By Annys Shin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 24, 2008; 12:39 PM
The number of people filing for unemployment benefits hit a 26-year high last week, as the deepening recession forced more employers to cut jobs.
First-time claims for unemployment rose 5.4 percent, to 586,000 for the week ending Dec. 20, the Labor Department reported this morning. The last time claims were that high was Nov. 27, 1982. The four-week moving average, which is a less volatile indicator, rose to 558,000 from 544,250, also a 26-year high.
Orders for durable goods, such as appliances and televisions, dropped 1 percent to $186.9 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau said today. It was the fourth consecutive monthly drop but a much smaller decline than the 8.4 percent drop in October, thanks largely to orders for defense-related goods. Excluding those, which can vary widely quarter to quarter, new orders decreased by 0.9 percent.
Prices fell 1.1 percent last month, compared with 0.5 percent, the Commerce Department reported today. Much of that was due to falling gasoline and food prices. When food and energy are excluded, prices were actually flat.
Consumer spending continued to decline in November, falling 0.6 percent, even as consumers benefited from falling gasoline prices and retailers attempted to lure them into stores with deep discounts in an effort to salvage the holiday shopping season.
Retailers might have succeeded to an extent. November's drop was smaller than the 1 percent drop in spending in October. But just as they did in October, consumers also kept a chunk of their savings at the pump in their pockets. Personal savings as a percentage of disposable income was 2.8 percent in November, compared with 2.4 in October.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Financier Is Found Dead in a Madoff Aftermath
By ZACHERY KOUWE and MICHAEL WILSON
Around 4 a.m. on Monday, a prominent hedge fund manager who apparently had lost $1.4 billion with Bernard L. Madoff, telephoned a longtime client in Paris, sounding upset.
“I have to fight for my clients and myself,” the money manager, R. Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet, told the client, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of investigations into the $50 billion Ponzi scheme Mr. Madoff is suspected of orchestrating. “It’s a complete nightmare.”
A little more than 24 hours later, Mr. de la Villehuchet was found dead in his office on Madison Avenue. The evidence pointed to suicide, the police said on Tuesday.
Security officers discovered the body of Mr. de la Villehuchet, a co-founder of Access International Advisors, in a chair, with one of his legs propped on his desk. His wrists and his left biceps were slashed, said Paul J. Browne, a New York police spokesman. A wastebasket had been placed under his bleeding biceps, Mr. Browne said.
No suicide note was found, but sleeping pills and a box cutter were discovered under his desk.
Mr. de la Villehuchet, 65, was in his office at 7 p.m. on Monday and had asked the cleaning staff to clean up early because he would be working late.
Later that evening, one of the firm’s partners asked a security guard to see if Mr. de la Villehuchet was still in his office, but the door was locked, and the guard had no key, the police said.
During the last week, as the scale of the scheme came to light, Mr. de la Villehuchet had tried unsuccessfully to recover his clients’ money, the client said. Mr. de la Villehuchet told the client in Paris on Monday morning that he felt that he had betrayed clients and friends.
“He said he felt robbed,” the client said.
A native of the Brittany region of France, Mr. de la Villehuchet was described by friends as a man who was devoted to his firm. He founded Access International Advisors in 1994 with Patrick Littaye after his tenure as chairman and chief executive of the United States investment banking arm of the French bank Crédit Lyonnais.
Mr. de la Villehuchet, an avid sailor and a member of the New York Yacht Club, lived in Westchester County with his wife. The couple also owned a home in Brittany. No one responded to a telephone call to Mr. de la Villehuchet’s home or to messages left at Access International’s offices.
Early Tuesday afternoon, several reporters and photographers gathered in front of the narrow entrance to Access International’s office on Madison Avenue, a few blocks from Rockefeller Center.
Access International is one of several so-called feeder funds that funneled money from investors across the globe into Mr. Madoff’s collapsed firm. The news of Mr. de la Villehuchet’s death came as investors in other feeder funds with exposure to Mr. Madoff, including Fairfield Greenwich Group and Tremont Group Holdings, began suing those funds alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
Access International managed $3 billion, but its Luxalpha American Selection fund invested all of its assets with Mr. Madoff. In a letter to fund investors last week, the New York-based firm called Mr. Madoff’s arrest “a shocking development” and said it was assessing the situation.
Investors in the Luxalpha fund were mostly wealthy European clients of Rothschild investment bank and UBS, which was the custodian and administrator of the Luxalpha fund until this year, when Access International took over.
