The World Business

Posts Tagged ‘Related’

Online Marketing, also referred to as Internet marketing is the marketing of products or services over the Internet. When applied to the subset of website based advertisement placements, its commonly referred to as ‘webvertising’. Its unique features are its benefits to marketing, one is the lower cost of distribution of information and media to a global audience. The interactive nature of Internet marketing, both in terms of providing instance response and eliciting response, is a unique quality of the medium. Online Marketing has become a very popular term in the World Wide Web.

Internet Marketing is associated with many business models. These are e-commerce, publishing and lead-based websites. Certainly it is also different from traditional marketing. It is more personal and can appeal to a specific interest. Although having a lot of advantages, it does has its limitations, security concerns and a certain effect on industries. This we shall explore now.

Online marketing is quite inexpensive. It is designed such that it allows consumers to research and purchase products and services at their own convenience. It also leads to faster results. Almost all measures of online marketing can be traced, measured and tested. The advertisers either pay web banner impression, per click(PPC), per play(PPP) or per action accomplished. Also, due to the exposure, response, and overall efficiency, online marketing is growing faster than any other media.

From the shopper’s perspective, the tangibility of goods is taken into account. The product is not delivered to the user immediately and neither is the shopper present to try, touch, test the product. Online marketing has had its impact on several previously retail oriented products including music, film, pharmaceuticals, banking, flea markets, as well as the advertising industry itself. Online banking is believed to appeal to customers because it is more convenient than visiting bank branches. Other effect on industries include Internet auctions that are in place.

RACIAL EQUALITY VICTIMIZATION IN EMPLOYMENT

Race relations victimization is different than color discrimination or ethnic discrimination or racial harassment or racial segregation -race victimization or color victimization need not include discriminatory practices to be illegal ~it need only be about race equality.

It is possible for one in race relations law, even if not subjected to race discrimination, to suffer unlawful race relations victimization, entitling to legal remedies.

Race relations victimization is, on its own, contrary to nondiscrimination policy -in race equality legislation under the Race Relations Act, and in employment law, unlawful.

In race relations laws also workplace victimization can be without race discrimination or racial abuse; and, employment tribunal compensation for race relations victimization, if it is with racial discrimination or ethnic relations abuse -be it racial segregation or color discrimination or ethnic prejudice or any other kind of racist abuse, for ‘injury to feelings’ is limitless -racial victimization exempts on its own from a year’s service requirement to sue, if terminated, also for reinstatement.

Only indirectly is race relations victimization to do with one’s color, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, citizenship; it is not directly about racism in ethnic relations, racial segregation, race equality, as such -it is about detriment over concern with those at the workplace caused one by way of retaliation, and because it is about race equality it is called race relations victimization.

Race relations victimization is, in racial equality legislation -under the Race Relations Act, basically, this:-

If one complains…

…that one has been, or is being, treated less favorably on racial grounds by one’s employer -to the employer or to a tribunal or to the race relations board or seeks advice from the advisory arbitration and conciliation service (or friend or colleague -or anyone)…

…or if one agrees to, e.g., give evidence or support anyone, or lawfully do anything, in relation to race discrimination to the detriment or possible detriment of the employer…

…or if one does not do any of those things but is suspected by the employer that has done or would or could or might do so…

…and because of that race relations related act or suspicion if one is subjected to a detriment by the employer or for or on behalf of the employer, in respect of one’s employment…

…that is unlawful race relations victimization of one.

In race relations victimization it does not matter, e.g., if one’s complaint was of racial abuse in personal service (e.g. house help) exempted in nondiscrimination policy, or of race discrimination over a genuine occupational qualification (e.g. straight haired model) exempt under the Race Relations Act, or, if one was wrong and it was not race discrimination -if it is a complaint of race equality in good faith any detriment because of it caused one (even if not discriminatory practices detriment) is illegal race relations victimization.

