Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: affirmative action
Message-ID: <241@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 16:33:37 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.241
Posted: Fri Feb 15 16:33:37 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 05:11:15 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 47

This replied to an article in "net.women", but applies as well to the
current affirmative action debate (net.women was talking about equal-pay
for-equal-work evaluations):

While "market value" is generally a good concept for pay scales, it has
been shown that in the case of women "market value" does _not_ govern the
wages.  In San Jose, although there is a shortage of nurses, the pay scale
of nurses has not changed significantly in over 10 years. (It has risen, as
in cost-of-living raises, but not in response to demand).  Other studies
have been done to show that "market value" does not function in this
context.

Projected cause -- in a society that values it's women less than men, it
ceases to matter what the actual job function/task performed is (the values
society places on any job are arbitrary, anyhow.  That we pay business
people [regardless of sex] more than teachers _floors_ me.).  Part of the
purpose of the equal-pay-for-equal-work issue, and the affirmative action
program is to force a reevaluation of the roles of certain sectors (women,
blacks, etc) of the population so that "market value" will begin to
function.  Affirmative action practices are, in themselves, discriminatory
in a reverse manner to historical discrimination practices.  However, the
intent (and in some cases, the result) is to open fields/wages etc. up for
those whom society has rigorously excluded.  Once we reach a baseline of
equity, affirmative action and equal-pay-for-equal-work will cease to be
issues. (Always presuming that children are raised with similar
expectations, which, of course, they aren't.  You can't dress your daughter
in pink and lace for her whole life, and reward only nurturing behaviour,
then expect her to "freely" choose to become a truck driver).

The "we got to put out top-quality products" is an interesting slant --
however, you better consider that "we got to do it under the laws of
this country", too.  In my mgmt class, one very nice, level headed young
man asked why he should be penalized if he wants to run his small company
with an all-male staff, since he works better with men, and having to work
with women would cause him to lose efficiency.  The answer of course is that
if you don't want to serve black people, don't open a restaurant in this
country.  It is a _law_ in this country that blacks be served, hired, etc.,
that women be incorporated into the workplace, and there are guidelines for
this law.  The reasons for affirmative action are clear, and the implementa-
tion of affirmative action are definately preferential.  And they will re-
main preferential until the body of working persons reflects the population
mix.  Anything short of complete integration is a gross waste of "manpower".

White males have a few more doors shut this year than they did 10 years
ago. Women, blacks, handicapped workers and gays have a few more open.  One
of these days, we will achieve the balance that will make us wonder what
all the shouting was about.