Equal pay: what is the next course of action?

[pmbryant]

Study after study have shown that women earn approximately 80 cents on the dollar compared to men. That is after accounting for any differences in education and experience that many of the pay gap detractors like to use as an excuse for paying women less.

This gap has been closing over the last few decades, but very slowly. Is it possible to accelerate this change and eliminate the pay gap and any other symptoms of workplace gender discrimination in the next decade?

If so, how do we do it? We already have the Equal Pay Act written into law, but enforcement is notoriously difficult.

What is the next course of action?

Peter


(Edit: added "workplace")

[leftyandproud]

1. Stop getting pregnant...

Seriously.

Pregnancies and the fact that women disproportionately leave the workplace because of family is the reason their average earnings are less. More men place a priority on their job and more married women prefer to stay home with their kids...meaning several things: #1. They have less experience & seniority when going back to work...and #2. Employers are reluctant to hire them for the same pay rate as men who are statistically more likely to STAY with the company over an extended time.

It may not be fair to those who don't get pregnant...but it is the same thing teenage males face when purchasing car insurance...or when an 80 year-old tries to buy life insurance (extremely high prices). It isn't discrimination or sexism...It's statistics.

[pmbryant]

2. That's wrong.

I pointed out that factors such as different experience were already accounted for, and there still is a 20% difference in pay. (In particular, I'm referring to a comprehensive GAO study released in November 2003.)

So that means time spent away from work due to family is not the cause of the discrepancy. So much for "#1".

As for #2, that sounds like flat out sex discrimination even if it is true (which I doubt).

Statistics are not a license to discriminate. And men have kids at the same rate women do. Consider that the reason women preferentially stay home when raising a family may well be due to the fact that, in general, they are paid significantly less than their husbands for the same work.

--Peter

[WildClarySage]

12. It's certainly true in our house

that when the kiddo is sick, I'm the one who stays home b/c Mr Wildclarysage earns twice what I do. We both have bachelor degrees, and work approximately the same number of hours. Yet his job, overseeing the manufacture of plastics is viewed as worth more than my human services job.

[renaissanceguy]

41. They stay at home because

our culture tells them that it's their role. Now, if a woman WANTS to stay home, that is her prerogative. But when the husband refuses to do his part, and the wife is forced to stay home, that's where I have a problem. I mean, logically.... the woman has spent the past nine months taking care of the fetus. The LEAST the husband can do is take care of the baby for the next nine months.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16779191

[lukasahero]

3. First you suggest that we stop getting pregnant

and then you say that while it's unfair to those of us who do just what you suggest (i.e. not get pregnant) that's just the way it is.

Rather than the snarky and sarcastic eye-roll I was going to put here, I'm open to hearing a suggestion from you that doesn't amount to STFU and deal with it...

[leftyandproud]

7. I was being sarcastic

I don't expect women to stop getting pregnant...I was just listing several of the possible reasons why the pay figures show what they do. If we take a cosmic view of things, it certainly is unfair...but many things in life are the same way. In the grand scheme of things, I think everyone would agree that it is certainly unfair for a 17 year old guy to pay TRIPLE what the average girl pays for car insurance...but the fact is, there is a REASON for the bill being higher. The economics are there to back it up. Statistically, he is much more likely to get into an accident than the girl, the same way women are less likely to stay at long term assignments/carreers than men are.

[pmbryant]

8. Equal pay for equal work is not a statistical concept

I'm sure there is a "reason" that women are paid less (e.g., difficult enforcement of the law, historical precedent, etc), just like there was a "reason" for the Jim Crow laws and racial discrimination once upon a time.

That doesn't make it ethical or legal.

--Peter

[bloom]

9. your "reasoning" suggests that you think it is some way

equivalent that young men may spend $5000 more on car insurance (due to statistics that show young men drive more recklessly) to women being paid $750,000 less (over a lifespan) due to gender discrimination.


Fair is fair, huh? :eyes:

[cjmr]

10. Is staying in a long term career actually still valued?

My husband has been in two jobs in his 15 year career. (One for just over ten years, the second one for almost 5 now.) But he is extremely unusual. Most of his co-workers, most of my friends' husbands and most of my siblings, step-siblings and cousins average 2 years in a job before they are either laid-off or move to a new job to get a higher salary or more meaningful assignments.

I think that "bosses" need to lay by the wayside the notion that only women are unlikely to stay long-term in a position. And then only due to pregnancy.