Also, in race relations law, it does not matter if the employer did not know of the race relations victimization -if the racial victimization is by someone to do with that employment (including a colleague -unless the employer can prove that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure compliance with racial equality laws, including e.g. ethnic victimization) there is vicarious race equality liability for race relations victimization.

The motive or intention is irrelevant in race relations victimization -so is being unconscious of subjecting to racial victimization -if less favourable treatment (even if it is not itself race discrimination) is shown and it relates to racial equality, that is race relations victimization and there is racial victimization liability: Swiggs & Others -v- Nagarajan, 1999, HL.

Race relations case law suggest that for a claim to succeed under the Race Relations Act the employee’s complaint to the employer about racial equality which resulted in race relations victimization, must have been made before the race relations victimization took place if victimization was dismissal -before the employment contract ended: Post Office -v- Adekeye, and, Negorajam -v- Agnew 1974 EAT.

The employer needs the employee’s consent to put it right if it is not in an internal appeal, and also in race relations this is so, if the race relations victimization is termination -because that ends the employment contract (which, if not specifically made, the law deems to have existed): James -v- Waltham Holy Cross UDC, 1973, NIRC ~but an employee, before suing under the race relations law for racial victimization, must protest with written cause the race relations victimization to the employer for response in 28 days, considering arbitration for conciliation or settling.

It is not a defense in race relations victimization for the employer, if later information showed the employer to have erred, that at the time of the race relations victimization information was not available to suggest that the detriment would be racial victimization -the employer must put right that error ~this (Williamson -v- Alcan UK Ltd., 1978, EAT) is regarded a principle of employment law, and if does not, that too, in race equality law, is unlawful race relations victimization.

If one suffers race relations victimization, one may serve on the employer a racial discrimination questionnaire (within three months of when one first knew of the race relations victimization -or if one has lodged one’s racial victimization claim with an employment tribunal [for which there is a time limit of three months] within 21 days of lodging it), using the employer’s answers to why subjected to alleged racial victimization as evidence of race relations victimization -failure to answer or vague or ambiguous replies entitle drawing inference in race relations victimization claims.

In racial equality case law there appears to be a judicial expectation that a race relations complaint should specify or include the allegation that it relates to racial discrimination -British Airways Engine Overhaul Ltd. -v- Francis 1981 dismissed the case because the race relations complainant had not alleged that the complaint related to race discrimination (that in later protected acts [whistle-blowing, asserting a statutory right] reasonable clarity suffices may make same applicable to race relations victimization).

In race relations victimization the onus of proof is normally on the employee alleging racial victimization, but this can move to the employer because the employer must state a reason for the detriment alleged to be race relations victimization, and employment tribunals have to have regard to the reason stated by the employer -this applies also in race relations victimization cases ~it is important to show the employer’s reason not to be, or be capable of not being, the reason or main reason for a detriment alleged as racial victimization.

If it is not shown to be a race relations matter, even if the detriment is proven, it is not racial victimization -Baker -v- Cornwall County Council 1990, and, York Truck Equipment Ltd. 1990 EAT) held the detriment not related to racial equality but disciplinary and so, not race relations victimization ~in racial victimization one must show not only that there had been a race equality issue followed by a detriment but also that the detriment would not have arisen but for a race equality issue for it to be race relations victimization.

In race relations cases the basic consideration in race relations discrimination applies also to race relations victimization and is whether the alleged racial discrimination or race relations victimization arouse from a racial equality matter -the ‘but for’ rule: would the detriment have still been suffered, or would it not have been but for racial inequality, or in the case of race relations victimization a race equality enquiry or complaint or act of the employee -or the employer’s related suspicion? If the detriment alleged to be victimization would not otherwise have been suffered, it is unlawful race relations victimization, entitling to a remedy.

Laws change, these are brief guidelines.

