Business Perpetuates Rather Than Reduces Inequality in the Society - Essay Example

? Business Perpetuates Rather Than Reduces Inequality in the Society Insert Insert Grade Insert Insert Businesses have sprung up in many societies. These businesses are meant to provide income for the members of society. In so doing they are supposed to aid in bridging the gap between the rich and the poor and reduce societal inequalities. This to a great extent has not been the case; in fact in many cases business has perpetuated inequality in the society. These inequalities are mainly manifested when it comes to the personnel in the business organization. The inequality comes in three major regimes; gender, class and race. This paper discusses how business increases inequality in the society rather than reducing it. Discussion First I will define the inequalities that occur in business organizations. As stated earlier the main ones are class, race and gender. Class refers to the differences in control over and access to the resources of the business organization. Class differences are manifested during employment and the wages that are paid. The hierarchies that may be created in organizations may create a wide gap between the top management of the business organization and the workers at the bottom. In large corporations the Chief executive officers sit at the top and wield more power than other workers in the business. Such class difference might not be experienced in small businesses but still the owner or boss has class power over employees. Gender inequality is seen in the difference in beliefs of identities of men and women. Despite efforts to try to close the gender gap in business organizations, most top positions in organization management are still held by men while the low white collar positions like clerks and secretaries are dominantly held by women. Supervisory duties have always been assigned to men in many business organizations. This brings about gender inequality because men and women are not treated equally (Smith 2002). Race inequality comes about because of differences in physical characteristics, oppression, culture and historical domination justified by the underlying beliefs. Businesses owned by certain races in some cases discriminate other races when it comes to employment. They might fail completely to employ the other races or they may employ them and give them junior positions. There are other differences that might be the base for inequality in business organizations. These include sexuality, religion, physical disability and age. Some business organizations may discriminate against the homosexuals when it comes to employment. There are also cases where certain religions have been discriminated in business organizations. These differences might be vital but they do not carry more weight like gender, race and class in creating inequality. The main intention of business organizations is to make profits (Banerjee 2012). The requirements that are placed for work ensure that the organization does realize profits. These requirements may cause inequality between genders and classes. In a business organization work is designed in favour of men who are totally dedicated to earn a living and do not have other responsibilities for family demands or children. Eight hours of continuous working, giving the work maximum attention, arrival on time and being able to work for extra hours if need arises are some of the general requirements for employees in business organizations. Since it is mostly the workers at the lower level who perform duties that are vital for the realization of profit for the business, it is not easy to relax these requirements for them. On the other hand, the top management may bend these rules for their members. A manager for the business organization may work in the organization on part time basis, may not be required to arrive early, he may also be undertaking other business and is rarely required to work for extra hours. This is not true for a junior employee. Since it is the top management who earn more than the junior workers in the business organization, then it can be said that business perpetuates class inequality here. There are cases where businesses may allow workers to work on part time basis to help women combine work with family obligations, however, in such a case the wages are normally low than those of workers who work on full time basis. Because women have more obligations outside work than men, this work organization favour men and brings about gender inequality (Habibis and Walter 2008). For example, many business organizations may prefer to employ men rather than women because the women may divert some of their time to attend to their children and they may also require maternity leaves. Bending the requirements in a business organization may mean that the organization runs at a loss. Organizing hierarchies in a business organization may also cause inequality in the business organization. In most business organizations the job definition in various hierarchies favours men. The women jobs, which are essentially secretarial/ clerical, are normally less defined specifically and the wages are normally low than those for the sex typed men jobs that are spread all over the job categories. Skilled women jobs are normally also paid less than the men skilled jobs in many business organizations hence increasing the gender inequality (Rosenfeld 1980). Class inequality is also manifested across the hierarchies. In most of the business organizations, it is common for managers to be credited with the tasks that have been accomplished by their junior employees. Take for example a firm that has realized a profit increment in a given financial year, it is normally the management that take credit for coming up with strategies that led to realization of such profit when in the real sense the bulk of the work was done by junior employees. Many business organizations have also not endeavoured to address the inequalities across the classes in the organization (Dipboye and Halverson 2004). There are some business organizations that have done away with middle management in order to increase the decision making of the junior employee. This is done in the spirit of addressing the inequality