首页> 外文学位 >文献详情
【24h】

Comparisons of affirmative action in employment for people with disabilities in Malaysia and the United States.

机译:马来西亚和美国残疾人就业方面的平权行动比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Affirmative action is a step taken by government that formed for the purpose of removing barriers, past discrimination and avoid present discrimination in every aspect of life, i.e. employment, education, or contracting with certain groups of people for services which usually involves minority groups. This research compares the policies of affirmative action in government and private sectors for employment of people with disabilities in Malaysia and the United States. The methodology used in this research is analyzing relevant documents such as journal articles, conference proceedings, books, government documents, and national data. Affirmative action in Malaysia is based on a quota scheme, while there is no history of quota scheme in the United States Malaysia has specified a 1% employment quota for people with disabilities in government and private sectors under the legislation of the Service Circular Letter No. 3/2008 (for government sector) and Code of Practice of Employment for People with Disabilities in Private Sector 2001 (for private sector). Implementation of affirmative action in the government sector began in 1988 under Service Circular Letter No. 10/1988 and was renewed in 2008. In the United States, affirmative action in employment for people with disabilities is stated in the Rehabilitation Act 1973, Section 501 (for government sector) and Section 503 (for private sector). The target of affirmative action in Malaysia has not yet been reached even though it has been implemented for more than 20 years. The purpose of comparing both affirmative action policies, Malaysia and the United States, to see how they are similar and different and to suggest steps that can be taken to improve the situation in Malaysia. The results of this research show that implementation of affirmative action requires four vital elements in order to function effectively which are plans, monitors, services, and consequences. In comparing the affirmative action, it is realized that affirmative action in Malaysia contains plans, monitors, and services. The element of "consequences" that involve penalties has not yet been added. The "consequences" element is as important as other elements for the success of affirmative action as it causes employers to take serious action to implement affirmative action. It is suggested that Malaysia include the "consequences" element such as practicing the quota-levy system instead of a binding quota scheme.
机译:平等权利行动是政府采取的步骤,其目的是消除生活中各个方面的障碍,过去的歧视并避免当前的歧视,即就业,教育或与某些人签约以获取通常涉及少数群体的服务。这项研究比较了马来西亚和美国政府和私营部门在雇用残疾人方面采取的平权政策。本研究中使用的方法是分析相关文件,例如期刊文章,会议记录,书籍,政府文件和国家数据。马来西亚的平权行动基于配额计划,而美国没有配额计划的历史。根据服务通告第No.7号的立法,马来西亚已为政府和私营部门的残疾人规定了1%的就业配额。 3/2008(针对政府部门)和《 2001年私营部门残疾人就业行为守则》(针对私营部门)。 1988年根据服务通告第10/1988号在政府部门开始实施平等权利行动,并于2008年续签。在美国,《 1973年康复法案》第501条规定了对残疾人就业的平等权利行动(适用于政府部门)和第503节(适用于私营部门)。即使已经实施了20多年,马来西亚仍未实现平权行动的目标。比较马来西亚和美国这两种平权行动政策的目的,以了解它们的异同,并提出可以采取的措施来改善马来西亚的局势。这项研究的结果表明,平权行动的实施需要四个至关重要的要素才能有效发挥作用,它们是计划,监控,服务和后果。在比较平权行动时,我们意识到马来西亚的平权行动包含计划,监督和服务。尚未添加涉及处罚的“后果”要素。 “后果”要素与平权行动成功的其他要素一样重要,因为它导致雇主采取认真的行动来实施平权行动。建议马来西亚包括“后果”要素,例如实行配额征收制度,而不是有约束力的配额制度。

著录项

  • 作者单位

    University of Arkansas.;

  • 授予单位 University of Arkansas.;
  • 学科 Psychology Counseling.;Sociology Industrial and Labor Relations.;Political Science Public Administration.
  • 学位 M.S.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 114 p.
  • 总页数 114
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

联系方式:18141920177 (微信同号)

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号