UBS has said that wealthy European clients, attracted by Mr. Madoff’s stellar returns, had asked the bank to set up a fund to invest with him.
Nelson D. Schwartz contributed reporting from Paris and Michael J. de la Merced from New York.
Retrieved from nytimes.com 12.22.2008
Around 4 a.m. on Monday, a prominent hedge fund manager who apparently had lost $1.4 billion with Bernard L. Madoff, telephoned a longtime client in Paris, sounding upset.
“I have to fight for my clients and myself,” the money manager, R. Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet, told the client, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of investigations into the $50 billion Ponzi scheme Mr. Madoff is suspected of orchestrating. “It’s a complete nightmare.”
A little more than 24 hours later, Mr. de la Villehuchet was found dead in his office on Madison Avenue. The evidence pointed to suicide, the police said on Tuesday.
Security officers discovered the body of Mr. de la Villehuchet, a co-founder of Access International Advisors, in a chair, with one of his legs propped on his desk. His wrists and his left biceps were slashed, said Paul J. Browne, a New York police spokesman. A wastebasket had been placed under his bleeding biceps, Mr. Browne said.
No suicide note was found, but sleeping pills and a box cutter were discovered under his desk.
Mr. de la Villehuchet, 65, was in his office at 7 p.m. on Monday and had asked the cleaning staff to clean up early because he would be working late.
Later that evening, one of the firm’s partners asked a security guard to see if Mr. de la Villehuchet was still in his office, but the door was locked, and the guard had no key, the police said.
During the last week, as the scale of the scheme came to light, Mr. de la Villehuchet had tried unsuccessfully to recover his clients’ money, the client said. Mr. de la Villehuchet told the client in Paris on Monday morning that he felt that he had betrayed clients and friends.
“He said he felt robbed,” the client said.
A native of the Brittany region of France, Mr. de la Villehuchet was described by friends as a man who was devoted to his firm. He founded Access International Advisors in 1994 with Patrick Littaye after his tenure as chairman and chief executive of the United States investment banking arm of the French bank Crédit Lyonnais.
Mr. de la Villehuchet, an avid sailor and a member of the New York Yacht Club, lived in Westchester County with his wife. The couple also owned a home in Brittany. No one responded to a telephone call to Mr. de la Villehuchet’s home or to messages left at Access International’s offices.
Early Tuesday afternoon, several reporters and photographers gathered in front of the narrow entrance to Access International’s office on Madison Avenue, a few blocks from Rockefeller Center.
Access International is one of several so-called feeder funds that funneled money from investors across the globe into Mr. Madoff’s collapsed firm. The news of Mr. de la Villehuchet’s death came as investors in other feeder funds with exposure to Mr. Madoff, including Fairfield Greenwich Group and Tremont Group Holdings, began suing those funds alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
Access International managed $3 billion, but its Luxalpha American Selection fund invested all of its assets with Mr. Madoff. In a letter to fund investors last week, the New York-based firm called Mr. Madoff’s arrest “a shocking development” and said it was assessing the situation.
Investors in the Luxalpha fund were mostly wealthy European clients of Rothschild investment bank and UBS, which was the custodian and administrator of the Luxalpha fund until this year, when Access International took over.
UBS has said that wealthy European clients, attracted by Mr. Madoff’s stellar returns, had asked the bank to set up a fund to invest with him.
Nelson D. Schwartz contributed reporting from Paris and Michael J. de la Merced from New York.
Retrieved from nytimes.com 12.22.2008
Medical ‘Conscience Rule’ Is Issued
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration, as expected, announced new protections on Thursday for health care providers who oppose abortion and other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds.
“Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of Health and Human Services, said in a statement on his department’s Web site.
The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and health care aides who refuse to take part in procedures because of their convictions, and it bars hospitals, clinics, doctors’ office and pharmacies from forcing their employees to assist in programs and activities financed by the department.
“This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience,” Mr. Leavitt said.
The Bush administration had signaled its intention to issue the measures, which are part of a flurry of regulations it is announcing before President-elect Barack Obama takes office. The new president will be able to undo the regulations, and is virtually certain to, given his previous comments on the issue. But undoing them will be a time-consuming process.
The measures announced on Thursday, sometimes described collectively as the “conscience rule,” were issued just in time to take effect before the start of the new administration. They will go into effect 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register on Friday. Recipients of funds from the Department of Health and Human Services are required to certify their compliance with the rule by October 2009.
