Job discrimination is a form of discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity by the employer. Differences in income or differentiation of employment - where the difference in pay comes from differences in qualifications or responsibilities - should not be confused with job discrimination. Discrimination can be intended and involves the treatment of different or unintentional groups, but creating different effects for a group.
Video Employment discrimination
Definisi
In neoclassical economic theory, labor market discrimination is defined as the different treatment of two individuals who are qualified equally because of gender, race, age, disability, religion, etc. Discrimination is harmful because it affects the economic outcomes of workers who are equally productive directly and indirectly through feedback effects. Darity and Mason [1998] conclude that the standard approach used in identifying employment discrimination is to isolate group productivity differences (education, work experience). Differences in outcomes (such as income, employment) that can not be attributed to worker qualifications are associated with discriminatory treatment.
In a non-neoclassical view, discrimination is a major source of inequality in the labor market and is seen in continuing gender and racial imbalances in the United States. Non-neoclassical economists define wider discrimination than neoclassical economists. For example, the feminist economist Deborah Figart [1997] defines labor market discrimination as a "multi-dimensional interaction of economic, social, political and cultural power both at work and family, produces different outcomes involving payments, jobs and status". That is, discrimination is not only about measurable results but also about the consequences that can not be counted. It is important to note that the process is as important as the outcome. Furthermore, gender norms are embedded in the labor market and form the preferences of employers and workers preferences; therefore, it is not easy to separate discrimination from productivity-related inequalities.
Although labor market inequality has declined after the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, the movement toward equality has slowed after the mid-1970s, primarily more gender in terms of racial terms. The main issue in the debate over employment discrimination is discrimination, that is, why discrimination persists in the capitalist economy.
Maps Employment discrimination
Evidence
Statistics
Gender income disparities or concentrations of male and female workers in various jobs or industries in and of themselves are not evidence of discrimination. Therefore, empirical studies seek to identify the extent to which income differences are due to differences in worker qualifications. Many studies have found that qualifying differences do not explain more than one part of the income difference. Part of the income gap that can not be explained by qualification is then linked to discrimination. One of the most prominent formal procedures for identifying the described and unexplained parts of the gender wage gap or the wage gap is the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition procedure.
Another type of evidence of discriminatory statistics is collected by focusing on homogeneous groups. This approach has the advantage of studying the economic outcomes of groups with very similar qualifications.
A 2017 study found that minorities received a lower boost to income from legal education compared to whites and less likely to practice law. However, it is difficult to determine the extent to which this is the result of racial discrimination.
In a famous longitudinal study, a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School (USA) was surveyed between 1987 and 1993, and then between 1994 and 2000 to measure changes in wage gaps. This group is deliberately chosen to have very similar characteristics. Although the gap in income between men and women is very small immediately after graduation, it widens in 15 years to the point that women earn 60 percent of what men earn. Even after considering the choice of women to work with fewer working hours, and the qualifications of workers and other factors, such as law school grades and detailed work history, in 2000 men preceded women by 11 percent in their earnings, which may be linked to discrimination.
Other studies on relatively homogeneous college graduate groups result in unexplained gaps, even for highly educated women, such as the Harvard MBA in the United States. One such study focused on the 1985 gender wage gap between college graduates. Graduates are selected from people who earned their degree a year or two earlier. The researchers took the main lecture, the GPA (average score) and the educational institutions that were followed by the graduates. However, even after these factors are accounted for, there remains a 10-15 percent salary difference based on gender. Another study based on a 1993 survey of all college graduates had similar results for black and white women regarding gender differences in earnings. Both black women and white women make less money than white men and non-Hispanics. However, income results vary for Hispanic and Asian women when their income is compared to non-Hispanic white men. A 2006 study looked at Harvard graduates. The researchers also controlled educational performance such as GPA, SAT scores and college majors, as well as time not working and current jobs. The results show that 30 percent of the wage gap is unexplained. Therefore, although not all unexplained vacancies are related to discrimination, the results of the study indicate gender discrimination, even if the woman is highly educated. Human capitalists argue that measurement and data problems contribute to this inexplicable gap.
One recent example of employment discrimination should be seen among female Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) of women in the US. Although 62% of accountants and auditors are women, they are only 9% when it comes to CFO posts. According to research not only are they underrepresented in the profession, but they are also paid low, 16% less than the average.
From experiment
Audit studies (or matching pairs) are conducted to examine recruitment discrimination. To examine racial discrimination, Urban Institute relies on matching pair studies. They studied the results of work for Hispanic men, whites and blacks aged between 19-25 in the early 1990s. Job position is entry level. Thus, they match black and white male and male Hispanic and non-Hispanic male couples as testers. Examiners apply for openings advertised for new positions. All testers are given fake resumes where all of their characteristics but race/ethnicity are almost identical. In addition, they undergo training sessions for interviews. If both persons in the couple are offered a job or if both are rejected, the conclusion is no discrimination. However, if one person from the couple is given a job while the other is rejected, then they conclude there is discrimination. The Institute found that black men were three times more likely to be rejected for employment than white men; while Hispanic men are three times more likely to be discriminated against.
The Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington, Inc. perform a similar test for women through a pair of examiners by race. The study found that white female examiners had a higher chance of returning to interviews and offering jobs compared to black female testers. Percentage for interviews is 10 percent more for white testers. Among those interviewed, 50 percent of white women were offered jobs, while only 11 percent of black candidates accepted job offers. White testers are also offered a higher fee for the same job in cases where the same job is also offered to black tester. The salary difference is 15 cents per hour more for white candidates. In addition, black women are "steered" to lower level jobs, while white women are even given some higher level positions that are not advertised.
A paired study of homogeneous group audit experiments was conducted in restaurants in Philadelphia, USA. Pseudo candidates submit their resumes to random workers in the restaurant to resume to the manager, which eliminates the first impression effect on the employer. Also, resumes are written on a three-tiered scale based on false applicant qualifications and resumes for each level of qualification submitted in three separate weeks. The results showed that male applicants favored significantly. Men have interview callbacks or higher job offers. In addition, men are even better in high-paying restaurants compared to low-paying restaurants. In a cheap restaurant, for every man who accepted a job offer, the woman was rejected 29 percent of the time. There is no such case where a man does not get a job offer but a woman does it. In expensive restaurants, when the man gets an offer, the woman is rejected 43 percent of the time. A similar pattern that marked discrimination was observed for interviews. In expensive restaurants, women have 40 percent less chance to be interviewed and 50 percent less chance of accepting the job. Therefore, based on this research, it is correct to conclude discrimination in the same job can lead to discrimination of gender wages. Note that expensive restaurants are more likely to offer higher wages and higher tips for their workers than those with low prices.
Another experiment was the study of the effects of a "blind" symphony orchestra audition by Goldin and Rouse. In this case, the gender of the candidate is not known by the selection committee because the audition is conducted behind the curtain. Thus, only skills are considered. As a result, the number of women received increased after a "blind" audition from less than 5 percent in 1970 to 25 percent in 1996 in the top five symphony orchestras in the US. In other words, there is a change. This study tested discrimination directly. This finding implies there is gender discrimination against female musicians before the adoption of the screen on identity. However, this discriminatory practice is eliminated after adoption and only individual qualifications are taken into account.
Darity and Mason [1998] summarizes the results of discriminatory behavior observed in other countries based on "correspondence tests". In this type of test, the researchers redesigned a resume signifying a false ethnic applicant through the names on a resume and sent these letters to the employers. However, the qualifications written in the resume can be compared. In Britain, African-American, Indian or Pakistani names are not called back for interviews but Anglo-Saxons are called. In the Australian audit, the Greek or Vietnamese names have similar results; Anglo-Saxon preferred. According to experiments conducted in the University of Michigan study, strikingly, even the "skin color" and physical features of the individual have a negative effect the farther the skin color and physical features come from the white characteristics.
From court case
Darity and Mason [1998] summarize court cases concerning discrimination, in which employers were found guilty and great honors were granted to the plaintiff. They argue that such cases establish discrimination. The plaintiffs are female or non-white (St. Petersburg Times, 1997; Inter Press Service, 1996; The Chicago Tribune, 1997; The New York Times, 1993; Christian Science Monitor, 1983; Los Angeles Times, 1996). Some examples are as follows: In 1997, the allegations for Publix Super Markets were "gender bias in terms of job training, promotion, tenure and policy layoffs, wage discrimination, segregation of work, hostile working environments" (St. Petersburg Times, 1997). , pp.Ã, 77). In 1996, the allegations for Texaco were "racially discriminatory policies of recruitment, promotion and salary" (Inter Press Service, 1996; The Chicago Tribune, 1997, pp.., 77). The six black workers, who are the plaintiffs, provided racist comments affixed from white company officials as evidence (Inter Press Service, 1996; The Chicago Tribune, 1997). In 1983, General Motors Corporation was sued for both gender and racial discrimination (Christian Science Monitor, 1983). In 1993, Shoney International was accused of "racial bias in the promotion, tenure and policy of layoffs, wage discrimination, a hostile working environment (The New York Times, 1993, pp. 77)." The victims were given $ 105 million (The New York Times, 1993). In 1996, the plaintiffs of the Pitney Bowes, Inc. case awarded $ 11.1 million (Los Angeles Times, 1996).
Neoclassical explanation
The neoclassical work economist explains the existence and persistence of discrimination based on taste for discrimination and the theory of statistical discrimination. While the overcrowding model moves away from neoclassical theory, the institutional model is non-neoclassical.
Appetite for discrimination
Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker claims the market punishes companies that discriminate because it is expensive. The argument is as follows:
The profitability of a company that discriminates decreases, and the loss is "directly proportional to how much employer's decision is based on prejudice, rather than on merit." Indeed, choosing workers with lower performance (compared to salary) leads to losses comparable to differences in performance. Similarly, customers who discriminate against certain types of less effective workers should pay more for their services, on average.
If a company discriminates, it usually loses profitability and market share to non-discriminating companies, unless the state limits free competition that protects discriminators.
