In the video: Ben Gvir's racist statement: "My freedom is more important than that of the Arabs"/from the "main edition" News 12 and spokeswoman Itamar Ben Gvir
The connection between an employer's racist policy and a toxic corporate culture has received a disturbing spotlight in recent months, with the outbreak of the global wave of anti-Semitism. Examples emerge every day of employers (from the public and business sectors), who cultivate a discourse of hate in the workplace.
Pay attention to the following data: the incoming CEO of the BBC admitted in an email he sent to all employees, that "there have been anti-Semitic incidents in the organization in the past", and that equal treatment must be ensured in the workplace; The Jewish UN employees complained about an anti-Semitic attitude across the organization, which prevents them from expressing any personal opinion that is not identified with the organization's anti-Israel policy. to remove a video inciting violent action against the "Zions"); Google employees find hateful writings against Jews in the company's bathroom, and if that's not enough - this month a senior Google employee accused the company's Jewish employees of "impersonating victims of anti-Semitism".
What all these employers have in common is clear: each of which he dictates to the employees of the organization the anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic position he holds, thereby instructing the employees on how to conduct themselves in the workplace. The result is that the employee does not carry out his duties professionally, but is biased. If the job of a journalist is to objectively report on events, it is clear that He is prevented from providing balanced coverage when he is required in advance to bring only a result that serves the employer's position.
No place for racism/ShutterStock
The conclusions learned recently, from data collected by various parties, such as: governmental bodies, academic studies and voluntary organizations, show that filing a lawsuit against a racist employer does not achieve immediate results, and does not resolve the blatant violation of the duty of equality applied to him.
On the other hand, exposure Publicity and shaming of a racist employer are more effective means: the Stop Antisemitism association, for example, does not operate in the legal arena but on social networks. It publishes photos, videos and posts documenting a clear racist and anti-Semitic act, and calls on the public to identify those photographed. After a verification process, a public appeal is sent to the employer to terminate the employee's employment with him. The association publishes the referral to the employer and its results - immediate dismissal or resignation.
The Jewhatedb group operates with a similar method, but upgraded: it has set up a database on its website, open for public inspection, of all employees caught in acts of hate, in which their names and details appear , under the title "Unfit for employment". The purpose of the database is to increase the punishment for both the racist employee and his future employer, who will be labeled as a racist if he ignores the information.
However, the private initiatives provide a one-point solution and do not deal with the serious phenomenon of a systematic violation by employers of the obligation to prevent their employees from Offensive work. Even the investigations of the American Congress (and the European in the case of Twitter) do not result in real change or taking responsibility on the part of the infringing employers. At most, the employer presents the appearance of taking preventive measures that are publicized to his employees, or fires an employee for a particularly blatant anti-Semitic act, but in practice refrains from taking effective measures to effect internal organizational change.
More in Walla!
Pietro is celebrating a round birthday and you enjoy a once-in-60-years sale
In collaboration with Pitro
Attorney Dafna Shmoelwitz/Liran Shahar
It seems that in the last week the various legislators in the US realized that the practical way to motivate employers to take real action in favor of a protected work environment is to impose a significant financial penalty and the imposition of criminal liability, both on them and on their employees. Documents as part of the ongoing investigation against her on this very issue, because the committee intends to deprive the university of part of its budget.
Considering that over 60% of the Mossad's budget, about 625 million dollars, comes from public support, this is a serious threat. At the same time, several senators in the state of New York drafted a new bill, according to which they will deny the budgets of public institutions that violate their duty to an equal work environment, in addition to denying residence permits of students or foreign workers who are involved in hate crimes.
It is difficult to recognize that the practical way to cultural change in the workplace and outside is the punitive route. In a perfect work world, the concept of equality would come from the moral and ethical position of the organization's leaders. However, in the reality where employers without proper leadership operate, a real economic threat to their activity is a significant motive to force them to make an essential correction.
The author is the founder of the firm Dafna Shmoelwitz & Co. which specializes in labor law and represents large employers in the economy
More on the same topic:
racism