Book Report Segment #3

The third section of Global Women focused on the commodification of domestic labor and household rules and relations. The relationships that exist between household laborers and the woman whom employ them are often between women who are of different races, nationalities, and social classes. The employer’s use these racial differences to justify the kinds of work they demand.  The laborer depends on the employer for more than just a paycheck, because they are often in the U.S illegally, and likewise the employer relies on the employee for more than her “elbow grease”. Women use these workers to show their comfort and leisure to the world. The number of women who do not work outside of their homes, but still employ domestic help, is rising. The book states that while working households may need to bring in help to care for children or the elderly, no one has to employ a household cleaner in the same way. However employing these workers shows a household’s status by displaying financial resources. The book goes on to discuss live-in help. The reason people often employ immigrant workers is because they are more likely to comply with living in the employer’s house. From an employee’s perspective this is because they do not have to worry about lodging; from the employer’s perspective this is because live-in help is generally less expensive, because their rooming and board can be set against their wages. Also it becomes easy for the employer’s to ask for “favors”. Being a live-in employee gives domestic workers a label of “family”. It is easier to ask a family member for a favor rather than an employee. These employees are therefore required to work long hours and have permanent availability. This often entails waking early in the morning with children, and staying up late into the evening for entertaining guests.   

Domestic workers outline the differences between themselves and the family’s they work for, or at least the differences that the families quickly outline. Workers are usually told that they are “part of the family” but are treated as anything but that. The workers are required to wash their clothing separate from the family’s, eat out of separate bowls, using distinct utensils, use different bathrooms, and are outcast by children. The family’s also use this excuse that the workers are part of the family by telling them they should understand when they cannot afford to pay them more, or appreciate the financial situation. This idea coins labor as a social, not just an economic process.  Family’s also use this idea of family to control their employees. The book looks at employed domestic laborers in Hong Kong. Often time these workers are required to comply with certain regulations that the employer sees fit. Examples of these include, cutting their hair into male hairstyles, refraining from wearing make-up, or finger nail polish, and access to limited showers. The employees are told by their employment agencies to suppress their own wants and desires and to always assume their employers are doing things to protect them. Some employers enforce strict curfews, or lock their employees in their home, from the outside. This is all seen to be a way of “protecting” their employees like they would their own daughters, but are more likely another form of control. One employee recounts that when she ate dinner with the family that employed her they all ate out of a large bowl set in the center of the table, while she was served her own individual bowl. At the time she thought this was because the family respected that in her culture this was not practiced and seen as uncleanly. Later reflecting though, she realized that this was actually because in their culture eating from the same pot symbolizes a shared identity of members of the same lineage. Providing their employee with her own bowl was really a form of exclusion.

This section of the book spoke a lot about culture. We have been speaking about culture and the different levels that make up culture, including artifacts, values, and beliefs. Global Women outlines the household labor that has become part of our culture. Americans use household laborers as a sort of artifact, to show status and to demonstrate to others comfort and leisure. Bringing in hired help also displays that the lady of the house, especially if she is not employed herself, has more important things to do with her time. The book continues to look at domestic workers in Hong Kong. An employer here says that the employees, whom come from the Philippines, need to be taught how to behave properly, due to cultural differences. The employer said that there is a difference between laziness and being slow. In the Philippines they are said to do things at a slower pace due to the hot weather, while in Hong Kong, where it is cold, people move fast and that is what they expect to see in other people. They believe the Philippians need to be taught how to budget their time to fit in with Hong Kong’s fast paced daily life. They also justify the long hours and hard work by believing that housework is not real work in their culture because they are expected to be hard workers; if employee’s  budget their time wisely, they will find time to relax.

Preppies and Culture

On Wednesday we discussed for a long time the article "If Preppies Took Over Wal-Mart". From this discussion I started to think about what Wal-e executives are aiming to do. I think they are really aiming to change their culture, by introducing new artifacts that will in turn change their culture's values and beliefs. Wal-Mart execs. want to change their "dowdy" appearance to one of high-class and luxury. I can understand why Wal-Mart would seek this change; personally I do think of Wal-mart as "dowdy". When I ask myself why this is all I can think is that this is the way it is presented itself to me. Wal-Mart has been so focused on slashing prices that appearance has gone to the way side. Is this starting to catch up with them? I guess the argument could go either way. We discussed how when Wal-Mart started it's target costumers were people from rural areas, who needed a discount mega store. If this was still the company's aim than I don't see why they would aim for the new look. However we also discussed that they believe they have exhausted their resources in these areas and need to focus on ritzier areas where this new look seems to be essential. Either way, I believe changing their uniforms, while it may create more of a high class feel, will cause other areas to suffer. If the smocks that say  "how may I help you" are gotten rid of the company's value that costumer service should be held of the highest importance may be knocked down a peg or two.