However, there are counter arguments against Becker's claims. As Becker conceptualized, discrimination is a personal prejudice or "taste" associated with a particular group, originally formulated to explain racial discrimination. This theory is based on the idea that markets punish discriminators in the long run because discrimination is expensive in the long term for discriminators. There are three types of discrimination: employers, employees and customers.
In the former, employers have an appetite to discriminate against women and are willing to pay higher fees for hiring men and not women. Thus, non-financial costs carry additional costs of discrimination in dollars; the full cost of hiring women is the wages paid plus the additional discrimination fees. For the total cost of men and women to be equal, women are paid less than men. In the second type, male employees have dislikes to work with female employees. Because of the non-financial costs, they must be paid more than women. In the third type, customers or clients have a dislike of being served by female employees. Therefore, the customer is willing to pay a higher price for a good or service in order not to be served by a woman. As-if costs of finance costs are associated with the purchase of goods or services from women.
Becker's theory states that discrimination can not happen in the long run because it is expensive. However, discrimination seems to persist in the long run; it decreases only after the Civil Rights Act, as seen in economic history. Regardless, it is argued that Becker's theory applies to job segregation. For example, men are more likely to work as truck drivers, or female customers are more likely to choose to be served by women's clothing sellers because of preference. However, this segregation can not explain the difference in wages. In other words, job segregation is the result of group-typing jobs between different groups but consumer discrimination does not cause wage differences. Thus, customer discrimination theory fails to explain the combination of job segregation and wage differentials. However, data suggest jobs associated with women suffer lower wages.
Statistical discrimination
Edmund Phelps [1972] introduced the assumption of uncertainty in hiring decisions. When employers make hiring decisions, although they can examine applicants' qualifications, they can not know for certain which applicants will work better or will be more stable. Thus, they are more likely to hire male applicants than women, if they believe in men average more productive and more stable. This general view affects employers' decisions about individuals based on information about group averages.
Blau et al. [2010] shows the harmful consequences of discrimination through the effects of feedback irrespective of the original cause of discrimination. Non-neoclassical insights that are not part of statistical discrimination highlight the uncertainty. If a woman is given less specific training and is assigned to a lower-paying job where the cost of withdrawal is low based on a woman's general view, then this woman is more likely to quit her job, meet expectations, so as to strengthen the average group held by the employer. However, if the employer invests heavily on him, chances are he will stay higher.
Non-neoclassical approach
Overcrowding Model
This non-neoclassical model was first developed by Bergmann. According to the model, the result of job segregation is the difference in wages between the two sexes. The reasons for segregation may be socialization, individual decisions, or labor market discrimination. Wage differences occur when employment opportunities or demand for women-dominated sectors are smaller than women's supply. According to evidence, in general, women-dominated jobs pay less than men-dominated jobs. The pay is low because of the high number of women who choose women-dominated jobs or they have no other opportunities.
When there is no discrimination in the market and female and male workers are equally productive, wages are the same regardless of occupation, job F or M. Assume the equilibrium wage in F work is higher than that of M. Intuitively, the workers at work the less pay will move to other sectors. This movement stops only when wages in two sectors are the same. Therefore, when the market is free from discrimination, wages are the same for different types of work, provided there is sufficient time for adjustment and the attractiveness of each job is the same.
When there is discrimination in employment M against female workers, or when women prefer F jobs, economic outcomes change. When there is an available M job limit, the inventory decreases; thus, M's wage increases. Because women can not get into work M or they choose F jobs, they "crowd" into work F. As a result, a higher F-job supply lowers the wage rate. Briefly, segregation leads to differences in gender wages regardless of equivalent skills.
Another striking feature of overcrowding is productivity. Because women in F jobs are cheaper, it is rational to replace labor for capital. In contrast, it is rational to replace working capital in the work of M. Therefore, excessive density leads to wage differences and it makes women less productive even though they are potentially equally productive initially.
The question of why women prefer to work in a woman-dominated sector is important. Some people suggest that this choice comes from an inherently different talent or preferences; some insist it is due to differences in socialization and division of labor within the household; some believe it is due to discrimination in some jobs.
Institutional model
The institutional model of discrimination shows the labor market is not as flexible as described in competitive models. Stiffness is seen in institutional settings or in monopoly power. Racial and gender differences overlap with labor market institutions. Women occupy certain jobs as opposed to men. However, the institutional model does not explain discrimination but illustrates how the labor market works to harm women and blacks. Thus, the institutional model does not follow the definition of neoclassical discrimination.
Internal labor market
Companies hire outside workers or use internal labor based on progress of workers, who play a role in climbing promotion ladder. Large companies usually place workers into groups to have similarities in groups. When entrepreneurs think certain groups have different characteristics related to their productivity, statistical discrimination can occur. As a result, workers may be separated by sex and race.
Primary and secondary jobs
Peter Doeringer and Michael Piore [1971] set a dual labor market model. In this model, the main job is a job with high company-specific skills, high wages, good promotional opportunities and long-term attachments. Conversely, secondary work is a job with fewer skill requirements, lower wages, fewer promotional opportunities, and a higher labor turnover. A dual labor market model combined with gender discrimination shows that men dominate the main job and that women are more represented in secondary work.