between the top management and the junior staff. In the real sense, this is not true because despite involving them in decision making, their salaries in most cases do not increase and they may not have job security and hence inequality still persists between bottom and top management. Given that some businesses are owned by some families or races, their kin may be given higher positions in the organization despite the fact that they may have lower qualifications. This normally brings about class and race inequality. Some businesses are also seasonal or have peak periods. Such businesses may recruit additional staff during peak periods and lay them off when this season is over. To the management of such businesses the business is continuous; only profits change, but to the workers, they are rendered jobless when the peak period is over. Workers in such jobs are misused because of their class. In this case, business is still seen as perpetuating class inequalities. Inequalities are also perpetuated during the hiring and recruitment process. This is when the business finds suitable people for given job opportunities. The job suitability of an applicant is normally determined by the existing gender and race. When offering jobs in a business organization, there is great exploitation. The suitable applicant may not only be determined by his or her qualifications but the management team would select the one who is likely to accept low wages and accept manipulation. This puts the ideal worker for many jobs to be a woman. And it is not just a woman, but a woman of colour or an immigrant woman who will accept low wages and take orders. All these are geared towards maximizing profits for the owner of the business organization while on the other hand exploiting the employees. This scenario perpetuates inequality in the society. Hiring through social networks is also a way through which gender and race inequality is perpetuated in society’s business organizations (Fernandez-Mateo and Fernandez 2006). Without affirmative action to ensure that job positions are advertised and selection done fairly, most business organizations do hire based on gender and race. A family owned business may only employ family members despite being there more suitable applicants for that particular position. In this case, the wealth generated in this business is concentrated in one family. The top management of a firm may also hire their cronies. These employees may be suitable for those particular positions but the fact is that they deny the society members equal job opportunities. Many efforts have been put in place to try to address the issue of gender and race neutrality in business organizations. However, segregation still exists (Ainsworth, Knox & O’Flynn 2010). This is because it is the board of directors in corporations who normally determine the suitable applicants in the recruitment process. The race and gender of the decision maker and the applicant normally affect the judgement. Take for example two applicants from two different races with equal qualification for a certain job, the decision makers may use race as a determining factor for selection. It will be hard to eradicate racial and gender inequalities especially in business organizations given that these organizations are owned by individuals or a group. Wage setting practices also brings about inequality in the society’s business organizations. It is usual for race to determine the salary that employees get in a given business organization. Employees may be performing similar tasks, have equal qualifications but there is wage difference because of their races. This may be because a certain race is held in high esteem or because the business is controlled by a certain race. When setting the wages, differences also come between men and women when considering what amounts to fair wage. What is considered a fair wage for a woman may be lower than that of their male counterparts. A wage inequality also comes about because of class. When setting wages for members of a business organization it is usual to give higher salaries for the top management. This is despite the fact that it is the junior staff that dedicate most of their time and human resource to assist the business realize profits. The share of the profit increment is also not normally commensurate with the efforts that workers do put in their work (Acker 2006). A business may recognize enhanced profits due to extra efforts put in by their workers; the workers may not benefit from this profit or may get a very small share that is not proportional to the extra effort put. The majority of this profit is normally invested elsewhere by the owners of the business. This is what Karl max referred exploitation of workers by capitalists. The owners get richer while the workers just get what is enough to sustain them and not to move them to the next level. Supervisory practices also vary among business organizations. Managers sometimes assign duties based on gender and race. Most businesses normally prefer to give supervisory duties to men rather than women. Some people have also been assigned duties because of the relationship with owners of the business. The inequality has also been brought about by supervisor and subordinate relationships. When assigning duties the supervisors may favour certain races or gender. One example is in the study by Talwar (2002) in fast food restaurants in America. It was found that these restaurants preferred African Americans to be cashiers during night shifts. This is because they were also to offer protection. No extra wages were given for these special assignments. Here we see duties being assigned based on the race of employees. As workers interact in the business organization, race, gender and class normally dictate how they interact hence producing inequality. Managers or owners may expect respect for their authority from other employees. The workers on the hand know that their positions demand that they respect the authority but they may find such demands as demeaning and oppressive. Some managers may want their subordinates to revere them. Interacting with them is like meeting a certain “god” (Yiannis 1997). They would not expect the junior staff to argue with them or give their views. This clearly