DICSCRIMINATON AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE

Equal opportunities workplace discrimination in sex discrimination cover sexual orientation, same-sex prejudice, adoption, paternity, maternity, parental, dependant leave, marital status, equal pay; race relations employment discrimination ethnic relations, religious discrimination, nationality, citizenship; discriminatory practices, disability discrimination.

Sex equality, race relations, disability work rights in employment discrimination laws are:-

A. It is employment discrimination contrary to nondiscrimination policy, unlawful prejudice, to treat employees e.g. working women, colored, foreign workers less favorably than others ~this is the basis of equal opportunities, nondiscrimination laws, in workplace discrimination, be it gender equality, racial equality, disability rights in employment -applying employment discrimination rights is illegal.

B. It is illegal workplace victimization to penalize one for complaining or inquiring about or doing anything in good faith in relation to employment discrimination -be it about discriminatory practices of e.g. gender prejudice or sexual orientation or ethnic relations, even if there has not been, and even if the employer retaliation is not itself employment discrimination ~causing detriment after employment ends also is employment discrimination.

Important details of employment discrimination are:-

Equal Opportunities are not minority rights, or women’s rights only ~it is equally illegal employment discrimination for e.g. black or women employers to subject to racial inequality or gender discrimination or sexual harassment a white an employee -in ethnic relations it is employment discrimination whether the employer belongs to a dominant majority group or a minority group.

Lawful prejudice is possible: in employment discrimination, whether it is race relations, ethnic relations, or sex equality, employers are entitled to employment discrimination in recruitment by preferring a particular racial or ethnic or gender or sexual orientation class to ensure fair gender equality or racial equality respecting nondiscrimination policy ~non-employment of the disabled is legal employment discrimination if workers are less than 20 -or if a legal musts, e.g. safety helmet for Sigh bike messenger.

Segregation, racial or ethnic, is not unlawful employment discrimination if genuinely otherwise it would disrupt ~in gender equality it is not illegal employment discrimination but lawful discriminatory practice to provide separate one-sex facilities to avoid embarrassment -it is also legal employment discrimination if it would offend a sizable faith.

Otherwise racial segregation can make liable in employment discrimination as race discrimination -if it arises from an employment discrimination complaint, additionally, also as employment victimization.

Employment victimization if is due to, e.g., gender prejudice, an employment discrimination complaint must have preceded it – Negorajam -v- Agnew, 1994.

Workplace harassment, be it sexual, religious or belief, ethnic or racial harassment, is more than employment discrimination -it can be, additionally to employment discrimination, a criminal offence ~also if it is only employment discrimination and on its own not of criminal nature, if persisted in, in employment or after termination.

Sex harassment or racist abuse by a colleague is not workplace harassment as employment discrimination if not in course of or at place of work nor related to work -action lies in equal opportunities but not as employment discrimination.

Workplace harassment, e.g., sexual harassment, is required in employment discrimination case-law to be shown to have adversely affected one’s dignity – Porcelli -v- Stratchlyde Rural District Council, 1980.

Religious or Belief Discrimination it is in equal opportunities and employment discrimination, because of one’s religion or belief, to apply a condition on the assumption that a law would not be respected -e.g. an undertaking that Sigh builders would wear helmets at all times, or that a Sigh judge would wear instead of his turban the wig worn in British courts of law.

Degrading treatment (which the above would also be) in employment discrimination under the race relations legislation (racial victimization -or religious, ethnic, color, nationality, citizenship) takes into account what the complainant considers to be degrading.

Age Discrimination may also be complained of, if employee or candidate may is refused employment because of his or her age, or in employment if is less favourably treated or subjected to victimization.

Disability discrimination while it is, in employment discrimination legislation, to not provide some 30% disability work for disabled employees in a workforce of 20 or more -with appropriate work and equipment and workplace adjustments, disability discrimination is subject to employment discrimination precedent and the courts may regard an employer’s failure in special interviewing arrangements not a discriminatory practice amounting to employment discrimination but failure of the disabled job applicant, even if the special arrangements need was stated on the application and details were never asked, if disabled persons fail to specify them .