The difference between primary and secondary work also creates productivity differences, such as the level of training in different workplaces. In addition, women have a lower incentive for stability due to fewer secondary employment benefits.
In addition, the lack of an informal network of male counterparts, visualizing women in women-dominated jobs and lack of encouragement does not affect economic outcomes for women. They are subject to unintentional institutional discrimination that alters their productivity, promotion and income negatively.
The lack of female representation in upper level management can be explained by the "pipeline" argument that states that women are newcomers and need time to move to higher levels. Another argument is about the barriers that prevent women from facial positions. However, some of these barriers are not discriminatory. Work and family conflicts are an example of why there are fewer women in the top corporate positions.
However, both pipe conflict and work-family conflict can not explain the very low representation of women in the company. Discrimination and fine barriers are still considered factors to prevent women from exploring opportunities. In addition, it is known that when the chairman or CEO of the company is a woman, the number of women working in high-level positions and their incomes increases by about 10-20 percent. The influence of less representative women on earnings was seen in the 1500 S & P firms under study. The findings show that women executives earn 45 percent less than male executives based on 2.5 percent of executives in the sample. Some gaps are caused by seniority, but largely because of the lack of representation of women in CEO, chair or president positions and the fact that women manage smaller companies.
Non-neoclassical economists show subtle constraints play a big role in women's losses. These barriers are difficult to document and remove. For example, women are left out of a network of men. In addition, the general perception is that men are better at managing others, seen in Catalyst's Fortune 1000 survey. 40 percent of female executives say they believe men experience difficulties when they are managed by women. A separate study found that the majority believe in "women, more than men, real leadership styles associated with effective performance as leaders,... more people prefer men than female bosses". In another US study of the origin of the gender division of labor, people were asked these two questions "When jobs are scarce, men should have more rights to work than women?" and "Overall, men make political leaders better than women?" Some answers indicate discriminatory action.
Critics of the neoclassical approach
Neoclassical economics ignores the logical explanation of how self-fulfilling prophecies by entrepreneurs affect the motivation and psychology of women and minority groups and thereby alter individual decision-making regarding human capital. This is a feedback explanation that correlates with a decrease in human resource investment (such as more schools or training) achieved by women and minority groups.
In addition, power and social relations link discrimination with sexism and racism, which is ignored in neoclassical theory. Furthermore, along with the classical and Marxist theory of competition, the gender-racial structure of the work is related to bargaining power and thus determines the differential. Therefore, discrimination persists from racial forms and gender characteristics that get jobs with higher salaries, both within and between jobs. In short, power relations are embedded in the labor market, which is ignored in a neoclassical approach.
In addition, critics argue that the measurement of neoclassical discrimination is flawed. As Figart [1997] points out, conventional methods exclude gender or race to heart analysis and they measure discrimination as an unexplained residual. As a result, we are not informed of the causes and nature of discrimination. He argues that gender and race should not be marginal for analysis but at the center and suggest a more dynamic analysis of discrimination. Figart argues that gender is more than just a dummy variable because gender is fundamental to the economy. In addition, segmentation in the labor market, institutional variables and non-market factors influence wage differentials and women dominate low-paying jobs. Again, none of this is because productivity differences are also not the result of voluntary choice. Figart also shows how women's work is associated with unskilled work. For that reason, men do not like their "work" employment associations with women or femininity, the skills they generate.
Although empirical evidence is a tool used to prove discrimination, it is important to pay attention to the bias involved in the use of this tool. Bias can lead to under-estimated or excessive discrimination of the labor market. Lack of information about some individual qualifications that do affect their potential productivity. Factors such as motivation or work effort, which affect income, are difficult to improve. In addition, information on this type of bachelor's degree may not be available. In short, all factors related to job qualification are not included to study the gender wage gap.
An example to underestimate is the feedback effect of labor market discrimination. That is, women can choose to invest less in human capital such as pursuing a bachelor's degree based on current wage gaps, which is also the result of discrimination against women. Another possible reason is the responsibility of giving birth to women as a negative impact on women's careers as some women may choose to withdraw from the labor market on their own. Thus, they release opportunities, such as company-specific training that has the potential to help with the promotion of their work or reduce the wage gap. An example of an excessive estimate of gender discrimination is that men may be more motivated in the workplace. Therefore, it is wrong to equate the unexplained wage gap with discrimination, even though most of the gaps are the result of discrimination, but not all .
Furthermore, empirical evidence may also be screened to show that discrimination does not exist or is so trivial that it can be ignored. This is seen in the results and interpretation of the results of the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). Neal and Johnson [1996] claim the economic difference in the black and white labor market is due to "pre-market factors," not discrimination. [Darcy and Mason [1998] similar case studies disagree with the findings of Neal and Johnson [1996]. They take into account factors such as the background of family age, school quality and psychology into consideration to make adjustments.
Theoretical basis of employment-related discrimination
There are legal and structural theories that form the basis of employment discrimination.
