Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Extent Of Job Discrimination
Extent Of Job Discrimination
Extent Of Job Discrimination
Extent Of Job Discrimination
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Extent Of Job Discrimination

1,554

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,554
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. LESSON 17: EXTENT OF JOB DISCRIMINATION Today we will discuss about the extent of job discrimination in Distribution of Income Among Working Men and society. Women, 1994 Points to be covered in this lesson: Income ($) Percent of men Percent of women Job discrimination based on race and gender with that income with that income How do we estimate whether an institution or a set of 1 to 2,499 7 14 institutions is practic-ing discrimination against a 2,500 to 4,999 4 10 certain group? 5,000 to 9,999 12 21 By looking at statistical indicators of how the members of that 10,000 to 14,999 13 15 group are distributed within the institution. 15,000 to 24,999 20 19 25,000 to 49,999 29 17 A prima facie indication of discrimination exists when a 50,000 to 74,999 10 3 disproportionate num-ber of the members of a certain group 75,000 and over 6 1 hold the less desirable positions within the institutions in spite of their preferences and abilities. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Three kinds of com-parisons can provide evidence for such a Reports. distribution: The evidence of racial and sexual discrimination provided by the 1. Comparisons of the average benefits the institutions bestow quan-titative measures cited can be filled out qualitatively by on the discriminated group with the average benefits the examining the occu-pational distribution of racial and sexual institutions bestow on other groups; minorities. As the figures suggests, larger percentages of white 2. Comparisons of the proportion of the discriminated group males move into the higher paying occu-pations, while minori- found in the lowest levels of the in-stitutions with the ties and women end up in those that are less desirable. proportions of other groups found at those levels; Consequently, although many white women have moved into 3. Com-parisons of the proportions of that group that hold the middle-manage-ment positions in recent years, neither they nor more advantageous positions with the proportions of other minorities have yet been al-lowed into the top-paying senior groups that hold those same positions. management and top executive positions. If we look at American society in terms of these three kinds of Just as the most desirable occupations are held by whites, while comparisons, it becomes clear that some form of racial and sexual the less desirable are held by blacks, so also the most well- discrimination is present in American society as a whole. It is also paying occupations tend to be reserved for men, and the clear that for some segments of the minority popula- tion (such remainder for women. The following table illustrates the as young college-educated black males) disparities. Studies indicate that despite two decades of women entering the workforce in record numbers, women managers discrimina-tion is not as intense as it once was. still are not being promoted from middle-management Average Income Comparisons positions into senior or top-management posts be-cause they Income comparisons provide the most suggestive indicators of encounter an impenetrable “glass ceiling” through which they discrim-ination. If we compare the average incomes of nonwhite may look but not enter. American families, for example, with the average incomes of white It is some-times suggested that women choose to work in American families, we see that white family incomes are those jobs that have relatively low pay and low prestige. It is substantially above those of nonwhites. suggested sometimes, for example, that women believe that Contrary to a commonly held belief, the income gap between only certain jobs (such as secretary or kindergarten teacher) are whites and minorities has been increasing rather than decreasing. “appropriate” for women; that many women choose courses of Since 1970, in fact, even during periods when the real incomes study that suit them only for such jobs; that many women of whites have gone up, real minority incomes have not kept up. choose those jobs because they plan to raise children and these In 1970 the average income for a black family was 65 percent of a jobs are relatively easy to leave and re-enter; that many women white family’s average income; in 1994 the black family’s in- come choose these jobs because they have limited demands and allow was 63 percent of the white family’s income. them time to raise children; that many women defer to the Income comparisons also reveal large inequalities based on sex. A demands of their husbands’ careers and choose to forgo com-parison of average incomes for men and women shows that developing their own careers. Al-though choice plays some role women receive only a portion of what men receive. A recent in pay differentials, however, researchers who have studied the study found, in fact, that firms employing mostly men paid their differences in earnings between men and women have all con- workers on average 40% more than those employing mostly cluded that wage differentials cannot be accounted for simply on women. the basis of such factors. 50 11.292
  • 2. Median Weekly Earnings of Selected Occupations and minorities. A major study of eco-nomic and population trends Percent of Men and Women in those Occupations, 1993 during the nineties concluded that the 1990s would be character- ized by the following: Percent of total workforce in • First, most new workers entering Weekly earnings the occupation who are: the labor force during the 1990s will not be Occupation Men Women white males, but women and minorities. ($) (%) (%) Although a generation ago white males held the largest share of the job market, Secretaries 386 1 99 between 1985 and the year 2000 white males Receptionists 316 2 98 will comprise only 15 percent of all new Kindergarten teachers 353 3 97 workers en-tering the labor force. Women Typists 366 6 94 and minorities will take their place. Three Teacher's aides 270 7 93 fifths of all new entrants coming into Bank tellers 292 9 91 business between 1985 and 2000 will be Bookkeepers 375 10 90 women, a trend created by sheer economic House cleaners and servants 205 11 89 necessity as well as cultural redefinitions of Sewing machine operators 226 14 86 the role of women. By the year 2000, about Waiters and waitresses 230 26 74 47 percent of the workforce will be women, Social Workers 511 33 67 and 61 percent of all American women will Computer operators 437 39 61 be em-ployed. Native minorities and School administrators 778 44 56 immigrants will make up 42 percent of all Accountants 612 49 51 new workers during this decade. Management analysts 775 53 47 • Second, this large influx of women Operations analysts 793 60 40 and minorities will encounter major Computer systems analysts 821 69 31 difficulties if current trends do not change. Marketing managers 851 70 30 First, as we saw, a sizable proportion of Doctors 1,019 72 28 women are still concentrated in