fToniann has 9 post(s)

Part A

What I got from the essay doing gender “Giving Good Service” is that the another was trying to make a connection between gender and how it affects people’s definition and of what good service is. She discusses how gender affects ones behavior in their job. I like her example of the waitress, because female waitresses arose from the stereotype that women provide a motherly and caring vibe. Because of this women’s behavior changes to adapt to the stereotype. Another example used was the police officer in which is female officers are not seen at the same superiority as male officers and therefore are not given the same respect or seriousness. Hall also discusses how gender is used to determine whether male or female would be more beneficial for the business to earn. She brings up women’s jobs such as housekeeping, nanny, waitress, or bartender because women are seen as caregivers or sex symbols. The gender is used as a tool to benefit the business or customers. Business really add to this idea in that they make provocative uniforms for their female employees to wear rather then the males. This can be seen today in food industries such as hooters. I am pretty certain that the men do not walk around in bras or belly shirts. In the NY Times employees from hooters discussed how degrading the uniform was and that refusing to wear it is not an option and will lead to be fired from the job. I believe the excuses business use to defend themselves is that they are trying to appeal to the customer however they are not realizing the message they are sending out to their employees and young men and women. A big problem that arises is harassment that comes with particular job such as waitress or bartending. Superiors will inform employees that flirting and sex appeal is a requirement of their job. I find this completely outrageous and don’t understand why this is being accepted in today society. We must step away from money being more important than our self-respect and dignity.

Part B:

Budig and England explore how motherhood affects employed women’s wages. They come to the realization that there is in fact a wage penalty for motherhood. Through their research they give five explanations as to why mothers wages are affected. The first reason as to why women are not offered more money or earn less is because employers believe that mother hood causes women to lose job experience. Women move from full time positions to part time or take time off to care for children or take maternity leave. Budig and England’s research (pg205) showed that men suffer no such penalty even after having children. Although most business owners see time off for mothers as a negative, Budig and England see the positives of mothers taking time off to care for their children. The idea presented here is that “caring labor” equals “productive adults” who later contribute to economic productivity. Higher pay goes to women who are deemed qualified because of their seniority which is a result of their work attendance. The research shows that the wages of women who take time off or “lose work experience” are in fact affected and lowers chances of better pay or more hours. The second reason for wage penalty is due to mothers moving into “mother friendly” jobs. Most times women will exchange a higher paying job for a lower paying job due to the fact that the work is less demanding or allows them more time off. It is believed that motherhood results to lower productivity, the third reason ties into the stigma is that mothers are exhausted from their home duties or they are less pro-active at work because they are in fact storing energy so they are able to do what’s know as second shift work. Childbearing Women are seen as unreliable due to their need to check in with their children, go to appointments and take sick leave for both themselves and their children. This is the reason why women try to find mother friendly jobs; they acquire flexible hours or jobs that have onsite day care. The fourth reason behind the reason for un fair wages is due to discrimination from employers. Along with all of the previous reasons the authors state that employers find it distasteful to employ mothers. Examples of employers discriminating against mothers is by placing them in jobs with less benefits minimal promotion as well as giving them minimal hours or minimal pay. Lastly the last reason for the wage penalty for motherhood is the idea that it is the characteristics of the women and not so much the discrimination from the employer. Budig and England state that women are more likely to have children because they feel motherhood will bring more satisfaction to their lives then their careers.

Toniann German

Soc: #9

I personally agree that Barbara Ehrenreich could have done her research from her study. I don’t feel that she necessarily had to live the life of a worker to understand how they survive off of the little wage they earn. I also feel that by giving herself limitations she didn’t not allow herself to fully understand or experience the hardships they must deal with as a result of their pay. I feel her half-gained experience was not necessary for the calculation of numbers. Most of her work could have been done threw calculation, interviews, and shadow observations.

I do however believe that it is important for her to have these experiences so that she may understand how finical hardship can have a strain on one’s life, emotionally, mentally and physically. From her study Barbara could have seen that it is nearly impossible to survive off of such minimal wage. However, when looking at it from this perspective we tend to micro manage others money and make judgments on what they spend, deciding for them what it is a necessity or not. Through her experience I feel she understood that it is easy for one to micromanage anothers money however when you are in their shoe’s you begin to realize the hardship and sacrifices one must make.

