Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Notice -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- Feminist Analysis and Vision -- Preamble -- Economic Globalization, Ecological Feminismand Earth Democracy -- An Open Letter -- Re-Enchanting the World -- Confronting Globalization -- Do We Need a New "Moral Economy"? -- Position Statement for a Peaceful World -- Part One - Neo-Liberal Globalization:Social and Environmental Costs -- Resistance is Possible -- Thinking Globally -- I. Restructuring/"Liberalization" -- The Global Crisis -- Globalization -- Freedom for Whom? -- Why Privatization is a Women's Issue -- The Politics of Pay Equityin b.c.'s Health Care System -- Welfare Policy -- Women's Occupational Healthin Social Services -- Advocacy, Activism and Social Change forWomen in Prison -- II. Enclosure, Commodification and Theft -- The Politics of Sustainable Development -- Some Notes on Neoliberalism,on Land and on the Food Question -- Women and/as Commodities -- The Invisibility of Women's Work -- The Seed and the Earth -- GMOs -- The Struggle for Clean Water and Livelihood -- Changing Climate, Uncertain Future -- iii. Displacement, Migration and Violence -- Our Violent Economy is Hurting Women -- The "Other" Side of Globalization -- Women as Migrants -- Migrant Workers Amidst Globalization -- Gender Transformative Odysseys -- Globalization and the Sex Trade -- Linking Violence and Povertyin Canadian Restructuring -- Part Two:Organizing for Another World -- The Global Capitalist Economic Agenda -- Resistance is Necessary -- I. un Decade for Women and Beyond -- Development Crisis and Alternative Visions -- The World's Women Unite in Diversity -- Peace is the Way to Peace -- Women and Health -- Women's Action Agenda 21 -- Beijing '95 -- Pages from Beijing -- Ensuring Indigenous Women's VoicesAre Heard -- Women's Sexual Autonomy.

The substitution of the economistic Marxist debate over domestic labor for wider feminist political & theoretical questions about the origins & shape of women's oppression & its relation to SC oppression is addressed. The economist & SC reductionism of the debate is criticized & shown to prevent the development of a desirable & possibly productive theoretical dialogue between Marxists & feminists. AA.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine academic performance measures commonly used in personnel selection contexts and associated gender‐based differences in these measures. This work specifically examines the extent to which gender‐based group differences exist in these data that may influence employment outcomes differentially for men and women.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on data available from academic institutions with a sample of nearly 4,000 prospective applicants, gender‐based group differences were evaluated in academic performance measures commonly used in personnel selection. Group differences were evaluated with a commonly used metric of a d‐value to reflect the magnitude of these differences.FindingsWomen and men yield differential scores on standardized vs non‐standardized assessments. Women consistently scored lower on standardized assessments yet scored highest on academic performance outcomes. Women are more likely to experience adverse impact when standardized assessments are used in selection decisions; however men are more likely to have adverse impact when academic performance is used.Practical implicationsOrganizations may inadvertently create entry barriers depending on the assessment and the format used and whether or not group differences exist in measures.Originality/valueAcademic performance measures are frequently used in personnel selection, yet have received little attention in selection research and this study seeks to address this gap.

PurposeRetaliation complaints in the workplace have increased 71 percent in the past ten years with a record high of more than 32,000 complaints filed in 2008. The purpose of this paper is to review retaliation legislation to clarify for employers and employees the protected provisions and provide guidance for complying with this important anti‐discrimination statute to aid in promoting a fair and unbiased work environment.Design/methodology/approachThis paper reviews retaliation claims in cases of US employment discrimination including the central elements and covered individuals. It also reviews key recent rulings that have broadened what constitutes retaliation to better understand its impact in workforce management practices. Equity and organizational justice theories are drawn upon to address performance management and employee discipline issues that may arise in the workplace and how organizational action may be impacted by the retaliation statute.FindingsRetaliation is often considered to be an overt act (e.g. demotion or termination) but this review demonstrates that adverse employment actions need not be overt or result from loss of job or wages by the employee. This review can be used to avoid costly litigation but also convey that retaliation statutes do not unduly influence the employer's right to discipline employees.Originality/valueThis paper helps practitioners and researchers better understand retaliation and its purpose in preventing unfair work practices. This historical review of retaliation should help improve employer policies and procedures as well as training efforts in complying with equal employment opportunity laws without compromising concerns related to productivity or disciplinary procedures.