Legal Theory
The culmination of anti-employment discrimination law is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In this section, two theories are laid out: different treatments and different effects.
Different treatment is what most people think about discrimination-deliberate. Based on this theory, employees should include a protected, valid and qualified class for employment where employers seek applicants, and are denied from employment. Job positions should still be open post-rejection for discrimination cases that must be done.
In many cases, the courts find it difficult to prove deliberate discrimination, so different theory of impact law is added. This includes a more complex side of discrimination in which "some job criteria are fair in form but discriminatory in practice". Employees should prove that employment practices employed by employers cause different effects on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, and national origin. To assist in cases, the Commission on Cooperation Opportunities establishes a four-fifth rule in which federal law enforcement agencies take "an electoral level for any race, sex or ethnic group of less than four fifths" as evidence for different impacts.
Structural Theory
In a concept called "token dynamics", there are three real events in discrimination: "visibility leading to performance pressures, contrasting effects leading to the social isolation of tokens, and the encapsulation of token roles or stereotypes." In the first instance, tokens are visible because of their race, age, gender, or physical disability that differ from the majority of workers. This visibility leads more attention to the token and he is subjected to more pressure from his boss when compared to other employees. Not only is this token examined further, but there is an unspoken expectation that its performance is a representation of all members of its group. Common examples are solo female engineers. His work was examined under a more judgmental gaze than his co-workers because of his minority status. If he performs poorly, his failure speaks on behalf of all female engineers; so their ability to be seen as a successful engineer is threatened. In the second instance of contrast, the difference between tokens and the majority is emphasized that isolates the token group and increases unity among the majority. Following the previous example, male engineers "may begin to identify themselves as men, not just as engineers, after signing female engineers, and they may see characteristics shared by those who do not have tokens, such as experience in military or team sports ". The third event, stereotypes, is his own theory discussed below.
Behavioral scientists classify stereotypes to be prescriptive and descriptive. "Prescriptive stereotypes determine how men and women, should behave, while descriptive stereotypes determine how men and women, perform behave." In the field of work, descriptive sterilization is more applicable and more frequent. One common example is when a boss thinks a woman will be disappointed if criticized, so they may not provide the accurate feedback that women need to improve. This then blocks his chances for promotion, especially when the boss has given men, whom they believe will "take him like a man", the information they need to improve their performance. Such stereotypes can also influence what employers give to their male and female applicants. Men and women often "fit in" with work that they themselves stereotype according to the different characteristics and tasks associated with the job. The most significant example is the CEO's top position or manager who has been linked to male nature for over twenty years.
Consequences of discrimination
Job discrimination can have individual, group, and organizational consequences.
Individual
The perceived discrimination in the workplace has been found to have negative effects on one's body and mind - especially blood pressure, heart disease, psychological pressure, and self-reported health. In a study from 1977 to 1982, women who thought they were discriminated were 50% more likely to have physical limitations in 1989 than those who did not experience discriminatory experiences.
There are two common ways of reacting to discrimination: emotionally-focused coping and problem-focused coping. In the first, individuals protect their self-esteem by linking any discrepancies in recruitment or promotion to discrimination, rather than reflecting on their own potential shortcomings. In the latter, individuals seek to change aspects of themselves that cause them to be discriminated against in order to prevent themselves from discrimination in the future. Some common examples are fat people losing weight or mentally ill people seeking therapy. This approach can only be sought when the point of discrimination does not change like race or age.
Group
Unlike the individual level, group-level discrimination can lead to feelings of fear and distrust in discriminated groups that often lead to stunted performance. The effect is most often seen in age, disability, race, and ethnicity.
Age discrimination is commonplace because companies must consider how long longer work will remain and their health insurance costs are appropriate. When companies allow these insecurities to affect their treatment of older workers - unfriendly working environments, demotions, lower employment rates, older workers who see this discrimination 59% more likely to leave their current jobs.
While there are currently anti-discrimination laws on disability, the United States with Disabilities Act, weight discrimination is still prevalent. What complicates matters is the fact that obesity is only considered a disability when someone is "morbidly obese" (100% over their ideal weight) or obese (20% over their ideal weight) as a result of psychological conditions. Considering that only 0.5% of people in the United States are morbidly obese, 99.5% of obese individuals have a burden to prove their overweight comes from psychological causes if they should be protected from anti-discrimination laws.
Other people's bodies that face widespread group discrimination are racial minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics. They are judged to be less favorable than White applicants and this kind of prejudice makes them "suffer from increased role ambiguity, role conflict, and work tension, and decreased organizational commitment and job satisfaction". Further analysis and statistics on the discrimination they face are discussed below by region.
Organization
Companies are hurt from their own discriminatory practices on the basis of legal, economic, and reputation risks. In 2005 alone, 146,000 allegations of discrimination were filed. Litigation discrimination can be very costly when considering the time spent in court and the outcome of a verdict in which the possibility of settlement of money comes in to play as well as "hiring, promoting, paying back, or recovering" to prosecutors. Cases of public discrimination, apart from being brought to justice, have a negative effect on a company's reputation that usually lowers sales.