I do not agree with the parameters the she set up for her “Research”. If you are really trying to understand the way that a person on minimum wage survives then you must have no rules or parameters and let your self be vulnerable to the real and brutal world we live in. She had luxuries such as being able to use her car, where most people making such a small wage take public transit and cannot afford a car yet alone meet their basic needs. Another rule she set for herself was finding a place to live that offered security and privacy. I didn’t agree with this rule of hers because many people do not have the luxury of having a secure place, it factors in to all the other stresses in their life and is most times a direct result of the wage they are making.

I give her credit for trying but the truth behind it is (in-which she admits) that because she had a better life she was never any real fear, or danger. The things she went through were not real in a sense, because they were happening as an experiment and not as something that she really had to worry about.

Toniann German

Soc: #8

Mcdonaldization is a term invented by George Ritzer. It is used to describe the process of rationalization in today’s society. McDonaldization is the process in which principles of fast food restaurants have begun to dominate very aspect of society. We are living in a fast pace world where people are obsessed being able to calculate, predict and control as much as they possible can. The reason for this is because of fast food establishments like Mc Donald’s that feeds off society by making their products convenient and affordable. The process of Mcdonaldization takes one task and breaks it down as small as possible. The task is rationalized to see how it can become more efficient. For example, making a hamburger might take you ten minutes however if you only had one job in the process of making the burger you may be able to produce 10 or 20 burgers in ten minutes. George Ritzer goes more in depth with this idea by describing the five dimensions of Mcdonaldization.

Efficiency: Efficiency is the best and fastest method for completing a task Ritzer discusses the efficiency seen into Todays societies as we step away from our stoves and kitchen mittens and move more towards fast food or frozen foods. Due to this we see an increase in food production in fast food industries hence the reason for wanting to create more at a faster pace and create foods that do not take long to cook.

The second principle is predictability: if things are predicable then we tend to feel more secure. Ritzer describes our predictability when it comes to food, because we are familiar with how food taste from fast food we will never question or worry about that changing. This reminds me of small medium and large sizes that are offered. With this option one can predict how much food will come each container. Predictability spreads like a virus, taking over our communities so that things seem more familiar to us and give us comfort. As a result, shopping areas, fast food restaurants, highways, traffic signs, and even schools are pretty predicable in appearance.

The third and fourth dimensions of Mcdonaldization is control and calculability, it is the focuses on the quantity of a product rather than the quality of a product.

The fifth dimensions involved. One of the issues that arise due to Mcdonaldization is the replacement of human workers for technology. Technology is replacing the need for human workers, this is because industries crave predictability and countability, while trying to eliminate uncertainties.

This connects to Max Weber in that his idea of rationalization was the process of replacing traditions with efficiency. With Ritzers explanation of Mcdonaldization we see that family traditions such as home cooked meal and family dinners are disappearing and are being seen as an inconvenience in the lives of this new upcoming fast pasted society.

Toniann German

Soc#Ass.7

I feel what Terkel is arguing is that in order to understand the true meaning of work ethic we must separate the idea that work is about making money.  Rather Terkel suggest that we must find meaning within the work that we do. Even if you are stuck in jobs we may not like, we must take pride in what we are doing. His example of the waitress may show that although to some her job may seem simple, To the waitress it is meaningful.  She takes pride in that she is good at her job and provides great service to her customers. The waitress takes pride in making her customers happy. I feel that although the work may not be enjoyable Terkle wants us to look at how our work is benefiting our lives and values.

I believe that because we live in a world were work ethic is not viewed in Terkles point of view, society has had to try to sell happiness along with their products. For example, most of us have heard the saying service with a smile. This is because many people are being told to fake smiles and fake their happiness in order to make sales. Instead Terkel is saying that we must find joy in what we do so we can provide a real joyful experience.

There is a human disconnect from work, Terkel expresses how the people through his interviews felt as if humans no longer matter in their work. Terkel brings up the point of human jobs being taken over by technology. As a result people no longer feel as if they are being noticed or appreciated in their jobs in addition to feeling as if they are not making a difference.  I also found his interviews with the blue-collar workers and the white-collar workers very interesting. I found it very surprising that in both types of work the employees felt unhappiness and at times invisible.

Although I agree with Terkel in that it is important to find happiness within your work, especially because not everyone has the option to purse their dreams. I do however think that it is easier said than done. It is very hard to find happiness in a job which you work in only to maintain your survival. It is hard to find happiness in work where you are unappreciated, underpaid, and replaceable by machinery.

