They pathetically fail to understand the complex and intricate connectivity and linkages between the traditional and largely popular instruments of inequality that is gender, race and class (Ozbilgin ed. 2009). The notion of ‘inequality regimes’ exposes the intersectionality of the traditional modes and models of oppression resting on the foundations of gender, race and class (Acker 2006). The astuteness of this concept originates from its premise that the varied and isolated modes of oppression are in fact interrelated and connected, thereby perpetuating and propagating a system of oppression that escapes correction and rectification by virtue of its intricacy and cumbersomeness (Acker 2006). Once the co-relatedness of the individual and discrete forms of oppression and inequality is established and realized, it paves the way for identifying and isolating the barriers and impediments to the task of establishing equality at the workplace (Collins 2000).
The limiting factor associated with the concept of inequality regimes is that it delves and elaborates on the inequalities rampant and practised at the workplace. According to Acker (2006), “inequality regimes are the interlocked practices and processes that result in continuing inequalities in all work organizations.” A more plausible line of argument would be that the realization and cognition of a situation of inequality is always associated with the complete life experience of women and coloured people (Acker 2000). The complete life experience includes both the professional and domestics life situations of the affected individuals and groups. However, pragmatically speaking, workplace represents the most appropriate venue for studying inequalities because not only a wide range of inequalities originate in organizations, but professional hubs also present a plausible and unique opportunity to trace the genesis and proliferation of inequalities in a