traditionally Industrial engineers 861 84 16 female jobs that pay less than traditionally Chemical engineers 996 91 9 male jobs. Second, at the present time Aerospace engineers 1,008 92 8 women encounter bar-riers (the so-called Airplane pilots 1,086 97 3 “glass ceiling”) when attempting to advance into top -paying top management Sour ce: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and positions. Earnings, June 1994, Table 56 The large numbers of minorities entering the workforce will One study found that only half of the earnings gap might be also en-counter significant disadvantages if current trends do ac-counted for by women’s choices while other studies have not change. As these large waves of minorities hit the labor found it could ac-count for a bit more or a bit less. market, they will find that most of the new good jobs awaiting them require extremely high levels of skill and ed-ucation that All studies, however, have demonstrated that only a portion of the gap can be accounted for on the basis of male and female they do not have. Of all the new jobs that will be created be- tween now and the year 2000, more than half will require some differences in education, work experience, work continuity, self- education beyond high school and almost a third will require a imposed work restrictions, and absenteeism. These studies show college degree. that even after taking such differences into account, a gap between the earnings of men and women remains that can only Among the fastest-growing fields will be professions with be accounted for by discrimination in the labor market. extremely high education requirements, such as technicians, engineers, social scientists, lawyers, math-ematicians, scientists, A report of the National Academy of Sciences concluded, and health professionals; while those fields that will actually see “about 35 to 40 percent of the disparity in average earnings is declines in numbers consist of jobs that require relatively low due to sex seg-regation because women are essentially steered levels of education and skills, such as machine tenders and into lower-paying ‘women’s jobs.’ Some studies have shown operators, blue collar supervisors, assemblers, hand workers, that perhaps only one tenth of the wage differences between miners, and farmers. Even those new jobs that require relatively men and women can be accounted for by differences in their less skills will have tough require-ments: Secretaries, clerks, and “personalities and tastes.” Similar studies have shown that half cashiers will need the ability to read and write clearly, to under- of the earnings differences between white and minority workers stand directions, and to use computers; assembly-line work-ers cannot be accounted for by differences of work history, of on- are already being required to learn statistical process control the-job training, of absenteeism, nor of self-imposed restrictions methods employing basic algebra and statistics. The new jobs on work hours and 10cation. waiting for minorities will thus demand more education and To make matters worse, several unexpected trends that emerged in higher levels of language, math, and reasoning skills. the early nineties and that will be with us until the end of the century promise to increase the difficulties facing women and 11.292 51
  • 3. Unfortunately, although a significant proportion of whites are Overview education-ally disadvantaged, minorities are currently the least • Studies indicate that even after taking into account male and advantaged in terms of skill levels and education. Studies have female differences in education, work experience, work shown that only about three fifths of whites, two fifths of continuity, self-imposed work restrictions, and absenteeism, Hispanics, and one quarter of blacks could find informa-tion in a a gap between the earnings of men and women remains, that news article or almanac; only 25 percent of whites, 7 percent of can only be accounted for by discrimination in the labor Hispanics, and 3 percent of blacks could interpret a bus market. schedule; and only 44 percent of whites, 20 percent of Hispan- ics, and 8 percent of blacks could fig-ure out the change they were Activity owed from buying two items. Discuss the types of job discrimination. How can we determine In recent years, moreover, an especially troublesome obstacle that job discrimination? work-ing women face has been brought to light: sexual harassment. Forty-two per-cent of all women working for the federal government reported that they had experienced some form of uninvited and unwanted sexual attention, ranging from sexual remarks to attempted rape or assault. Women working as execu-tives, prison guards, and even as rabbis, have reported being sexually ha-rassed. Victims of such verbal or physical forms of sexual harassment were most likely to be single or divorced, between the ages of 20 and 44, have some college education, and work in a predominantly male environ- ment or for a male supervisor. In 1992 about 5000 complaints of sexual harassment were filed with the federal government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and thou-sands of other complaints were lodged with state civil rights commissions. It is clear, then, that unless a number of current trends change, women and minorities, who will comprise the bulk of new workers between now and the end of the century, will find themselves in highly disadvantaged positions as they enter the workforce. The various statistical comparisons that we have examined, together with the extensive research showing that these differences are not because of any simple way to differences in preferences or abilities, indicate that American business institu- tions incorporate some degree of systematic discrimination, much of it, perhaps, an unconscious relic of the past. Whether we compare av-erage incomes, proportional representation in the highest economic positions, or proportional representation in the lowest economic positions, it turns out that women and minorities are not equal to white males, and the last twenty years have seen but small narrowing of the racial and sexual gaps. Moreover, a number of ominous trends indicate that unless we embark on some major changes, the situation for minorities and women will not improve. Of course, finding that our economic institutions as a whole still embody a great deal of discrimination does not show that any particular business is dis-criminatory. To find out whether a particular firm is discriminatory, we would have to make the same sorts of comparisons among the various employment levels of the firm that we made above among the various economic and occu-pation all levels of American society as a whole. To facilitate such comparisons within firms, employers today are required to report to the government the numbers of minorities and women their firm employs in each of nine cate- gories: officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales workers, office and clerical workers, skilled craft workers, semiskilled operatives, unskilled la-borers, and service workers. 52 11.292
  • 4. For useful Documents like this and Lots of more Educational and Technological Stuff... Visit... www.thecodexpert.com

×