Assignment Help - Gender Discrimination Today

Gender discrimination remains a major issue in society today. This problem is pronounced in the workforce as women are bearing the brunt of gender discrimination in today’s workforce. In 2018, the participation of women in the U.S. labor force was 57.1% compared to 69.1% for men (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). Occupational discrimination contributes to the lower labor force participation for women. in 2016, on average, women earned about 67% of men’s wages (Gharehgozli & Atal, 2020, p. 207). Women are also underrepresented in leadership positions. Women held just 5.4% of the CEO positions in the S&P 500 companies in 2017 (Lyness & Grotto, 2018, p. 228). The observations indicate that the laws aimed at addressing gender discrimination are inadequate as gender-based occupational, wage, and leadership discrimination disproportionately affect women.

Three Forms of Gender Discrimination

There are various forms of gender discrimination against women in today’s workforce. Three notable forms include occupational discrimination, low wages, and few leadership opportunities. Occupational discrimination or segregation is at the center of such discrimination in that it sets an early foundation for the other forms of gender discrimination. Faniko et al. (2015) referred to this phenomenon as “sexual division of professional orientation” and noted that it represented the groundwork for the development of gender inequalities (p. 11). Sexism rooted in traditional norms is to blame for occupational discrimination, at least to some extent. According to Hideg and Ferris (2016), hostile and benevolent sexism alike lead to occupational discrimination against women. Hostile sexism is characterized by stereotypes that depict women as weak. Benevolent sexism involves subjectively positive attitudes towards women but are lacking in that they depict women as wonderful but weak. Such attitudes restrict the access of women to occupations and jobs that are considered masculine.

anyessayhelp.com

Overall, women receive significantly low wages compared to men. As noted in the preceding paragraph, occupational discrimination is partly to blame for this wage gap. Such discrimination restricts women to mostly low-paying jobs. Women’s pay was about 53% that of men in 1986 and rose to 67% in 2016 (Lyness & Grotto, 2018, p. 207). The authors also observed that the wage gap was wider in the top category of jobs. This observation suggests that women in high positions are likely to be paid much lower than their male counterparts despite having to overcome greater barriers. The wage gap, however, is more complex when other variables such as race are considered. For African Americans and Hispanics, for instance, women have higher wages than men (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). The higher earnings for women do not offset the underrepresentation of the gender in the labor force and leadership positions.

In leadership, the gender gap is concerning as the concept of the glass ceiling comes into effect. Women's representation in leadership positions lags behind the gender’s participation in the labor force. In 2017, 44.3% of the employees of the S&P 500 were women but only 5.4% of the CEOs were women (Lyness & Grotto, 2018, p. 228). As shown in this essay help, the concept of the glass ceiling helps to explain gender discrimination against women in leadership. Stereotypes entrenched in society underpin the glass ceiling and hinder the selection and promotion of women. A break from the misguided beliefs is necessary to encourage and support women to achieve their potential in leadership.

Laws to Manage Gender Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Equal Pay Act of 1963 were enacted to address occupational, wage, and leadership position discrimination against women. As per the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and several other demographics, including race, color, national origin, and religion. The law prohibits employers from engaging in hiring, firing, promotion, and other employment activities that discriminate against individuals due to their sex. This prohibition indicates the relevance of the law in protecting women against occupational, wage, and leadership position discrimination. The law applies to all state and local government employers, private employers, and educational institutions with 15 or more workers.

A major strength of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that it has been expanded to offer protection to women against discrimination in the labor force. One such expansion involved the definition of sex to cover pregnancy (Bardes et al., 2021). Another strength of this law is the creation of the EEOC, the agency with the mandate to enforce the Act. According to Guy and Fenley (2014), the EEOC has made various rulings and decisions that have helped to shape the protection of women in the workforce, forced employers to abandon some unfair employment policies, and given the law a mechanism for achieving the intended effect. Guy and Fenley (2014) noted that the law had a major loophole in that it appeared to only prohibit outright and blatant discrimination. The loophole involves two aspects. First, the law’s exemptions overlook the different experiences of women such as childbearing and, as a result, disadvantage women. Second, the law has subjective elements that give employers the power to determine whether or not sex is a legitimate qualification for a position. These shortcomings have undermined the effectiveness of the law and led to mixed outcomes for women. Whereas the law has had a major positive impact on protecting women against discrimination in the workplace, it has not addressed all the key dimensions of gender discrimination sufficiently.

The Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 sought to address the gendered wage gap. Unlike Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which covers various forms of discrimination, including the wage gap, EPA focuses on wages. This law prohibits employers from compensating women and men differently for substantially the same kind of job performed in the same establishment, requiring substantially the same skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions (Eisenberg, 2010). A major strength of EPA is that it is enforced by the EEOC, which ensures the law is translated into practice to enforce equal pay. The law has two major weaknesses. First, EPA places a heavy burden on women to prove the employer’s violations but does not require employers to disclose data on pay (Yearby, 2019). Without publicly available data on pay, women find it difficult to prove their case in the face of pay discrimination. Second, EPA, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has subjective elements in that employers can falsely defend their case under the guise of the factor other than sex. These downsides have rendered the law partly effective, leaving wage discrimination an ongoing problem.

Two Recommendations for HR to Minimize Discrimination

Recommendations that HR can undertake to minimize gender discrimination include avoiding recruitment strategies that favor a certain gender and adopting equal pay structures. Job advertisements that indicate the organization is seeking male workers lock out female candidates are likely to involve gender discrimination. HR should embrace a recruitment strategy that uses careful wording and is genuinely committed to equal opportunity employment practices. Another example of a recruitment strategy that would violate the law is using word-of-mouth recruitment by a mostly male workforce. Such a strategy, as per the EEOC (n.d), might lead to a situation where virtually all new hires are male. The appropriate recruitment strategy would use different communication channels to reach a balanced audience of involving all genders.

The HR’s pay structures represent an important opportunity to address gender discrimination. A regular review of pay structures can ensure that HR maintains equal pay practices regardless of gender. The previous section revealed that employers resort to subjective tenets of EPA to justify pay inequality in bad faith. This business assignment help is clear, regularly reviewed pay structures can help employers to ensure pay equity while avoiding legal pitfalls. Such a strategy would also enhance HR’s position as a champion of gender equality in the workplace.

Conclusion

The laws aimed at addressing gender discrimination are inadequate as gender-based occupational, wage, and leadership positions discrimination disproportionately affect women. Occupational discrimination forms an early foundation for other forms of gender discrimination in the workforce. Women are paid significantly lower than their male workers. Women are also less likely to hold leadership positions in companies. Two notable laws that were enacted to address gender discrimination are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Equal Pay Act of 1963. Although these laws have helped to reduce gender discrimination, they have loopholes that disadvantage women. HR can avoid violations of these laws by avoiding recruitment strategies that favor a certain gender and adopting regularly reviewed equal pay structures. These measures can help HR to champion gender equality in the workplace.

References

Bardes, B. A., Shelley, M. C., & Schmidt, S. W. (2021). American government and politics today: The essentials. Cengage Learning.

EEOC. (n.d.). Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices

Eisenberg, D. T. (2010). Shattering the equal pay act's glass ceiling. SMUL Rev., 63, 17.

Faniko, K., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Sarrasin, O., & Mayor, E. (Eds.). (2015). Gender and Social Hierarchies: Perspectives from Social Psychology. Routledge.

Gharehgozli, O., & Atal, V. (2020). Revisiting the gender wage gap in the United States. Economic Analysis and Policy, 66, 207-216, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.04.008

Guy, M. E., & Fenley, V. M. (2014). Inch by inch: Gender equity since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34(1), 40-58.

Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. (2016). The Compassionate Sexist? How Benevolent Sexism Promotes and Undermines Gender Equality in the Workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 706, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000072

Lyness, K. S., & Grotto, A. R. (2018). Women and leadership in the United States: Are we closing the gender Gap? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 227-265, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104739

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). Women in the Labor Force: A Databook. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2019/home.htm

Yearby, R. (2019). When Equal Pay Is Not Enough: The Influence of Employment Discrimination on Health Disparities. Public Health Reports, 134(4), 447-450.