“If, despite the department’s efforts, compliance is not achieved, H.H.S. officials will consider all legal options, including termination of funding and the return of funds paid out in violation of the non-discrimination provisions,” Mr. Leavitt said.
Opponents of abortion, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals, support the new regulations and say they are needed to protect health-care providers from being forced to perform abortions and sterilizations.
They are opposed by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association, among others. Opponents contend that the regulations are a threat to a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, and that they are not needed in any event because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion.
“Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of Health and Human Services, said in a statement on his department’s Web site.
The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and health care aides who refuse to take part in procedures because of their convictions, and it bars hospitals, clinics, doctors’ office and pharmacies from forcing their employees to assist in programs and activities financed by the department.
“This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience,” Mr. Leavitt said.
The Bush administration had signaled its intention to issue the measures, which are part of a flurry of regulations it is announcing before President-elect Barack Obama takes office. The new president will be able to undo the regulations, and is virtually certain to, given his previous comments on the issue. But undoing them will be a time-consuming process.
The measures announced on Thursday, sometimes described collectively as the “conscience rule,” were issued just in time to take effect before the start of the new administration. They will go into effect 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register on Friday. Recipients of funds from the Department of Health and Human Services are required to certify their compliance with the rule by October 2009.
“If, despite the department’s efforts, compliance is not achieved, H.H.S. officials will consider all legal options, including termination of funding and the return of funds paid out in violation of the non-discrimination provisions,” Mr. Leavitt said.
Opponents of abortion, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals, support the new regulations and say they are needed to protect health-care providers from being forced to perform abortions and sterilizations.
They are opposed by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association, among others. Opponents contend that the regulations are a threat to a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, and that they are not needed in any event because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Social Movement Unionism
Kochan, Katz and McKersie (KKM) attribute the rise of human resource systems as the main factor that caused unions to fall. The growth of the services industry lead to the rise of human resource management and welcomed anti-union sentiment among top executives. Clawson addresses these issues with empirical studies on social movements joining forces with unions, and uses them as models for a potential “upsurge” in unionism.
KKM points out the shift from a production economy to a services economy decreased the number of union-represented jobs. Unions failed to recruit these workers because of the difficulty posed in organizing them. Service workers tended to have smaller numbers at many more, disperse work sites and occupations, versus high concentrations of workers in the production industry. Therefore, organizing a few people at a job site seemed useless, even more so when employers can replace them quickly. Clawson’s model brings together community members and organizations to help those smaller groups by putting pressure on those companies, or organizations in objection. As this shift was taking place, human resource management emerged.
Human resource management is intra-firm negotiating between employees and employers. This direct-bargaining style cut out the need for unions. Employers allowed employees to have direct input on policies that affected them. As the services sector grew, human resource management and anti-union sentiment from management decreased the need for labor unions. However, minorities heavily populate the services industry and many do not have a voice because of language barriers, lack of resources, or perhaps, lack of citizenship. When discontent arises, they do not have an external party to turn to. During instances such as this, Clawson believes, unions should capitalize on the opportunity to recruit and re-establish themselves by joining forces with other organizations and networks in order to get grass roots membership and support.
Clawson uses the Stamford example to illustrate how unions can reach out into communities to gain support, broaden networks and seek resources. In Stamford, four unions came together with churches, clubs and tenants to create a network that fought the privatization of public housing. The newly formed alliance allowed them to mobilize by seeking support through many chains and channels throughout the city. The Stamford group was able to bring executives into churches to negotiate, a place comfortable to the employees rather than a company’s intimidating conference room. Furthermore, these alliances help the cause gain publicity because it is now bringing in respected community members whom executives or town leaders are less likely to ignore. However, Clawson’s model for “fusion” does not solve all of the issues.
Clawson’s model assumes a tight-knit community in which everyone has social ties within a community. It does not address those cases where people live outside the city and have no social ties to it, other than their job. If this were to serve as a model for organizing, companies would adapt by simply relocating to rural places that pull people from different geographical areas. Alternatively, companies could move to larger cities where employees are less likely to have strong interaction with one another.