Another point of discrimination affecting earnings is that companies may not use their employees, they distinguish the best from their ability. Some see these employees as "untouchable niches" (special fields or small groups that have not been used maximally) mainly because diversity management is positively correlated with the company's financial performance. <= Span id "Government's_efforts_to_combat_discrimination">
Government attempts to combat discrimination
Why the government should intervene to address discrimination
Blau et al. [2010] the number of arguments for government intervention to address discrimination. First, discrimination prevents justice or justice, when equally qualified persons do not receive the same treatment as others because of race or gender. Second, discrimination results in inefficient allocation of resources because workers are not employed, promoted or rewarded on the basis of their skills or productivity.
Becker claims discrimination in the labor market is expensive for entrepreneurs. His theory is based on the assumption that in order to survive in competitive markets, employers can not discriminate in the long term. Strongly believing in the functioning of markets without government or union interference, it is claimed that employer discrimination declines in the long run without political intervention. Conversely, human capital investment interventions and the regulation of racial interactions make it worse for disadvantaged groups. Moreover, it is claimed that discrimination can only survive because of a "taste" for discrimination and lower educational level of blacks explains labor market discrimination.
However, based on empirical studies, neither the theory of human capital nor Becker's theory of taste does not fully explain the separation of racial work. This is seen with the increase in black labor in the South as an effect of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. Therefore, human capital and "taste-for-discrimination" are insufficient explanations and effective government interventions. Becker's claims about employers will not discriminate as expensive in competitive markets are attenuated by evidence of real-life facts. Sundstrom [1994] suggests, it is also costly to violate social norms because customers can stop purchasing employers' goods or services; or workers may stop working or stop their work efforts. In addition, even if workers or customers do not participate in such behavior, the employer will not risk experimenting with against social norms. This is evident from historical data comparing economic results to white and black races.
See the position of women in US WWII history
Women worked in the US industrial sector during World War II. However, after the war, most women quit their jobs and returned home for domestic production or traditional work. Women's departure from industrial work is debated to represent discrimination cases.
Supply theory claims voluntary movements because women work because of the extraordinary situation and they choose to quit. Their involvement is based on patriotic feelings and their exit depends on personal preference and that is a response to feminist ideology. In contrast, demand theory claims working-class women change jobs because of high industry wages. Tobias and Anderson [1974] present counter arguments for inventory theory. In addition, there are housewives and working-class women, who have worked before the war in different jobs. According to Women's Bureau interviews, the majority of women who have worked want to continue working after the war. Despite their wishes, they are dismissed more than men. Most of them may have to choose low-paying jobs.
The exit pattern indicates they stopped not voluntarily. There are pressures facing women, such as changes in positions for cleaner jobs, more or new responsibilities at work, and additional or shift changes that do not fit into their schedule, which are all known to management. Women's layoff rate is higher than that of men. In short, women are treated in an unbalanced postwar period in the labor market even though female productivity equals men's wages and women's wages are lower.
Supply and demand theory does not provide sufficient explanation of women's absence in industrial enterprises after the war. It is wrong to associate patriotism with women in war time as some housewives quit their jobs in the early period of the war when most countries needed their help. Some housewives are forced to stop because the second highest lay-off rate is theirs. If their only concern is the welfare of their country at the time of the war, less persistence to exit will be observed.
Demand theory partially holds because there are women who work before the war for employment and mobility wages. However, these experienced female workers voluntarily quit working more than housewives. The reason is that experienced women work has many opportunities. However, women with fewer workplace choices, such as African-Americans, older married women, housewives and those working in the lowest-paying jobs, want to keep their jobs as long as possible. Thus, their leave unconsciously.
Although the performance of women's work is at least as good as men, rather than trying to equalize wages, women's wages remain lower than men. Women have higher rates of layoffs but also they are not rehired despite the boom in the automotive industry. Some argue that this is due to the lack of civil rights movements that protect women's rights as well as black men. This explanation is not satisfactory because it does not explain the behavior of anti-management women workers or the lack of protection from unions. Kossoudji et al. [1992] believes it is because of the need for two separate wage and benefit packages for men and women. Women have child care responsibilities such as childcare arrangements and maternity leave.
US. anti-discrimination laws
See the laws of Employment discrimination in the United States.
Prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the US, employment discrimination was legitimate and widely practiced. Newspaper ads for various jobs show racial and gender discrimination explicitly and implicitly. All these behaviors are built on the assumption that women and blacks are inferior. At the turn of the 21st century, discrimination is still done but to a lesser degree and less light. Progress on discrimination issues is clearly visible. However, the effects of the past are persistent on economic outcomes, such as the setting of historical wages that affect current wages. Women are not only under-represented in high-ranking and high-paying jobs, but they are also represented in secondary and low-paying jobs. Interviews, personal laws, wage data and secret employment records with salaries along with other evidence indicate gender segregation and its impact on the labor market.