portrays inequality because some of these workers may possess higher qualifications than the management staff but they have to bend low by virtue of their positions. They do not like these demeaning conditions but they just get used to it (Cohen and Taylor 2012). The management may also not seek an opinion of women or another race in decision making. This is racial and gender devaluation. This discrimination may also be witnessed by interactions after work. Some managers may fail to invite some workers in after job drinks because of their gender or race. Sexual harassment is also witnessed in some business organizations. Managers may ask sexual favours from workers in order to be given employment or promotions. Workers who fail to accept these demands may be demoted, not employed or harassed in the job. There are also cases where non-deserving employees have been promoted because they have given in to sexual demands of the managers. In some business organizations such as hospitality and travel, job performance may be sexualized. Women employees are expected to dress in a sexually attractive way that will please male customers. Some women may also be denied the job opportunity simply because they are not sexually attractive. This demeaning phenomenon creates inequality. The education sector has also become business oriented. In order to access education there is a price you must pay. The owners of these institutions including the government have failed to subsidize the education in order for the poor in the society also to access it. This business minded attitude has denied the poor access to quality education. The poor people are likely to access only basic education but cannot afford higher education. With this low education quality, they are likely to fail to get good paying jobs in the society (Williams 2004). They only get low paying jobs and with these meagre earnings they cannot pay for their children’s education. This inequality will continue to be enhanced as long as education is business oriented. I will examine how age plays a role in business organizations inequalities. In many organizations, manual jobs that require much energy are normally a reserve of the young energetic men. These jobs are normally not that well paying. But, here we also have the influence of race, gender and class. Young men from rich families do not work in such jobs. These jobs are also not given to women but they are reserved for men. Some business organizations may specifically want to employ young inexperienced youths in the society mainly because they can easily exploit them. They pay them low wages and require them to work for many hours. All this is done in the business spirit of maximising profits. Overall, the businesses exploit the poor in the society. They sell commodities at the same price for both the poor and the rich. They take a greater percentage from the poor compared to the rich. The business men also in order to make higher profits might charge higher prices. As the businessmen get richer the masses get poorer (Calas and Smircich 1991). Big businesses also enjoy economies of scale and are likely to put up mechanisms to evade government tax as compared to small businesses. The small businesses are normally owned by the low or middle class citizens trying to climb the ladder of economic success. These small businesses in some cases have been driven out of business by the stiff competition offered by large organizations or taxes subjected to them. Conclusion From the foregoing discussion, businesses have perpetuated inequality in the society rather than reducing it. The spirit of the business of realizing profits, has led the owners of businesses to exploit their employees in order to realize high profits. The profits that are gained from the business are also not shared fairly across the board. Inequality has also been perpetuated by discriminative nature inherent in individuals. As Balfour & Adams (1998) says, evil is inherent in human beings and they are likely to discriminate others based on class, gender and race. Bibliography Acker, J., 2006, “Inequality Regimes Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations”, Gender and Society, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Aug., 2006), pp. 441-464 Ainsworth, S., Knox, A., and O’Flynn, J. 2010, “‘A Blinding Lack of Progress’: Management Rhetoric and Affirmative Action”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 658-675 Balfour, L. B., and Adams, B. G. 1998, Unmasking Administrative Evil, London: Sage Publishers Banerjee, B. S., 2012, “Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, Critical Sociology, Vol. 34, Issue 1, pp. 51-79 Banks, B. C 2007, “The Sociology of Inequality”, Race, Gender & Class, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 175-188 Calas, M. B., and Smircich, L. 1991, “Voicing Seduction to Silence Leadership”, Organization Studies, Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp. 567-602 Cohen, S. and Taylor, L., 2012, Escape from Attempts: The Theory and Practice in Everyday Life, London: Routledge Dipboye, L. R., and Halverson, K. S. 2004, Subtle (and not so subtle) Discrimination in Organizations in Griffin, W.R & O’Leary-Kelly, M. A eds., “The Dark side Organizational”, John Wiley& Sons Fernandez-Mateo, I., and Fernandez, R 2006, “Networks, Race, and Hiring”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 42-71 Habibis, D., and Walter, M. 2008, Social inequality in Australia: discourses, realities and futures, Australia: Oxford University Press Rosenfeld, A. R., 1980, “Race and Sex Differences in Career Dynamics”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 45, Issue 4 (Aug., 1980), pp. 583 -609 Smith, R. A., 2002, “Race, Gender, and Authority in the Workplace: Theory and Research”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 28, pp. 509-542 Talwar, J. P., 2002, Fast food, fast track: Immigrants, big business, and the American Dream. Boulder: Westview Press. Williams, L. C., 2004, “Inequality in the Toy Store”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 4, Winter 2004, pp. 461-486 Yiannis, G., 1997, “Meeting God: When Organizational Members Come Face to Face with the Supreme Leader”, Human Relations, April 1997, Vol. 50, Issue 4, pp.315-342 Read More