1
Human Resources Management
Anonymous
BUS 5511: Human Resources Management
Dr. Sourabh Kumar
31 July 2024
2
Exploring the Global World of HR
In this discussion, I assume working for a mid-size company looking to go international and
compare and contrast chosen employment law or set of laws between my country of origin and
intended country of expansion. I will further identify the differences between the laws across the
two jurisdictions and write an International Corporate Employment Policy that covers the gaps.
Include an explanation of the additional steps needed before actual implementation. (Learning
Guide, 2024).
Assume you are working for a mid-size company that is looking to go international.
Choose one aspect of employment law from your country of origin* and choose another
country where your company is planning its new expansion. Compare and contrast the
chosen law (or set of laws) between the two countries.
I currently live in South Africa, thus I will compare and contrast the employment laws of South
Africa and those of the USA, particularly looking at anti-discrimination laws.
The South African, anti-discrimination laws include the general anti-discrimination law
promulgated under The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of
2000 and the specific employment anti-discrimination law in the Employment Equity Act of
1998.
The USA, the federal anti-discrimination laws include, “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII). Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The ADEA bans
discrimination on the basis of age against persons who are 40 or older…. Equal Pay Act of 1963
(EPA). Paying workers of one sex at a rate different from that paid to the other sex violates the
EPA when jobs involve equal skill, effort, and responsibility and are performed under similar
3
working conditions in the same establishment. …. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
(IRCA). IRCA prohibits discrimination on the basis of citizenship against persons who have a
legal right to work in this country…. Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). USERRA bans discrimination on the basis of past, current, or
future military service…. National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA gives employees
the right to unionize, the right to bargain collectively, and the right to engage in other activities
for their mutual aid and protection.” (Franke, et. al., 2012).
Comparison and Contrasting USA & SA Employment Laws
The USA and SA have constitutional guarantees of equality and statutory protection against
discrimination. The USA has anti-discrimination legislation at the federal level, and state or
provincial levels. The US has specific statutes cited above and a highly developed contract
compliance regime. SA, has two elaborate anti-discrimination laws, one for employment (the
Employment Equity Act) and one for non-employment issues (the Promotion of Equality and
Prevention of Discrimination Act). Both jurisdictions signed the international conventions on
equality and discrimination while only SA has also ratified to translate them into domestic laws.
Another area of difference between the US and SA is the grounds of discrimination. Under the
federal laws in the US, the main focus of anti-discrimination protection is race and alienage
followed by gender. The US protections extend to race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin,
while age and disability discrimination are provided for in separate laws. Sexual orientation is
not included by federal law though some states provide for it.
4
Fredman, (2012) suggests that “The South African Constitution contains the most wide-ranging
list of expressly prohibited grounds. Section 9 of the Constitution specifies 16 prohibited
grounds: race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, color, sexual
orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, and birth. The express
mention of sexual orientation contrasts with the other Constitutions and has been relied on in a
fruitful set of cases which systematically outlawed sexual orientation discrimination. The South
African statutes cover the same range of grounds, with the further possibility of extension to
include HIV/AIDS status, socio-economic status, nationality, family responsibility and family
status.”
Another area of difference is on who the equality guarantees bind. In the US equality guarantees
bind the state whereas in SA they apply horizontally, potentially applying in private contractual
relations for example employment contracts.
The definition of terms also differs between the US and SA with the US definition of terms being
broader and more substantive than that of SA. For example, the requirement for reasonable
accommodation of an employee's disability or religious needs would vary on whether narrowly
or broadly defined.
Identify the differences between the two sets of laws and write an International Corporate
Employment Policy that covers the gaps. Include an explanation of the additional steps
needed before actual implementation.
Fredman, (2012) observes that the differences between US and SA anti-discrimination and
equality laws come from differences in the following aspects of law:
1. The legal & social contexts that gave birth to the laws,
2. The sources of the laws,
5
3. The provisions, the grounds, and the characteristics of the protections of the laws,
4. Coverage and application of the laws,
5. Who is bound by the laws, and
6. Definitions of the types of discrimination.
Overall, SA anti-discrimination laws offer more protection than the US. The area of sexual
orientation is one such area. SA has robust protections while the US has none at the federal level
and some protection in some states. This can have implications for employment policy creation.
The International Corporate Employment Policy
International Corporate Employment Policy could pitch its provisions aligned to the laws of SA
which has broader protections rather than following the lesser protections of the host country, the
USA. I would thus recommend a policy of adopting the SA anti-discrimination laws and writing
them into our employment policies across the employment life cycle from recruitment,
onboarding
and induction, training and development, performance and coaching, discipline and separation. I
would use the following implementation plan template.
HR Focus SA Legal USA Legal Gaps Options Optimal
Area Framework Framework Option
Recruitment
& Selection
Training &
Development
Performance
Management
Compensatio
n
Labor
Relations
Conclusion
6
SA and USA anti-discrimination laws are different and their differences impact employee
considerations when a firm wishes to move from SA to the USA. While there are a lot of
similarities which make things easy, there are substantive differences which cannot be
overlooked
without consequences. An audit of the laws are mapping out areas of similarity and areas of
differences can be mapped out. Alternatives can be generated on how to address the differences.
Where the differences are not substantive, they can be ignored but where they are substantive
they
should be adequately addressed. I would generally, recommend aligning the international policy
framework with the more generous provisions of the SA laws.
References
1. Discrimination by Type. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved
from: https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-type.
2. Franke, L., Gentry, J., Hackerott, C.L., Hammonds, D., Hensen, H., Kapusta, K., Pavich,
M., Stephanides, D., Waltermath, J., Wolf, P. (Eds.). (2012). Basic Employment Law
Manual for Managers and Supervisors. 8th Edition. Chicago: CCH.
3. Fredman, S. (2012). Comparative Study of Anti-discrimination and Equality Laws of US,
Canada, SA and India. European Communities.
4. SHRM Foundation (2015). Challenges for human resource management and global
business strategy. In Engaging and Integrating a Global Workforce. Read pages 41-44.
Download the pdf