Clawson’s biggest oversight is those companies that adamantly oppose unions or collective bargaining. Many organizations do not give any acknowledgement to third party negotiators. The fusion model is useless in this instance, unless the group is able to organize and execute massive strikes. A major factor Clawson overlooks with respect to organizing is time. He uses anecdotal evidence to prove community networks can quickly mobilize. However, that is not always feasible. In cases where time is of the essence, organizers may not be able to mobilize quickly the necessary and extensive human capital proposed by Clawson. However, quick and comprehensive mobilization of resources and social networks is the goal. Unions are better able to accomplish this by recruiting all workers at a plant to strike. But, it’s harder for the janitors at Stamford Elementary to organize members of their church, or their city government on short notice being they also have jobs they must respect.
KKM’s biggest argument for the fall of unionism was the rise of human resource systems due to the growth of the services sector. Clawson tries to revive unionism with the idea of “fused” movement that brings together large numbers of people from many different groups that work symbiotically to achieve goals. These groups come from the community and can involve churches, politicians, citizens, civic organizations or community leaders. This horizontal and vertical integration of resources helps movements gain community support and pressures the antagonists. The collective conscience of the community counters the anti-union mentality of businesses. It also promotes the efforts of disadvantaged groups fighting non-business organizations such as local governments, as we saw in Stamford.
KKM points out the shift from a production economy to a services economy decreased the number of union-represented jobs. Unions failed to recruit these workers because of the difficulty posed in organizing them. Service workers tended to have smaller numbers at many more, disperse work sites and occupations, versus high concentrations of workers in the production industry. Therefore, organizing a few people at a job site seemed useless, even more so when employers can replace them quickly. Clawson’s model brings together community members and organizations to help those smaller groups by putting pressure on those companies, or organizations in objection. As this shift was taking place, human resource management emerged.
Human resource management is intra-firm negotiating between employees and employers. This direct-bargaining style cut out the need for unions. Employers allowed employees to have direct input on policies that affected them. As the services sector grew, human resource management and anti-union sentiment from management decreased the need for labor unions. However, minorities heavily populate the services industry and many do not have a voice because of language barriers, lack of resources, or perhaps, lack of citizenship. When discontent arises, they do not have an external party to turn to. During instances such as this, Clawson believes, unions should capitalize on the opportunity to recruit and re-establish themselves by joining forces with other organizations and networks in order to get grass roots membership and support.
Clawson uses the Stamford example to illustrate how unions can reach out into communities to gain support, broaden networks and seek resources. In Stamford, four unions came together with churches, clubs and tenants to create a network that fought the privatization of public housing. The newly formed alliance allowed them to mobilize by seeking support through many chains and channels throughout the city. The Stamford group was able to bring executives into churches to negotiate, a place comfortable to the employees rather than a company’s intimidating conference room. Furthermore, these alliances help the cause gain publicity because it is now bringing in respected community members whom executives or town leaders are less likely to ignore. However, Clawson’s model for “fusion” does not solve all of the issues.
Clawson’s model assumes a tight-knit community in which everyone has social ties within a community. It does not address those cases where people live outside the city and have no social ties to it, other than their job. If this were to serve as a model for organizing, companies would adapt by simply relocating to rural places that pull people from different geographical areas. Alternatively, companies could move to larger cities where employees are less likely to have strong interaction with one another.
Clawson’s biggest oversight is those companies that adamantly oppose unions or collective bargaining. Many organizations do not give any acknowledgement to third party negotiators. The fusion model is useless in this instance, unless the group is able to organize and execute massive strikes. A major factor Clawson overlooks with respect to organizing is time. He uses anecdotal evidence to prove community networks can quickly mobilize. However, that is not always feasible. In cases where time is of the essence, organizers may not be able to mobilize quickly the necessary and extensive human capital proposed by Clawson. However, quick and comprehensive mobilization of resources and social networks is the goal. Unions are better able to accomplish this by recruiting all workers at a plant to strike. But, it’s harder for the janitors at Stamford Elementary to organize members of their church, or their city government on short notice being they also have jobs they must respect.
KKM’s biggest argument for the fall of unionism was the rise of human resource systems due to the growth of the services sector. Clawson tries to revive unionism with the idea of “fused” movement that brings together large numbers of people from many different groups that work symbiotically to achieve goals. These groups come from the community and can involve churches, politicians, citizens, civic organizations or community leaders. This horizontal and vertical integration of resources helps movements gain community support and pressures the antagonists. The collective conscience of the community counters the anti-union mentality of businesses. It also promotes the efforts of disadvantaged groups fighting non-business organizations such as local governments, as we saw in Stamford.
