The Notion of Inequality Regimes at Workplace - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned 20 November 2009 Inequality Regimes The concept of ‘inequality regimes’ tends to be the most apt vantage point from which to analyze work place inequalities, as its is broad based and all inclusive in its approach. Largely, the 21st century marks the fructification of years of human rights oriented socio-political activism, as it has ushered in an inclusion of the marginalized and subaltern sections of the society into the realm of education and employment. However, the irony of the situation is that the very notion that the struggle for equality has reached its climax befuddles a plethora of the affected individuals and groups. 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 systematic and organized manner (Shows & Gerstel 2009) . The inequalities placed at workplace are more crystallized and identifiable in the sense that organizations always face a situation of conflict pertaining to allocation and appropriation of powers and control over organizational goals, decision-making mechanisms, and opportunities for growth, remuneration, prestige and leisure (Acker 2006). Hence, it is much easier for the marginalized sections to pinpoint and identify inequalities in an organizational scenario, because class, gender and race inequalities at workplace mostly directly translate into loss of power, pay, prestige and security (Ospina 1996). At workplace, inequality is always accompanied by a commensurate sense of lose, though the affected individuals or groups may not always be able to grasp or establish the co-relation between inequality and loss. At work organizations, it is more possible to unearth the invisible and subtle mechanisms of inequality and discrimination, which is not that feasible in any other social or domestic scenario. The hallmark of the concept of ‘inequality regimes’ is that it does not try to preset the concept of workplace inequality as something monolithic, static and ossified. To do so would be to approach the idea of work place inequalities with a naive and immature bent of mind. According to Amartya Sen (1995), when one takes into consideration the multifariousness of human diversity and the existence of a whole range of perspectives and criteria by which the concept of workplace inequality can be dissected and analyzed, one gets convinced as to the realization that the notion of workplace inequalities ought to be robust, dynamic and shifting in its approach and scope. Hence, there is no denying the fact that inequality regimes are multifaceted, amorphous, fluid and altering over a wide range of parameters ranging from basis, degree, mechanisms, visibility, legitimacy, etc (Acker 2006). In an organizational scenario, the degree of inequalities may vary from being steep, to being flat and essentially egalitarian (Acker 2006). Similarly, the inequalities at a workplace may be represented by acute and severe differences in wages and power to a work environment defined by just wages and a rational sharing of power (Acker 2006). The individual and collective notions and beliefs as to ‘inequality’ and ‘equality’ at workplace also stand to be volatile and shifting in the dimensions of time, place and context (Ozbilgin & Tatli 2008). The majority belief that the passage of time is inevitably accompanied by a discernable if not proportionate achievement of equality is not correct and supportable by valid evidence or data. There is no dearth of experts who vouchsafe that time stands to be the authentic panacea as for the rampant shortcomings in terms of equality and inclusion (Ozbilgin ed. 2009). There exists another set of scholars who hold that anti-discriminatory actions and statutory equality initiatives are sufficient to take care of work place disparities (Ozbilgin ed. 2009). However, a cursory perusal of the historical data and facts unexceptionally points towards the fact that inertia, resistance, backlash, apathy and orthodoxy have always marked any change in the ambit of workplace inequalities. Though the Equal Pay Act 1970 entitles the women in the UK to same wages as their male counterparts, the available statistics shows that the average earnings of the women stand to be 19 percent lower then their male colleagues (M2 Presswire 2004). Despite the existence of statutory provisions, a survey conducted in the UK in 2004 established beyond doubt that a significant proportion of the organizations have taken no steps to ameliorate the gender based pay gaps at their premises (M2 Presswire 2004). The understanding and interpretation of inequality regimes also happens to be place specific. The digitization and globalization of the world economies have led to the emergence of cross-national variations as far as the theorizing and understanding of inequality regimes is concerned (McCall 2007). This sensitivity to place is a direct offshoot of the Western hegemony