Toniann German

Soc Ass. #6

This week’s readings related to one another in that they are discussing the relationship between work and education. “Raising the Floor Not just the Ceiling” discusses author Tressie Cottom rebutting against president Barack Obama’s thoughts that for-profit colleges will aid in making education more accessible to the minority population. In this article, Cottom explains that it is not allowing people the same opportunity to become educated, rather than allowing people the same opportunities to earn a wage. Just because someone goes to college does not grantee them a job or the same pay as some of today’s “white workers.” Because there is no federal job guarantee we see Obamas example of how low income kids who have the grades to go to great colleges refuse or settle for less. I believe this is because we are stuck in a world were a degree is required for better pay and yet we “still fall through the cracks of the American Dream.” (Cottom,2014) Cottom is arguing that we must make it fair for those who do not believe in attending college. The “solution that leads to a bigger problem” that Cottom was describing was making college more available by stating that college allows for better opportunity or better pay, when in reality people will be more in debt and unhappy that they had to attend college to work in a field where there is still an unfairness in wage and job opportunities for minorities.

Pual Fains article also backs up Cottom in that for- profit colleges do not truly have the students’ needs at heart. In the “Congressional report slams for-profit colleges” Author Paul Fain states that students who attend for profit colleges are failing. A two-year study showed that associate degree students have a 64% drop out rate. He states that there is in fact a connection from the dropout rates to the amount of money that is used on the student’s education. He argues that most of the money is going to the advertisements for the school rather than helping their students graduate. For profit colleges are supposed to be an alternative for nontraditional students such as day time working adults, however studies show that these colleges are more concerned with gaining money from enrolling students and profiting from their debt.

This connects to “Andrew Ross article High culture and hard labor” in that, for-profit colleges are using their resources to exploit their students rather than provide for them. In Ross article, he discusses how wealthy parts of Abu Dhabi and as well as Dubi are exploiting migrant workers due to their ethnicity and lack of education by having them creating luxury buildings under threat. Ross explains the fast pace construction from the workers on Saadiyat island have many concerned.  After interviewing some of the workers who had been promised decent pay and their recruitment fees paid in full from their employers Ross has discovered that what is written on paper is not in fact true. Most of the workers have had their passports taken away, their homes relocated and downgraded to labor camps, and have not been paid what they were promised. This is in fact occurring on some level here in the states were for profit colleges are not truly helping or providing for their students leaving them in debt and uneducated, there for leaving them open to desperation and unfair wage such as the workers in ross’s article.

In Frederick Taylors “The principles of scientific Management” he begins by talking about increasing national efficiency. He discusses the need for more competent men due to the fact that there is a waste in human effort. However, we cannot see this waste the way we do with materialistic things because human inefficiencies are not visible. He feels that men’s appreciation for work comes from memory and is an effort of the imagination. Because this is not seen it does not moves us as much as seeing the loss of material things such as forest and coal.  Taylor continues by stating the demand for more competent men however there is no one willing to create men in which are competent. Businessmen want to hire those who are already trained rather than having to train them themselves. so you are basically fishing in a pool for fish were there are none because no one has bothered to put any fish in there in the first place. Taylor brings up the point that the idea that “captains are born not made” is misleading and false, he believes that our future is depending of the leaders who have been trained correctly so that we are not living in a world where there is a battle between ordinary men and those who are seen as born leaders. It seems that the system has begun to over throw the man rather than putting the men first so they can rise to the top of the systems in which they work. This is known as Systematic management, rather than focus on the outcome the systematic management approach focuses on the process. In addition to fixing the issue to national inefficiency Taylor speaks of maximum prosperity in which business would not only focuses on bringing up their business to its highest excellence but also its employees. Providing Maximum prosperity within wages and work positions may ensure that each employ is working in their best efforts and at their highest abilities. In doing so the prosperity of the business would stay permanent, however if not done then the prosperity of the business who not exist long term. I felt what Taylor was trying to say was that to increasing Nation efficiency you must providing maximum through systematic management. In addition to removing soldering and slow working in the work place.    furthermore, I Believe what Taylor was saying is that men must work along machines, Workers must not feel as if their wage is affected by machines rather than both men and machine creating the “largest possible output” (pg4).  Personally I agree with most of Taylor’s points. I also believe that when these methods are applied along with the allowing your staff to work without keeping an eye on them the entire time you build a trust and confidence within the workers, making them happier and work more efficiently.