The Fight for Equal Pay
Copy Right 2008 Travis Schwope
Gender pay differentials exist in nearly every sector of our economy. Many theories seek to explain why these gaps still occur, despite narrowing brought on from the Civil Rights Act. These theories do not explain the problem entirely by themselves. They are models used to analyze and investigate why organizations treat women as they do. After knowing how organizations and men operate, we can be proactive in preventing discrimination in order to narrow the gap.
According to human capital theory, women do not make as much as men due because their careers tend to be intermittent due to child rearing and relocation. During this time, women may lose knowledge or skills needed to compete with men who continually gain knowledge, experience and training (Cohn, 122). Furthermore, women are more likely to leave a job to move cities with her husband and his new job transfer, leaving her firm-specific knowledge and possible seniority behind. However, women live longer than men do. If a woman was to re-enter the workforce at age 50 after having raised her children, it can be expected she would work for at least another 15 years. Women of old age are more productive than their male counterparts are, yet they are not paid as much.
When applying the fundamental assumptions of human capital theory, the largest wage gap would occur between women who do leave the workforce to have children or relocate. Meanwhile, their male coworkers continue to learn skills, gain training, and receive promotions and raises. Upon re-entry to the workforce, she can no longer compete with males as she once did. Therefore, according to human capital theory, women are paid less than men because of the knowledge, skills, and subsequent seniority lost due to intermittent employment.
Overcrowding theory is the “supply and demand” model of wage differentials between women and men and is the most accurate theory. This theory looks at the number of available jobs for women and men, compared to the number of men and women willing to work in those jobs. Overcrowding divides the job market into female and male jobs using occupational “sex-typing.” Sex typing separates the job market according to stereotypical jobs for each sex. To view this we must propose that all jobs are either male or female jobs. Therefore, when the supply of female workers is plentiful with a high number of job openings, wages increase. When the supply of females is small with a high number of openings, wages decrease. This is because employers know the potential workers will take a pay cut in order to get the job. As the number of males and females in a job equalizes, the pay gap closes.
The biggest gap in pay between men and women according to this theory would be when male jobs dominate the market, with fewer female jobs and higher numbers of females seeking employment. Conversely, when there are high number of female jobs, a low number of available male jobs and more males competing, the males would take a pay cut in order to get the job.
Comparable worth theory seeks to explain pay differentials by suggesting that social and psychological forces cause an undervaluation of women’s labor. This theory seeks to explain pay differentials by analyzing stereotypes men have of women and their work. Here we look at jobs that women heavily staff such as childcare or teaching jobs. Men undervalue these “women jobs” because of psychological tendencies to oppress or dominate women. Questioning of a male’s sexuality occurs when men enter one of these fields. Therefore, many men shy away from these jobs to avoid the ensuing stigma, which maintains the number of women within the field. Comparable worth discrimination occurs most to both males and females in jobs that are sex-typed as female.
When we look at pay differentials according to stolen productivity theory, we find that patriarchal organizations tend to place women in jobs where their maximum productivity will stay below that of a man. This is because men make the rules and hire females into positions that will keep them under the “glass ceiling” in an effort to keep the higher paying jobs that have more prestige to themselves. This theory applies to both women and racial minorities. According to this theory, pay differentials are greatest when men are running an organization. Furthermore, the job market must be in demand for male workers, with little openings for females. Assuming an equal mix of males in females in the locale, women will bid their wages down in order to obtain the job if there are not openings anywhere else. A simple example would be in a small town based in corn production. Men run the local co-op that offer the only jobs in town available to women doing bookkeeping. The co-op has two positions available for the 25 females in town to fight over. The men know that two of them are bound to take the job and can pay them minimum wage.
The last explanation we can propose for pay gaps results from differential enforcement. This theory accounts for the privileges males enjoy. These privileges transpire most in the punishments males receive when rules or expectations are broken. For instance, if a male makes a sexually crude comment to a female, it likely he will not receive the prescribed reprimand from higher ups. We can assume all males have witnessed or performed this act in some way and esteemed in the punishment (or lack thereof) from the males that are supposed to enforce the rules. My father owns a business that employs 2 woman secretaries and 20 male service workers. I have witnessed him constantly chastising them when they made mistakes, but “let it slide” when the male workers committed worse misconduct. When women break company policy, it seems more likely that they will fall victim to management “making an example” out of their punishment. When this woman is up for promotion or raise, it is likely these instances will put her at a disadvantage.