Disability discrimination is legal if the workforce is less than 15 ~also if of indirect effect on disabled workers -it is employment discrimination only if it affects directly.

Disabilities do not entitle to equal rights or disability rights in disability employment discrimination unless for a year seriously disabled in ordinary daily activities -else it is not employment discrimination.

Genuine occupational qualification excuses employment discrimination -in equal opportunities employment rights it is a genuine occupational qualification is one that does not unjustly disqualify an entire class of, e.g., female workers or married women employees, or staff transsexual or of a different sexual orientation, or alien workers ~in employment discrimination such proof is on the employer in sex or race discrimination claims – Panesaar -v- Nestle 1980.

Grading of employees vulnerable to employment discrimination -e.g. of working women or black or immigrant workers, may be complained of as employment discrimination ~employer must show that were not taken into account personal factors, e.g. a working woman likely to take maternity leave or a single parent working girl, in assessing – National Vulcan Engineering -v- Wade, 1977.

Maternity leave, paternity or parental or adoption or dependant leave, in employment discrimination laws are for all -married, partner, or neither ~if it is agreed contractually, employment discrimination laws forbid employers to prefer the contractual or the statutory entitlement -in equal opportunities applicable to employment discrimination employees choose which.

Comparison must be made if one is directly subjected to employment discrimination to show that employment discrimination to have been by way of less favorable treatment of the complainant than other workers – Aziz -v- Trinity Taxis, 1998.

Less favorable treatment complained of as employment discrimination must have taken place at the workplace or must be in relation to employment, otherwise it is not employment discrimination ~in ethnic relations, e.g., employer’s excluding from a house-warming party is not equal opportunities race equality breach of nondiscrimination policy -but it is employment discrimination if from a workers’ office party – Walters -v- Metropolitan Police, 1997.

Equal pay if the employment discrimination has been in respect of, it is inessential for comparison to be of identical work -in employment discrimination precedent similar work suffices, e.g., a single working girl’s work and a married working woman’s like work – Hayward -v- Canwell Laird Shipyards, 1977.

Internal Appeal offer in employment discrimination must precede worker’s dismissal, if made – James -v- Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council, 1973.

Claims for employment discrimination or, e.g., sexual harassment or color victimization must allege so -if the worker only claims only unfair dismissal the qualifying period may bar an, e.g., race equality employment discrimination case exempt from the qualifying period requirements – British Airways Engine Overhaul -v- Francis, 1981.

Qualifying period for suing does not apply to employment discrimination and workplace harassment -no particular length of service need be shown to sue for employment discrimination ~also so in equal opportunities workplace victimization.

Time limit does apply -in employment discrimination legal proceedings must be commenced within three months of the equal opportunities breach or of when the employment discrimination, or the employment discrimination victimization, became known – Cornelius -v- University College -Swansea 1987.

Questionnaires are part of equal opportunities claims in employment discrimination whether sex discrimination, color prejudice, workplace harassment, or employment victimization ~one may serve one on the employer and use answers or non-reply in arguing employment discrimination.

Amendments may be allowed by employment tribunals to employment discrimination complaints, only if are about a matter included in the in employment discrimination particulars – Swiss Life & Health Insurance -v- Kay, 2004.

Additional claims based on same employment discrimination also so – Ashworth Hospital -v- Liebling, 1996.

Onus of proof in employment discrimination is the complainant’s on a balance of probabilities ~regard to employer’s reasons for the alleged employment discrimination can reverse that – Humphrey’s -v- Board of Management of St. George’s School, 1978.

The European Court of Justice has ruled in employment discrimination cases that there is no limit on what may be awarded for injury to feelings in claims arising from workplace discrimination.

Costs may be involved if a party, including the complainant, has been vexatious, frivolous, or “otherwise unreasonable” –normally, in the course of or in relation to the proceedings.

Laws change; these are brief guidelines.