1. Cracker Barrel’s strategy and policy does not justify the company’s blatant discrimination against homosexuals. The action taken by Cracker Barrel is unjustifiable, regardless of company policy. Any type of discrimination is unjustifiable in my eyes regardless of the situation in which it occurs. Homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us and should be treated accordingly.
Imagine if Cracker Barrel had handed down a company policy against African-American values. In my eyes, Cracker Barrel’s policy against homosexuals is no different and is completely unacceptable. The law may not necessarily cover sexual orientation discrimination but employers should exercise some ethical responsibility by providing a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. By not doing so, Discrimination can have some adverse effects on a company. Discrimination based on sexual orientation can have many potential negative effects on a company, like decreased productivity and lowering the esteem of other employees. A company will benefit in the long run from providing a workplace free of discrimination and harassment.
The Term Paper on Discrimination is Inexcusable, Even Against Homosexuals
Abstract Being different is one of the most difficult things in this world. One is better off in society following the norm. As research will show in this paper, the gay and lesbian community worldwide has suffered manifold afflictions in the name of being different. I researched on the topic of homosexuality mostly using the internet. One of the points I cover is the question of whether ...
Cracker Barrel could have more effectively implemented its new policy. There are several things Cracker Barrel could have done several things differently to avoid the controversy of its policy. Cracker Barrel could have avoided the topic of sexual orientation in its policy altogether. The Cracker Barrel policy could have instructed the correct employee behavior necessary for employment and they could have avoided the topic of homosexual behavior altogether. By mentioning homosexual behavior, they directly targeted homosexuals and that is discrimination based on sexual orientation. 2.
Special-interest groups are more than justified in holding protests against a company and its policy, especially in the cases of blatant discrimination. By arresting the protestors, Cracker Barrel brought unwanted national attention. This action taken by Cracker Barrel was obviously the wrong move if they wanted to ease the tension concerning their discriminatory policy. Cracker Barrel could have done several things differently to appease the protestors.
For instance, Cracker Barrel could have publicly apologized for its insensitivity and made a reasonable stride to change its policy toward homosexuals, thus appeasing the protestors. However, Cracker Barrel chose not to acknowledge the protestors and instead called the police to disperse the protests. By doing this, Cracker Barrel brought unwanted national attention that would eventually force them to change its policy toward homosexuals. 3. Employers should have a reasonable amount of authority and power in developing employment policies. Ultimately, the government should establish laws that protect against discrimination and employers should be forced to follow these laws.
The government should establish laws and pass them down for companies to follow. Shareholders, like employers should have a reasonable amount of authority and power in developing employment policies. Policies should be defined by the government and then implemented by employers. There should be some room left for interpretation on the part of both employers and shareholders. However, this interpretation should be overlooked by the government. The proper role of the courts is to interpret the law and establish a precedent to follow.
The Research paper on Cracker Barrel Employees Company Discrimination
The Case of Old Country Store Equal Employment (EO) is giving the same employment opportunity to everyone without bias or discrimination because of race, religion, color or gender. Because of the importance of managing the practice of the federal government has established a Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This agency along with some others are responsible for ensuring organization ...
The courts should decide on the policy set forth by the government prior to being handed down to employers. The courts should be limited to interpreting the law and then determining when a law has been broken. 4. Cracker Barrels continued success in a highly competitive environment is probably due to several intertwined factors. Cracker Barrel obviously provides a valuable service to its customers.
Its emphasis on “American Values” may be a contributing factor to its success but I highly doubt that Cracker Barrel has benefited by its stance against homosexuals. The recent controversy has only hurt the company and will continue to hurt it in the future. Cracker Barrel desperately needs to address these concerns. The company has a bad history of discriminating and should make some ethical strides to change its public image. This should be Cracker Barrel’s number one priority. Cracker Barrel will benefit in the long run from changing its public image to a responsible company.
5. My assessment of the racial discrimination charges being leveled against the company is that this type of behavior by a company or its employees is completely unacceptable. Discrimination of any type should have no place in a company. Furthermore, a company like Cracker Barrel should ensure that discrimination is not occurring in its restaurants.
Cracker Barrel has denied these claims and stands by its antidiscrimination policies. However, this may not be enough. Cracker Barrel should exercise more ethical responsibility. Like most companies, Cracker Barrel seems to hide behind its antidiscrimination policies and turn their back on what is really happening. They should be looking into each individual case to assure that discrimination is not occurring within its restaurants. After all, Cracker Barrel is still liable for discrimination that occurs in its restaurants regardless of its company policy..