Although there are some unworkable job preference preferences, discrimination does exist. Moreover, the persistence of discrimination remains even after government intervention. There is a fall in the wage gap for three reasons: male wages decline and women's wages increase; second, the human capital gap between the two sexes and the experience gap has been closed; thirdly, the legal pressures reduce discrimination but there is still inequality in the US national economy.
The correlation between the Civil Rights Act and the decrease in discrimination indicates that the Act fulfills its purpose. Therefore, it is true to say leaving discrimination to reduce to the wrong competitive market, as Becker claimed. In 1961, Kennedy issued an executive order calling on the presidential commission on the status of women. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act, which required employers to pay wages to men and women for the same work qualification, was passed. In 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act with the exception of Bona fide qualifications (BFOQ) was accepted while the EEOC Commission was responsible for examining whether the Equal Payments Act and Title VII is followed. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was first written to prohibit employment discrimination. Initially prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion and national origin. However, the influx of sex received last minute. Title VII discusses both different effects and different treatments. In 1965, the Executive Order 11246 was passed and in 1967, it was amended to include sex, which prohibited employment discrimination by all employers with federal and subcontracted contracts. In addition, ensure affirmative action occurs. In 1986, sexual harassment was accepted as illegal by a Supreme Court decision. In 1998, the largest sexual harassment settlement was negotiated with $ 34 million to be paid to female workers Mitsubishi.
As a result of this government policy segregation of work is reduced. The gender wage gap began to become smaller after the 1980s, most likely due to the indirect effects of time-consuming feedback, but a direct increase in blacks' incomes was observed in 1964. However, the law still does not control discrimination entirely in matters recruitment, promotion and training programs etc.
Affirmative action
The Executive Order 11246, upheld by the Federal Contract Compliance Office, is an attempt to remove the gap between beneficiary and disadvantaged groups by sex and race. Contractors are required to observe their work patterns. If there is less representation of women and minorities, "goals and schedules" are made to employ more disadvantaged groups due to gender and race. The pros and cons of affirmative action have been discussed. Some people believe that discrimination does not exist at all or even exist, prohibits it adequately, and affirmative action is not required. Some agree that some affirmative action is necessary but they have consideration regarding the use of goals and schedules as they may be too strict. Some people think that strong affirmative action is necessary but they are concerned if there is really genuine effort to employ qualified individuals from vulnerable groups.
Minimum wage
Rodgers et al. [2003] State minimum wages can be used as a tool to combat discrimination, as well as to promote equality. Because discrimination is embedded in the labor market and affects its function, and discrimination creates the basis for labor market segregation and for the segregation of employment, institutions and labor market policies can be used to reduce inequality. Minimum wage is one of the policies that can be used.
The minimum wage has benefits for changing the external market wage for women, providing a mechanism for regular wage increases and regulating social security. It affects women in the informal sector, which is largely dominated by women in part as a result of discrimination, by being a reference point. However, the disadvantages include: first, wages may be very low when skills and sectors are not considered; second, adjustments may take some time; third, enforcement may be unfeasible and ultimately when there is a cut in public spending, the real value of wages may decrease due to social security.
Others argue that the minimum wage simply shifts wage discrimination to employment discrimination. The logic is that if the market wage is lower for a minority, the employer has the economic incentive to choose to hire qualified minority candidates, whereas if all workers have to be paid the same amount then the employer will discriminate by not employing minorities. The minimum wage legislation could be responsible for a very high rate of black juvenile unemployment compared to white teenagers.
Employment Development
Main article: Manpower Development
One approach that reduces discrimination by emphasizing skills is the labor development program. Federal-funded work training serves unemployment and minority groups by focusing on providing opportunities for them including those who have been discriminated against. The Department of Labor has several employment training programs and resources targeted to support dislocated workers, Native Americans, the disabled, the elderly, veterans, youth at risk, and other minorities.
Enterprise effort to balance representation
Employers should evaluate their workplace environment, structures, and activities to ensure that discrimination is minimized. Through the organization of heterogeneous workgroups, interdependencies, recognizing the influence of significance, creating a formalized evaluation system, and taking account of action, the company can improve the current discriminatory practices that may occur.
Heterogeneity in Working Group
To promote unity throughout the workplace environment and prevent the exclusion and isolation of certain minorities, working groups should be rarely made on the basis of ascriptive characteristics. In this way, employees are well integrated regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, or age.
Interdependence
Working together in heterogeneous groups will reduce the bias among those stereotyped by "encouraging them to look at stereotyped information and form more accurate and accurate impressions." Collaborations among co-workers with different ascriptive characteristics work to break stereotypes and let members evaluate their co-workers on a more personal level and make more accurate judgments based on experience rather than stereotypes.
Salience
Although most do not realize it, people are particularly vulnerable to stereotypes after focusing on the stereotype category. For example, "men compressed with stereotypical statements about women are more likely to ask the question of female sexist job applicants and show sexual behavior (and that takes them longer than nonprimed men to recognize non-sexist words ) So, comments on pregnancy, sex discrimination suits, or diversity immediately before the committee evaluating women job candidates tend to exacerbate sex stereotypes in evaluation. "Employers can learn from this by trying not to raise minority-related comments before evaluating an employee in the group.