The Nacirema

On Monday we discussed the Nacirema. Although I had read this article in the past for another class I re-read it for OB. It still amazes me how changing a few words can change our perception of something. The first time I read this article, I first assumed the Nacirema were a strange uncultured peoples who practiced strange voodoo rituals. I was shocked to find out that we infact were the Nacirema people. However going back to read the article with that thought in mind, you can place a name to every "strange" ritual you read.
I think this is mostly due to the layers of culture we discussed. The artifacts of a culture are the smallest part of the structure but they are the only part that can be physically seen. Once we found out the values and beliefs that were behind each Nacirema ritual, the rituals have a meaning to us. Our initial thoughts must be similar to how archaeologist feel when they uncover artifacts from a extinct culture, and must find meaning behind it.

Researching

Yesterday we listened to a lecture on researching. Something most of us have been instructed on for the past three or four years now. While Dobbs was very helpful and personal it was mostly the same old thing. I did learn that there are certain ways to research that sometimes produce better results though.

I also was reminded yesterday how frustrating it can be to work in groups. Coordinating schedules and relying on others are both difficult concepts to grasp. However because the class is organizational behavior I am taking this whole experience as a life lesson. Ironically the topic I was focusing on yesterday was communication in organizational behavior.

"Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work."
Vince Lombardi 

Decision-Making and Stereotypes

The Decision-Making Quiz we took in class on Monday was interesting in more than one way. Problem number 2 that asked whether a student studied Chinese studies or psychology. This question added that the student was small and shy, this question tried to lead readers to believe these characteristics were a part of the person's major. This showed us the decision making heuristic in action. The logic should have been that the undergraduate major of psychology is more likely a choice because the students who choose this course of study are higher in percentages than those who choose Chinese studies.
This lead me to believe that the decision making heuristic may also lead to some stereotypes that people hold. This heuristic is a device used to make shortcuts in decision making. Therefore when we see someone we may link them to a category of people that they really do not associate with. For example if someone is intelligent we may automatically assume they are nerdy or that they spend all their time studying because that is what we have linked intelligence to in the past, but is not true for this individual. 

Book Report Segment #2

The second section of my book, Global Women, first focuses on conflict; conflict between nannies and their employers. The relationship between the two women of the household, nannies and the lady of the house, is often one that is very strained. The author describes the tension that builds between the two parties until eventually a conflict arises. When this conflict does arise the tension that has brewed under the surface often amounts to feuds that end a relationship, end an employment, and hurt feelings. Things are often said in these instances that would otherwise not have been spoken, but both parties feel threatened by the others resistance to change. In one instance the author retells, the nanny had been employed by the same family for eleven years, and had raised the family’s children from birth. After a major blow-up and hurtful words from the lady of the house telling her that she should “remember, you’re just a maid”, this said nanny decided to quit. After the incident, she took a job with a nightly hospital cleaning crew, making almost 50% less than what she had been receiving at her house job. However she can be quoted as saying “What matters most to me is feeling good, seeing that they like my work…money is important for material things. I know that without money you’ve got nothing, but I can’t expect to earn the same as I was before.”

These blow ups make people say and do things that are both out of character and also blown out of proportion. But there can be a solution. When the two parties can address their interests, or in these instances what is in fact bothering them, they can come to an understanding and find a solution that will benefit everyone, rather than the latter which leaves one out of a job, and one out of help, important to their everyday life. This idea of finding common interests is something that we have been speaking about in class. Interests were proven to be the most effective way to resolve conflict because it maximizes utility for both parties. In one example in my book, the woman of the house quit her job in order to spend more time with her family, but kept the nanny in order to maintain her house and children. The nanny felt as though her job was being infringed upon, while the woman of the house thought she was making the nannies life easier by helping out. The nanny decided at this time to ask the respective family for a raise. The family consented to the raise on the condition that the nanny expanded her duties to regular babysitting hours on Friday and Saturday nights. This caused a blow-up between the two women, and things were said by both parties they willingly admitted after the fact that they didn’t mean. Later however the two parties reconciled and laid their interests out for the other to see; the nanny wanted her job to be respected and not infringed upon, and the woman wanted her household to continue to run efficiently. The two decided that the nanny would work three days a week for the family, and two days elsewhere, but remained living with them in order to save money on rent and bills.   

Another alternative that nannies have to quitting is quitting through an alibi. These nannies tell their families that they must return to their own families in their respective countries. This is their way of avoiding conflict. These women seek to leave on a peaceful note and avoid the blow ups they have seen countless friends encounter. Normally the women have just found a new job, or are simply fed up with that family.

The other part of my book for this segment discussed the idea of housework from an individual employee’s perspective or a company’s perspective. It points out that 40 percent of our countries wealth is owned by 1 percent of the population. The bottom 20 percent are living with negative assets, which means “the degradation of others is readily purchased”. It also says that more than 80 percent of Americans still clean their own homes, but the minority who do not are the nation’s “media decision”; they are the makers, political figures, talking heads and all kinds of celebrities. Housework is becoming politics to these people, framing house-workers as women of certain race or class. One thing that made me extremely concerned was that Zoe Baird, a lawyer, who boasted earnings of $507,000 yearly, and was a media spokesperson for promoting the rights of nannies, was paying her own household workers only $5 an hour. 

Integration and the 999

The idea of an integrative agreement seemed to make the most sense to me. If by moving from thinking about positions to thinking about interests two people can both reach their maximum utilities why is this approach not used more often? I understand that often the two parties will have similar interests and this solution will not be possible, but when this is a viable end I cannot fathom why it wouldn't be used. Maybe because I am more of a passive rather than an aggressive person is the reason why I associate most with this solution to negotiating. I am not very good at being deceptive, like asking for more than you need tactics, and I would much rather be up front and honest to solve a conflict. However I am learning that this is how I will get taken advantage of. I am working on these skills, and my job now is a lot of negotiating ( I call people and ask them for money for the university). I am realizing it is not always a negative thing like how I used to perceive it.

Another interesting point of discussion was the mention of Herman Kanes 9-9-9 plan. We discussed the logistics of this plan tonight in my economics class. What I came to find is that this plan sets out to have a 9% tax for corporations income, personal income, and sales tax. This plan would completely get rid of payroll tax. Because the government currently operates on a marginal tax rate for both corporations and personal incomes  this would change things quite a bit. The average income tax rate currently is 13.6%, while the current corporation tax is 17.5%. This plan would make both of these a steady nine across the board. This would tip in favor of the wealthy, because they would be giving away a lesser proportion of their wealth (keep in mind wealth and income are two separate ideas) than the average or even poor population. Likewise the 9% sales tax would benefit the wealthy because it would be regressional in the sense that poorer people would be spending a larger portion of their income on things requiring this tax. The saving grace is the idea of eliminating payroll tax altogether which would ultimately tip the scale back in the other direction. The question then comes in finding the balance. This of course is a very simplistic view, only considering these taxes without outside coefficients.

Negotiation

The idea of negotiation was presented in the articles we were supposed to read for class this week, and use in class. From the article the main point that seemed to present itself to me was holding the power. The idea of interests and rights were also discussed. The article about getting disputes resolved outlines interest as the best way to solve a dispute, however I believe power is the best way to negotiate a deal, well a good deal for yourself that is. 

Negotiating a deal almost always goes in favor of one party, the article outlines the idea of making both parties feel like they have gotten a good deal, but without knowing what you're counter parts ZOPA is, it is impossible to  know if they feel like they've gotten a good deal, so you must worry about yourself. 

The article discusses different ways to take this power. I think the most effective way to gain power is through anchoring. If you are negotiating a deal on price you will never get the price you want for something unless you state well above that price. Just as you don't know what your counters' ZOPA is, they also usually do not know yours. This works to your advantage so that you can set the anchoring point well above your ZOPA to give the illusion that it is higher than they think. Another way you can take the advantage is having your counter make an offer first, then you can gauge where their ZOPA really is, assuming they also make a marked up, or down (depending on the side) offer. 

I thought of this like buying a car. The salesman marks up his prices assuming that in bargaining he will get less, but if he doesn't set this high price he will get even less than what he is comfortable with. If he set his price for the lowest he is willing to take for the car than he will walk away with a loss. 

This brings up another very good point the author made about walking away. He says you will never be able to get something for a good price unless you are willing to lose it. This is so true, when you set a price that you will not go above, or below, prior to negotiation, it is easier to stick to that price and that price will help you keep your head in hectic or emotional situations. 

Some Wise Assumptions

I was very happy that the author touched on the things that confrontation can change. The section entitled: "a 'residue' that changes things" points out that "it takes two people to cooperate, but only one person is usually required to make a mess of a relationship". Things are often said and or done in the heat of the moment that would not be otherwise. I'm sure we have all said something in the heat of an argument that left us feeling not only horrible, but also knowing that we did not mean it at all. He gives the example of physical arguments; when caught up in the moment physical attacks seem warranted but they end up leaving scars that are irrevocable unlike the initial conflict. I thought about this like a relationship. A relationship cannot withstand differing opinions without both sides commitment to produce a resolution, but it definitely only takes one person to make a relationship end, or to force it to that point. Usually this end warrants some kind of fight that ends in unintended hurtful exchanges. After such things are said, regardless of the validity, it is impossible to forget. These things are always remembered and even if the couple can reconcile their feelings, the hurtful words are always kept in the back of your mind. This in turn leads to the ultimate demise of a relationship, or at least a failing one.Once words are exchanged it is impossible to take them back or right the wrong.