Legislative Acts Against Discrimination

¶ … integrate readings Chapters 5 & 6 Pynes, J.E.(2013). Human resources management public nonprofit organizations: A strategic approach (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco response: Case Study: Reeves, Chapter 3: Some Counselors More Equal Others website information http://prezi. The case study relates to a situation involving state employees being discriminated on account of their gender.

Rose Paddock, the central actor in this case, complained with regard to how the Department of Labor was inclined to favor men by providing them with bigger salaries in spite of the fact that their jobs entailed the same duties and qualifications as jobs that were probable to be occupied by women. The job under discussion, an Employment Counselor position in the Department of Human Services, has an equivalent job in the Department of Labor.

The latter is paid better and the fact that there are more men in the Department of Labor while there are more women in the Department of Human Services plays an important role in drawing attention to the gender discrimination aspect of the situation. Gender discrimination is a particularly sensible topic when considering public institutions.

The fact that the Department of Labor was unhesitant about promoting the idea that men are somehow entitled to better wages in comparison to women generated much controversy and made it especially problematic for members of the Department of Human Services to accept this. The institution practically promoted "an unfair and counterproductive commitment to quotas in both hiring and promotion opportunities." (Reeves, 2006, p.

41) In order to gain a more complex understanding of this case, one should consider history in general and the way that it reflects on people's thinking in the contemporary society. "Historically, female work was devalued, subject to the perception that a woman's income was secondary to her husband's." (Pynes, 2004, p.

258) Even with the fact that people today have experienced much progress when considering gender roles and even though women are currently treated differently from how they were treated in the past, it is still intriguing to observe how individuals in the present subtly (sometimes, as in the present case, not so subtly) attempt to The fact that the Department of Labor is dominated by men influenced its leaders to put across more sympathetic attitudes toward men.

In contrast, the authorities expressed less interest in the majority of women working in the Department of Human Services and expected that their thinking would generate little to no issues. Rose Paddock took things further than most expected and actually criticized such behaviors in an attempt to raise public awareness concerning a society that still lacks adequate equality.

With the employer in Paddock's case being the state, there would be no reason at all for some people being treated differently from others, as they were virtually employed by the same body. The fact that some departments have access to more funds than others makes matters in this situation confusing. The reality is that funds are essential in determining the degree to which a department can provide people with salaries that correspond to their attributes.

Attempting to address this matter from a perspective involving the government and the way it administers its funds would further complicate the situation. The reality is that the argument is solid and that it would be difficult for someone to relate to the gender discrimination factor as being the main point of interest. The government can certainly be blamed for failing to address all departments it is in charge of in a way that would provide people with equal opportunities.

Even though some might consider that it would be natural for the Department of Labor to be more important than the Department of Human Services, the government should still focus on addressing people on an individual level. By doing this, it would make it possible for two persons having the same abilities to be provided with the same privileges.

There is certainly no point in thinking that someone should be paid more simply because he or she works in a particular department, especially if the respective person has the same qualifications and abilities as someone in another department. The idea here would be to address things on a micro level rather than on a macro level. The discussion has nothing to do with whether.