Toniann German

Assignment #4

SOC

In Karl Marx “Wage labour and capital” he opens by defining what are wages and how these wages connect to labor. Marx discusses that wages are particular amounts of money that one receives from capitalist for the amount of work they do or the amount of time they spend doing work.  He states we have allowed our labor to be bought from capitalist by placing a price tag on ourselves, therefore it appears that we sell our labor for money. However, this is not the case, in actuality what is being sold “to the capitalist for money is their labour-power” Marx explains that for wage workers labour power is a commodity that they sell in order to stay alive.

When Marx discusses the weaver he explains that the weaver is getting paid because of the amount of time it has taken to make the cloth. However, in order for the weaver to create this cloth the capitalist had to offer the commodities necessary in order to create the cloth such as the yarn and loom. However, the weaver now gets paid for his work but not from the profit that was made from the selling of the cloth. The profit made from the creation of the weaver’s cloth goes strictly to the capitalist. However now the weaver can take his earnings to buy commodities necessary for survival such as shelter and food. Therefor the weaver’s work is seen more as a trade.

What I took away from this reading is that unless you love your work, your work will be seen as a sacrifice you make in your life not actually apart of your life. I also feel that he was saying that we don’t get paid what we should, we are not getting paid for what we are creating or producing or how much money we are making our bosses. We are being payed wages based off of time and what the capitalist deem as appropriate.

Toniann German

Assignment #3

Soc

In Harry Bravemans “The making of the working class” he discusses how the working class is divided because the workers are divided in their work. He expresses that just because a person works it does not make them apart of the working class. Braveman gives examples of the farmer and the contractor to explain that these people would not be seen as working class rather than the people who are hired to work under them. Although business owners, farmers or contractors may do similar work as their employees it is there level of authority that is separating them from the working class, because these people work for themselves they are not considered working class.

Braveman separates the working class by productive vs nonproductive workers, Braveman states that productive vs nonproductive does not mean manual labor vs non manual labor. rather productive workers produce something useful. He gives the example of clerks who do things that contribute to the production of a product although they may not necessary be in direct contact with the product.  Unproductive workers on the other hand are described in Bravemans reading as the banks, insurance, investments, and real estate industries just to name a few. Unproductive labor is that which is unnecessary in the production of goods. Here I believe he is describing productive vs nonproductive as todays white collar worker’s vs blue collar workers. Another way to view productive vs unproductive is that which benefits society or government and that which does not bring profit or benefit society as a whole.

When looking at these terms I believe That Braveman is stating that although there are productive workers and unproductive workers both are seen as belonging to the working class because they are working under someone. I believe that people are moving into the direction of unproductive work because the productive work is starting to be taken over by the rise of technology.

Toniann German

Assignment #1

Sociology of work

Introduction to work ethic

My Name is Toniann German, I signed up for this course because I enjoyed taking the sociology of family last semester and was interested in learning about the sociology of work. I also signed up for this class because I enjoy taking hybrid courses.  I currently work as a preschool teacher in the south Bronx. I previously was an environmental high school teacher however I decided to switch paths due to the fact that I was obtaining my degree in Early Childhood Education. I always wanted to be a teacher from a very young age, I feel that the only way to see change in the world is to start to enforce change in the younger generations. My mother always enforced the importance of education and going to college. My mother was very adamant about her daughters working at a very young age and understanding what it means to make your own money, not having to depend on anyone. My grandparents taught me the importance in other things such as caring for your home and appreciating nature. My grandmother was never much of a worker, her work was in her garden among the hundreds of flowers and plants that she adores more than anything. My grandfather on the other hand has always been a working man, never able to sit still and always up on a ladder fixing something. Reading Crawford’s reading this week I can honestly say that my grandparents taught me the importance of building and fixing things on your own. Technology was never allowed during summer vacations, gardening and house work was not an option. I feel that my education has prepared me to be a knowledge worker however my parents and grandparents have taught me the importance of physical labor.

What I got from Weber’s reading is that sometimes your affiliations and where you rank in life can affect the work choices you make.   I also feel that Weber is trying to say that when one works with purpose it increases economic growth. I feel personally that my work ethic is based on morals and happiness not so much financial gain. My grandparents would say “The best kind of work, is the kind that you find fun.”