Formalized Evaluation System
The more informal and unstructured observations and evaluations of employees are, the more vulnerable bosses will become biased. With a formalized evaluation system that includes objective, reliable, specific, and timely performance data, employers can place their best foot in managing a fair and non-discriminatory workplace.
Accountability
As with any matter, being responsible for one's actions greatly reduces the behavior associated with the problem. "Accountability not only reduces the expression of bias, but also reduces biases in unconscious cognitive processes, such as encoding information".
Example
Some companies have sought to mitigate the impact of systematic, unintentional or unintentional bias. After a study found a substantial increase in the acquisition of justice, some music organizations had adopted a blind audition; in other areas such as software engineering, communications, and design, this has taken the form of an anonymous response to job applications or interview challenges.
The work list language has been researched; some phrases or words are believed to resonate with certain demographics, or stereotypes about certain demographics, and cause some women and minorities not to apply because they can not imagine themselves in a position. The examples cited include "rockstar" (which may imply male) and nurture vs. dominant language. For example: "Superior ability to satisfy customers and manage corporate relationships with them" vs. "Sensitive to client needs, can develop a warm client relationship".
Employers who care about gender and ethnic representation have adopted practices such as measuring demographics over time, setting diversity goals, deliberately recruiting in places outside of those familiar with existing staff, targeting additional recruitment to forums and social circles rich in women candidates and minorities Pinterest has made statistics and public goals, while increasing efforts on guidance, identifying minority minority candidates, recruiting more minority apprentices, and adopting a "Rooney Rule" in which at least one minority or female candidate should be interviewed for each position leadership, even if they are not ultimately employed.
Statistics have found that women usually earn lower salaries than men for the same job, and some of this is due to differences in negotiations - whether women are not asking for more money, or their demand is not given at the same rate as men. The resulting difference can be compounded if future employers use their previous salary as a benchmark for subsequent negotiations. To address both of these issues, some companies only prohibit salary negotiations and use several other methods (such as industry averages) to peg salaries for specific roles. Others have created payroll information for all public employees within the company, allowing any distinction between employees in the same role to be detected and improved. Several studies have suggested greater female representation in the economic modeling of the labor force.
Protected categories
Laws often prohibit discrimination on the basis of:
- Racing or colors
- Ethnic or national origin
- Gender or gender
- Pregnancy
- Religion or belief
- Political affiliation
- Language skills
- Citizenship
- Disability or medical condition
- Age
- Sexual orientation
- Gender identity
- Marital status
Legal protection
Employees who complain can be protected from employment or job retaliation.
Many countries have laws that prohibit employment discrimination including:
- Employment discrimination laws in Canada
- Employment discrimination laws in the United States
- Work discrimination laws in the United Kingdom
- Employment discrimination laws in the European Union
Sometimes this is part of a broader anti-discrimination law covering housing or other issues.
By region
Over the last decade, discrimination recruitment was measured by the gold standard to measure unequal treatment in the labor market, namely correspondence experiments. In this experiment, a fictitious job application that differs only in one characteristic, is sent to a real job. By monitoring the subsequent call-backs of the employer, unequal treatment based on these characteristics can be measured and can be given causal interpretation.
Europe
Ethnicity
Levels of pervasive employment market discrimination are found in Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Prospective employers with foreign names are found to get a 24% to 52% less job interview invitation compared to the same candidate as the real name. Interestingly, ethnic discrimination is lower among well-educated firms and in large corporations. In addition, unequal treatment is found to be heterogeneous by labor market tightness in the occupation: compared with indigenous people, candidates with foreign names are heard equally often invited to job interviews if they apply for jobs whose vacancies are difficult to fill, but they must send two times more applications for jobs where labor market tightness is low. Recent research indicates that current ethnic discrimination is driven by employers' concerns that co-workers and customers prefer collaboration with indigenous people. In addition, volunteering has found a way out of ethnic discrimination in the labor market.
Disabled
In 2014, a large correspondence experiment was conducted in Belgium. Two graduate applications, identical except one exposing defects (blindness, deafness or autism), are both sent to 768 vacancies in which defective candidates can be expected to be as productive as their non-disabled counterparts, based on information vacancies. In addition, researchers randomly disclose the right to substantial wage subsidies in the application of disability candidates. Candidates with disabilities have a 48% lower chance of receiving a positive reaction from the employer compared to non-disabled candidates. Potential for fear of red tape, disclosing a wage subsidy does not affect the employment opportunities of a disabled candidate.
Gender and sexual orientation
While overall there is no severe degree of discrimination based on female sex found, unequal treatment is still measured in certain situations, for example when candidates apply for positions at higher functional levels in Belgium, when they apply to their childbearing age in France, and when they apply to jobs dominated by men in Austria.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation varies by country. Revealing lesbian sexual orientation (by mentioning engagement in a rainbow organization or by naming a partner's name) decreases employment opportunities in Cyprus and Greece, but overall, has no negative effects in Sweden and Belgium. In the last country, even the positive effects of lesbian sexual orientation disclosure are found for women in the elderly
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments