Essays on Arguments for and against the Interference of Government Policy in Hiring Practices of an Organization Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Arguments for and against the Interference of Government Policy in Hiring Practices of an Organization" is a great example of management coursework.   Ideally, an employer is supposed to have the right to hire any employee he feels will help the organization in achieving its goals. However, on the ground there are many factors beyond the employers control that influence who an organization can hire or not. The Australian labour market has a myriad of legal barriers that organization face in the quest to employ the right individuals. An organization needs to consider the quality and quantity of employees it is going to hire.

However, a number of external and internal factors affect the individuals an organization can employ. Among these external factors is Government policy. Government policy affects the recruitment of workers in profound ways. HR planning cannot afford to ignore the legal implication of their hiring practices. Regulations that interfere with the government include tax legislation, non-discrimination legislation and restriction on the free movement of people across foreign borders. HR planning is the first and very crucial function of human resource management.

According to Bhattacharyya (2009), human resource planning is concerned with acquiring, utilizing, improving and preservation of human resources. This paper discusses the various arguments for and against the interference of government policy in hiring practices of an organization. The paper discusses how the government interferes with hiring in an organization and whether there is a need for the Government to do so. The paper shows that the government engages in a sensitive balancing act as economic theory require the government to stay off the affairs of private enterprise. Secondly, it analyzes the argument advanced by organizations towards being allowed the freedom to employ whomever they want.

Finally, the paper concludes that there is need for government to remain involved in hiring practices to ensure organization do not engage in exploitive hiring practices. Discussion According to Armstrong (2003), government policy influence all the phases of employment starting with the pre-employment phase. The process of pre-employment including job adverts, job description, application form and the interview have to follow stringent legal guidelines. One of the reasons why government intervention in hiring practices is necessary is to prevent discrimination.

Given the diversity of the labour market, issues of discrimination are in hiring are almost inevitable. Organizations can, however, stay from trouble by adhering to legislation against discrimination in employment. According to Gringart and Helmes (2001), it is illegal for employers to discriminate against individuals during the hiring process on the grounds of race, sex, religion, age disability and many other characteristics. The aim of government intervention is to ensure that people of diverse origins are not discriminated due to their differences. While placing a job advertisement use of discriminatory words should be avoided as it may show that the organization is bent on acting in a discriminatory manner.

The same conventions are to be observed while compiling the job description as intent to discriminate here too is illegal. Legal requirements for employers during the interview also limit the employers hiring options. According to Bennington and Wein (2000), an employer is under legal obligation not to ask questions that seek information that may lead to the discrimination of the employee in the hiring process. Employers are advised not to ask a question on an individual intended to have children or how many children he has, his marital status, race, religion, his sexual preference, whether they suffer from a disability or not as these are taken as discriminatory questions (Bennington and Wein 2000).

Legislations like the Equal opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 require organizations to have a workforce that is diverse in term of gender. Similarly, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, requires employers to consider disabled applicants on the same level as other able-bodied employees (Bennington and Wein 2000).


Armstrong, M 2003, A handbook of human resource management practice, Kogan Page Limited.

Bennington, L & Wein, R 2000, Anti-discrimination legislation in Australia: fair, effective, efficient or irrelevant?, International Journal of Manpower,vol. 21, no. 1,pp. 21-33.

Bhattacharyya, DK 2009, Human Resource Planning, Excel Books India, New Delhi.

Gringart, E & Helmes, E 2001, Age discrimination in hiring practices against older adults in Western Australia: The case of accounting assistants, Australasian Journal on Ageing, vol. 20, no.1, pp. 23-28.

Hugo, G 2006, Temporary migration and the labour market in Australia, Australian Geographer, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 211-231.

Kaur, A 2007, Migration matters in the Asia-Pacific region: immigration frameworks, knowledge workers and national policies, Migration and Integration in the Asia-Pacific Region, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 135-157.

Ofori-Dankwa, J & Julian, SD 2005, From thought to theory to school: the role of contextual factors in the evolution of schools of management thought, Organization Studies, 26(9), 1307-1329.

Hudson , P 2013, Door shuts on thousands of cheap foreign workers, Herald Sun, Retreived on 13th April 2012,

Kukoc, K 2011, Key Issues in Skilled Migration to Australia, Australia-Canada Roundtable on Foreign Qualifications Recognition, 13.

Freeman, GP, & Birrell, B 2001, Divergent paths of immigration politics in the United States and Australia, Population and Development Review, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 525-551.

Shah, C & Burke, G 2005, Skilled migration: Australia, Monash University, CEET.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us