Unjust Discrimination in San Jose Jobs


Added on  2019-09-30

3 Pages1447 Words241 Views
(Surname) 1NameProgramSupervisor’s Name24 February 2017Case Analysis 2Unjust Discrimination in San Jose JobsThe fact that San Jose jobs filled mostly by men paid more than those filled mostly by women did not constitute unjust discrimination and arguments of the city council, the workers unions, and other stakeholders justify this. The first and most interesting concept in evaluating the judgment is the reason for the gender-based dominance of the jobs. Why do women dominatesome jobs while men dominate others? Do employers restrict some jobs to a gender? Do women and men prefer some jobs to others? Does disparity emerged after the complainants get into employment or before. These questions identify the economic concept of demand and supply as well as the moral concept of autonomy. On the concept of demand and supply, scarcity in supplyis expected to increase payable salaries for any job, and this is then likely to attract all employees. Females could choose to boycott the lowly paying jobs and trigger a higher pay due to lower demand. Similarly, organizations cannot force women to assume the highly paying jobs because that would breach the moral concepts of autonomy. Consequently, being in lowly payingjobs was a choice of the female gender and not a discrimination of the employer. A closer analysis of the Hay’s rating also undermines the concept of unjust discrimination, based on gender. Hay identifies four determinants of the rating but fails to index the rating. Its rating assumes that knowhow, problem-solving, accountability and working conditions have equivalent contributions to determination of salaries. Working conditions, however and from Hay’s rating, seems to be more significant to salary determination. All of the female dominated jobs, except senior chemist, have a working condition rating of zero while all male dominated jobs have working condition ratings of at least seven. For women who are willing to risk the working condition of a high rating, their salaries are comparable to those of men. The consistency of the council’s salaries with those of nearby councils and private employers support the concept of unbiased approach to pays. Considering this together with the concept of autonomy, women seems to choose jobs whose conditions are less risky and this decision, rather than the decision of employers, explains the pay difference. The approach to negotiation in which the workers prioritize a general increment rather than comparable pay adjustment also undermines significance of bias against women to the strike. Similarly, Hay, in its research, focused on data from employees than from the council to indicate bias in the entire campaign. These suggest that women choose their jobs, autonomously, and their choice determine their pay, not an unjust discrimination. Hay Associates’ Method of Establishing Comparability of JobsHay’s method of establishing the comparability of jobs is not adequate because of their data collection approach and an aspect of their data analysis approach. Triangulation eliminates bias that a single source would induce and even though Hay tried to use it, the application is not adequate. Collecting data from the employees and the employer was a good strategy but relying on employees only in assigning points to job categories induced possible bias towards employees. The employees, through influence of the need to advocate for new pays and through their union that initiated the research with the aim of demanding for new packages, could rate thejobs to have match lowly paid female jobs with highly paying male jobs. Giving low points for male dominated jobs and high points for female dominated jobs could achieve the bias. The
Unjust Discrimination in San Jose Jobs_1

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Ethics and Sustainability Assignment (pdf)