Trust’s Statement of Purpose:
To provide high quality housing developments, distinctive in architecture,
landscape and environment, in socially mixed communities, using best man- agement practices to promote ways to improve the quality of life for those living in such communities.
(Cadbury 2007)4
They go on to describe the garden village urban and architectural design principles as:
•
Cottages grouped in pairs, threes or sometimes fours.•
Groups were set back from tree-lined roads, each house with its own front garden and vegetable garden with fruit trees at the back.•
All cottages were well built with light airy rooms and good sanitation.•
A typical cottage would consist of a parlour, living room and kitchen down- stairs and three bedrooms upstairs. Some early houses lacked a bathroom (easily added later).•
Houses should cost at least £150 to build: they were to house ‘honest, sober, thrifty workmen, rather than the destitute or very poor’.•
Building was restricted on each plot to prevent gardens being over- shadowed and to retain the rural aspect.•
The first houses were sold on leases of 999 years to control the rural appearance of the district: mortgages were available for would-be purchasers.Special almshouses were also built for pensioners, under the village scheme, and these still exist today, and a pension fund was first set up in 1906. In addition, recreational facilities were provided and holidays and shorter (5½ day) working weeks were introduced for worker welfare. Young workers were encouraged to leave an hour early to go to night school. Workers Councils were set up to discuss and feed back to the employer on such issues as worker safety, social conditions, education and training. The Selly Oak colleges were set up to encourage worker education. The estate also campaigned for greenbelt status
for the nearby Lickey Hills and purchased land to ensure continued parkland areas nearby. Staff dining rooms were established and discount fares to trans- port workers from central Birmingham were introduced as the factory grew bigger. The Cadburys themselves were also involved in wider social reforms, such as outlawing child labour in chimney sweeping and animal welfare reform. The Cadburys also purchased the much older J. S. Fry chocolate business which set up a factory in Keynsham, Bristol. This factory was subject to similar reforms and had a similar Quaker tradition of fairness.
The Cadburys’ successful experiment informed the Garden City movement and gave it impetus with Letchworth Garden City beginning in 1902. This con- cern for worker welfare was in opposition to conventional scientific manage- ment which was to treat workers as a factor of production, plentiful and exploitable for the maximisation of profit. The revolutionary philosophy was copied by others as a more socially aware treatment of the worker community which was believed to bring in commercial as well as an ethical dividend. It laid the groundwork for modern personnel management principles and protective laws for the workforce to protect their rights and gained a wider compliance in the ‘cut throat’ world of the Industrial Revolution and the development of a modern industry.
There are a lot of discrimination laws which protect basic rights and the ‘comfortableness’ of the workplace, but these cover technical and emotional conditions and do not cover a wider intellectual discrimination associated with professional discretion. The built environment requires an intervention which must consider the human rights of others and the individual obligation of the professional to meet these in design, safety and health.
Professional discretion and human rights
Ethically, employers are accountable in professional practice not to affect the fundamental rights of their employees to freedom of thought and the inter- actions with and between their clients and the public. Acting honestly and openly is an underlying principle for ethical action, but it also ensures that the workplace itself is not hiding information or blocking people’s liberty and security for freedom of thought. This can affect their ability to make decisions for their own good and the good of the organisation and society. For example, an engineer who is told to design a new coal-fired power station and does not know why there are no other options in a culture of climate change could be unfairly restricted. Opinions are expressed widely by professionals (Uff 2005; O’Neil 2005)5 about the need for individual discretion in complex professional
and ethical decisions. This is generally put down to the paralysis caused by complex bureaucratic procedures. It is expressed well by the difference between a consent form for an operation in 1954 which said, ‘I agree to leave the nature and extent of this operation to the discretion of the surgeon’ and one now which consists of a multi-page form to cover all aspects of the process of consent. The bureaucracy is understandable, but it is in danger of upsetting the informed and open relationship between doctor and patient, because it now confuses the patient (Giddings 2005).6
Public positions have their own strong codes of practice which are often ethically focused. However, the imposition of a conflicting range of arbitrary