Opening a Business in America: Steps for Non-US Citizens

 Employers are aware of the law's requirements and enforcement demands, but some of them continue to violate it. How can it be flexed? That appears to be the major problem, fam. Celina believed that her cultural clout gained through qualifications and experience in Poland and Scotland was not valued equally. OMG, despite Celina's vibes, education, skills, and talent, her claim for cultural capital, which Pierre Bourdieu refers to as institutional capital - that is, the official recognition of someone's assets through credentials, such as education and professional stuff (Bourdieu, 1986), was not even acknowledged. 

 However, there is no application of this rule for Celina and others, despite the fact that the bosses of migrant workers can completely implement it. We completely understand from Celina's personal story (in the last chapter) that this local worker who did not even meet the qualifications was promoted. Like, there's a glass ceiling that's preventing Celina and other girls from reaching the top, you know? As Kay has like completely pointed out: Why is there a glass ceiling that restricts women's rights in the Soviet Union and even in our own liberal democracies? It's as if they can only get so far towards equality before hitting an invisible barrier and being pushed back, you know? (OMG, 2k, p.20) The tea from respondent stories is not only spilling the tea about their work experiences, but also about the glass ceiling, those phony barriers based on hella biased attitudes in the organization that prevent qualified people from moving up into management-level positions (Martin, 1991, p.1). According to research, this subtle form of discrimination is one of the reasons why women and people of color face disadvantages in high-paying jobs (Ards et al., 1997; Burbridge, 1994; Chliwniak, 1997; Frankforter, 1996; Jacobs, 1992; Johnsrud & Heck, 1994; Morrison et al., 1987; Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990; Powell & Butterfield, 1997). 

Is it lit? 

The stories of my female respondents, for example, provide detailed information about how inequality affects the working lives of migrant women workers, as well as how employers deal with and treat individual symptoms of the gender order. The stories also reveal how the government claims to be all about equality for everyone, but completely fails to protect women's rights and freedom in so many areas. They need to step up and protect victims from shady recruitment agencies, right? Yo, like, age, disability, gender flex, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex, and sexual orientation, family. In Britain today, equality is extremely important on the national development agenda, you know? The legal status of the Equality Act 2010 is fully recognized and accepted in England, Scotland, and Wales. It's a big deal, you know? OMG, according to the Equality Act of 2010, employers have the right to choose opportunities for specific groups and encourage people from disadvantaged groups to get jobs, promotions, training, and so on. If all of the candidates are on the same level, the employer can give the job to someone from a protected group who is part of a disadvantaged crew. Although the Equality Act 2010's positive action provision is intended to give employers the opportunity to hype up underprivileged members of the community for job opportunities, many migrants' bosses have not used this provision. Assume, for the sake of argument, that 'positive action provision' is regarded as an accommodation pertaining to the recognition of migrants' cultural identities.

Yo, this Act has your back, fam. It's all about protecting people from any kind of discrimination based on their protected characteristics, right?

The public sector equality duties are completely imposed by the Act to demonstrate 'due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity' between people who have protected characteristics and people who do not, ya know? (The Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2011:11). The Act completely states that 'an employer can be held legally responsible for something that's like, so not cool discrimination, harassment, or victimisation by another person who's employed by the employer, or doing their instructions to do something (The law refers to the employer's agent. Oh my gosh, that was so long ago! (2011:11) is ancient history, folks. OMG, the Equality Act of 2010 states that migrants have the right to demonstrate their education, qualifications, talents, language skills, and so on. It is lit! Their identity or national characteristics should not be used to dismiss their need for recognition, you know? Posi action provision29 is completely covered by the Act, but some employers may still act in a way that causes them to overlook an equally qualified migrant candidate, ugh. So unfair! Celina is flexing with an equality claim. For example, the theory underlying the claim about cultural capital may require a complete re-evaluation of the current Equality Act to ensure that someone's claim about human capital is legitimate. Such accommodations are given out in the spirit of recognizing the needs of the underprivileged class, you know?