over theorisation, which failed to make space for the regions affiliated to different set of priorities, traditions and values as to inequality at work (McCall 2007). The contextual variation in the interpretation of workplace inequalities is very logical and understandable. The privileged always prefer to justify the workplace disparities as natural and valid, whereas the underprivileged do always have an acute awareness as to the existence of inequality regimes (Acker 2006). The amazing thing is that irrespective of the time, place and context specific variations in the inequality regimes, the unanimity of the factors that constitute the basis of inequality regimes stands to be mostly the same at all locations and in all times that is class, gender, race, sexuality, age, physical ability, etc (Omi & Winant 1994). This commonality of the affected segments of the society, sans time and place, makes inequality regimes a worthwhile and valid concept for analyzing workplace inequalities. The universal authenticity of the concept of inequality regimes is further established when one considers the organizing processes that give way to workplace inequalities. Classification of work in terms of jobs and hierarchies, stereotyping work in terms of gender and race, stereotyping of job expectations, gender and race oriented recruitment and hiring, wage inequalities, legitimizing inequalities and control are some of the standard processes that are resorted to, to justify and perpetuate inequality regimes around the world (Messner & Bozada-Deas 2009). To put it simply, prejudice, self-interest and discrimination stand to be the sole underlying factors that usher in a sense of uniformity, commonality and identicalness, as far as an analytical and logical understanding of inequality regimes around the world is concerned. The biggest plus point of the concept of inequality regimes is that it facilitates an understanding into work organization discriminations in terms of a quest for and pursuit of power, influence and advantages. Simplification of the inequality regimes to a methodical seeking of stakes makes in feasible to grasp and understand the resultant conflicts and differences. It also explains the construction of group and individual identities around power, influence and access to resources (Tomaskovic-Devey 1993). Conclusively, the concept of inequality regimes furnishes a credible platform for understanding and interpreting workplace inequalities in contemporary times. It enables one to grasp the symbiotic linkages existing between diverse models and modes of discrimination based on gender, race and class. Certainly, workplace stands to be the most rational, valid and systematic locale for identifying and studying inequalities as it presents oppression as an understandable yet fluid, mobile and continually evolving phenomenon. Besides, the concept of inequality regimes recognizes the time, place and context specific interpretations of inequality, while identifying the fundamental commonalities like gender, race and class. The most remarkable aspect of this concept is its commonsensical and pragmatic approach towards organizational inequalities. Total Words: 1500 (six pages) Works Cited Acker, Joan 2000, ‘Revisiting Class: Thinking from Gender, Race and Organizations’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 192-244. Acker, Joan 2006, ‘Inequality Regimes’, Gender & Society, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 441-464. Collins, P.H. 2000, ‘Gender, Black Feminism, and Black Political Economy’, Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 14-32. McCall, Leslie 2007, Complex Inequality: Gender, Class & Race in the New Economy, Taylor & Francis, New York. Messner, A & Bozada-Deas 2009, ‘Separating the Men from the Moms: The Making of Adult Gender Segregation in Youth Sports’, Gender & Society, Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 49-71. Omi, Michael & Winant, Howard 1994, Racial Formation in the United States , Routledge, London. Ospina, Sonia Margarita 1996, Illusions of Opportunity: Employee Expectations and Workplace Inequality, Cornell University Press, New York. Ozbilgin, Mustafa (ed.) 2009, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Work, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Massachusetts. Ozbilgin, M.F. & Tatli, A 2008, Global Diversity Management, Palgrave, New York. Sen, A 1995, Inequality Re-examined, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Shows, C & Gerstel, N 2009, ‘Fathering, Class and Gender: A Comparison of Physicians and Emergency Medical Technicians’, Gender& Society, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 161-187. ‘Survey shows employers not taking equal pay seriously’, 2004, M2 Presswire , HighBeam Research, viewed 21 Nov. 2009, Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald 1993, Gender and Racial Inequality at Work, Cornell University Press, New York. Read More