Gender pay differentials exist in nearly every sector of our economy. Many theories seek to explain why these gaps still occur, despite narrowing brought on from the Civil Rights Act. These theories do not explain the problem entirely by themselves. They are models used to analyze and investigate why organizations treat women as they do. After knowing how organizations and men operate, we can be proactive in preventing discrimination in order to narrow the gap.
According to human capital theory, women do not make as much as men due because their careers tend to be intermittent due to child rearing and relocation. During this time, women may lose knowledge or skills needed to compete with men who continually gain knowledge, experience and training (Cohn, 122). Furthermore, women are more likely to leave a job to move cities with her husband and his new job transfer, leaving her firm-specific knowledge and possible seniority behind. However, women live longer than men do. If a woman was to re-enter the workforce at age 50 after having raised her children, it can be expected she would work for at least another 15 years. Women of old age are more productive than their male counterparts are, yet they are not paid as much.
When applying the fundamental assumptions of human capital theory, the largest wage gap would occur between women who do leave the workforce to have children or relocate. Meanwhile, their male coworkers continue to learn skills, gain training, and receive promotions and raises. Upon re-entry to the workforce, she can no longer compete with males as she once did. Therefore, according to human capital theory, women are paid less than men because of the knowledge, skills, and subsequent seniority lost due to intermittent employment.
Overcrowding theory is the “supply and demand” model of wage differentials between women and men and is the most accurate theory. This theory looks at the number of available jobs for women and men, compared to the number of men and women willing to work in those jobs. Overcrowding divides the job market into female and male jobs using occupational “sex-typing.” Sex typing separates the job market according to stereotypical jobs for each sex. To view this we must propose that all jobs are either male or female jobs. Therefore, when the supply of female workers is plentiful with a high number of job openings, wages increase. When the supply of females is small with a high number of openings, wages decrease. This is because employers know the potential workers will take a pay cut in order to get the job. As the number of males and females in a job equalizes, the pay gap closes.
The biggest gap in pay between men and women according to this theory would be when male jobs dominate the market, with fewer female jobs and higher numbers of females seeking employment. Conversely, when there are high number of female jobs, a low number of available male jobs and more males competing, the males would take a pay cut in order to get the job.
Comparable worth theory seeks to explain pay differentials by suggesting that social and psychological forces cause an undervaluation of women’s labor. This theory seeks to explain pay differentials by analyzing stereotypes men have of women and their work. Here we look at jobs that women heavily staff such as childcare or teaching jobs. Men undervalue these “women jobs” because of psychological tendencies to oppress or dominate women. Questioning of a male’s sexuality occurs when men enter one of these fields. Therefore, many men shy away from these jobs to avoid the ensuing stigma, which maintains the number of women within the field. Comparable worth discrimination occurs most to both males and females in jobs that are sex-typed as female.
When we look at pay differentials according to stolen productivity theory, we find that patriarchal organizations tend to place women in jobs where their maximum productivity will stay below that of a man. This is because men make the rules and hire females into positions that will keep them under the “glass ceiling” in an effort to keep the higher paying jobs that have more prestige to themselves. This theory applies to both women and racial minorities. According to this theory, pay differentials are greatest when men are running an organization. Furthermore, the job market must be in demand for male workers, with little openings for females. Assuming an equal mix of males in females in the locale, women will bid their wages down in order to obtain the job if there are not openings anywhere else. A simple example would be in a small town based in corn production. Men run the local co-op that offer the only jobs in town available to women doing bookkeeping. The co-op has two positions available for the 25 females in town to fight over. The men know that two of them are bound to take the job and can pay them minimum wage.
The last explanation we can propose for pay gaps results from differential enforcement. This theory accounts for the privileges males enjoy. These privileges transpire most in the punishments males receive when rules or expectations are broken. For instance, if a male makes a sexually crude comment to a female, it likely he will not receive the prescribed reprimand from higher ups. We can assume all males have witnessed or performed this act in some way and esteemed in the punishment (or lack thereof) from the males that are supposed to enforce the rules. My father owns a business that employs 2 woman secretaries and 20 male service workers. I have witnessed him constantly chastising them when they made mistakes, but “let it slide” when the male workers committed worse misconduct. When women break company policy, it seems more likely that they will fall victim to management “making an example” out of their punishment. When this woman is up for promotion or raise, it is likely these instances will put her at a disadvantage.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell on Way Out?
Colin Powell, who as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Stafff in 1993 opposed newly-inaugurated President Bill Clinton's plans to end the ban on open gay military service, recently said that the exclusion of out gay people from the military should be revisited. And now Admiral John Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told the New York Times that he has begun "conversations" at the Pentagon about changing the policy given President-elect Barack Obama's opposition to it.
Coach Wins $5 Million in Suit v. University
Former Fresno State volleyball coach Lindy Vivas reached a $5 million settlement with the California State University system in her suit alleging that her contract was not renewed in 2004 due to her perceived sexual orientation and her speaking out for equity for women players under Title IX, the Fresno Bee reported.
Coach Wins $5 Million in Suit v. University
Former Fresno State volleyball coach Lindy Vivas reached a $5 million settlement with the California State University system in her suit alleging that her contract was not renewed in 2004 due to her perceived sexual orientation and her speaking out for equity for women players under Title IX, the Fresno Bee reported.
Jerry Brown's About Face: Void Prop. 8
In a surprising change of pace, California Attorney General Jerry Brown made a bold statement Friday by urging the state’s supreme court to void Proposition 8.
The proposition, which reversed a supreme court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the state of California, passed on election day by a narrow margin. Brown said Proposition 8 is in and of itself unconstitutional because it “deprives a minority group of a fundamental right.”
That’s an about face for Brown, who had previously said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters. The attorney general is legally bound to uphold the state’s laws as long as there are reasonable grounds to do so.
With his surprising 111-page legal brief -- filed at the last possible moment before the court’s deadline -- Brown offered substantial support for overturning Proposition 8.
"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."
Brown served as the governor of California from 1975 to 1983 and is rumored to be seeking the office again in 2010. Though Brown said he personally had voted against the marriage ban, as recently as last month, he said he would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.
Opponents of gay marriage, who also filed arguments with the court Friday, were said to be shocked by Brown’s decision.
The Protect Marriage coalition urged in their brief that the justices uphold the proposition, which voters approved 52% to 48% on Nov. 4 -- the most expensive battle for gay rights in history.
Andy Pugno, the lawyer for Protect Marriage, told the Associated Press that Brown's argument is "an astonishing theory." He said he was "disappointed to see the attorney general fail to defend the will of the voters as the law instructs him to."
Also up for debate –the state of the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the election.
Brown argued that Proposition 8 was not written to be retroactive and that the marriages should remain valid.
Protect Marriage countered that none of the same-sex marriages should be legally recognized.
The Supreme Court justices are expected to hear arguments in the case as early as March, with a ruling expected later in the spring. Kenneth W. Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor and U.S. solicitor general, plans to argue on behalf of Protect Marriage, the group said Friday. (Ross von Metzke, Advocate.com)
The proposition, which reversed a supreme court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the state of California, passed on election day by a narrow margin. Brown said Proposition 8 is in and of itself unconstitutional because it “deprives a minority group of a fundamental right.”
That’s an about face for Brown, who had previously said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters. The attorney general is legally bound to uphold the state’s laws as long as there are reasonable grounds to do so.
With his surprising 111-page legal brief -- filed at the last possible moment before the court’s deadline -- Brown offered substantial support for overturning Proposition 8.
"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."
Brown served as the governor of California from 1975 to 1983 and is rumored to be seeking the office again in 2010. Though Brown said he personally had voted against the marriage ban, as recently as last month, he said he would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.
Opponents of gay marriage, who also filed arguments with the court Friday, were said to be shocked by Brown’s decision.
The Protect Marriage coalition urged in their brief that the justices uphold the proposition, which voters approved 52% to 48% on Nov. 4 -- the most expensive battle for gay rights in history.
Andy Pugno, the lawyer for Protect Marriage, told the Associated Press that Brown's argument is "an astonishing theory." He said he was "disappointed to see the attorney general fail to defend the will of the voters as the law instructs him to."
Also up for debate –the state of the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the election.
Brown argued that Proposition 8 was not written to be retroactive and that the marriages should remain valid.
Protect Marriage countered that none of the same-sex marriages should be legally recognized.
The Supreme Court justices are expected to hear arguments in the case as early as March, with a ruling expected later in the spring. Kenneth W. Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor and U.S. solicitor general, plans to argue on behalf of Protect Marriage, the group said Friday. (Ross von Metzke, Advocate.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