[Pithlet]

16. No

I'll have to come back later to refute your post and point out where you are wrong because I have limited DU time today. I've refuted it on DU before, and I'm sure someone else will be along if they haven't already :)

[Tyrion]

4. LeftyandProud is right

I have worked in Texas and New York and at multiple jobs. I never saw pay descrimination. I've seen men make more then some women. I've seen some women make more than some men.

I'm sure you can find a case of descrimination but today it is the exception and not the rule. I think Lefty is right when he points out that women are still more likely to take leave for pregnancy and family. They are more than likely to put their careers on hold to stay home and raise children.

Professional women who put their careers first do just as well as men. The company I work for just named a woman as the new CEO. She makes a 7 figure salary. Throughout out company their are women throughout the chain of command.

It is up to each woman to choose her priorities just like it is up to each man.

[pmbryant]

13. Examples of non-discrimination don't prove discrimination doesn't exist

The overall pattern is clear, though. Since women as a whole earn 20% less than men with the same experience, then there must be a huge number of "exceptions" out there.

Do you want to improve the situation?

Peter

[Heddi]

17. Thank You

I have a friend who is a black lesbian. She is head of her company and makes far more than her white, straight and male counterparts.

Does that mean that gender, race, and sexual discrimination don't exist?

NO!!! It just means that it doesn't exist in HER situation.

Of course, when there IS discrimination, there are always excuses and 'oh they didn't mean it that way' and 'you're just being sensitive' plattitudes thrown around.

As a woman, I've experienced SO much discrimination in school, in jobs, just day to day living. But one incident here and one incident there---it's always 'easily explained away'---but a LIFETIME of "incidents" isn't easy to explain away unless you're one of the priveleged few that has never had to suffer any kind of discrimination.

Equally, I always get a laugh from men who get all in a huff because there CAN'T be pay discrimination because they know ONE woman who makes more than a man. Of course, they totally ignore the HUNDREDS of instances where a woman was passed up for a promotion, not allowed into a meeting that was held on a golf course or at a strip club (happened at a company I worked for----the male manager just could NOT for the life of him understand why none of the women managers wanted to sit at the Lusty Lady for 3 hours smoking cigars, drinking rum, and going over sales figures while naked women danced on the tables. Hmmmm)

But that's not discrimination. That's something else, right. I mean, if the women wanted to be equal, they should have had the forsight to be born with a penis :eyes:

[renaissanceguy]

42. But you can't take two localities'

or a handful of companies' situations and say they apply all over. They simply do not. If you don't believe it, look at the U.S. Census statistics or statistical analyses.

I think an equitable law would allow a male OR a female to take time off of work to care for an infant. That way, it would be up for each couple to decide on who should take off.

I don't care what you say, but the same work deserves the same pay. If you believe that men are somehow superior to women, why don't you go look at other species. The females dominate.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16779191

[Scout]

5. Michigan is worse than the national average...

I just heard this morning on TV news, in Michigan women make $0.67 per each dollar earned by men. The national average for women is $0.76.

I don't know what the answer is ... I think it would help if more women would/could start their own businesses.

[LisaLynne]

6. Ignoring the "don't get preggers" posts ...

Well, actually, not exactly ignoring them ... I think they point out an issue that needs to be addressed. People don't take this issue seriously. It's the women's fault for getting pregnant; they aren't as driven as the men; etc. And of course, the "tokenism", where someone can point to a woman who makes a lot of money. We're talking over-all here. We can all point to anomalies and those from every minority group who have "made it". That does not mean that everyone can.

I think one major issue is that pay is so arbitrary in most companies. Yes, there are ranges for various job levels, but it's very broad and there is a lot of leeway within each level. Because of this, it is hard to prove any sort of discrimination on an individual basis. It's the cumulative effect that is the problem and that is nearly impossible to prosecute on a case-by-case basis.

[Chovexani]

11. Sadly

The posts on this thread are evidence we have a long way to go on this issue. I'm not sure we'll ever get there.

I am just a big ol' pessimist these days, don't mind me...:(

[Heddi]

14. Which comes first--the chicken or the egg?

It only took a few posts before someone pulled out the STOP GETTING PREGNANT canard----as if all women get pregnant. As if all women who get pregnant stay at home after the baby is born. As if all women who get pregnant take more than their FMLA time off. :eyes:

Certainly, some do---but not all.

I, a 29 year old female with no children and no plans for children, should not be punished for the 29 year old with children who decided to stay at home any more than a black man with no criminal history should be passed up for a job because black men within certain age groups are more likely to have a criminal history than white men of the same age groups.

It seems that the 'explanation' for lower pay rates always comes down to women having children----but what about the fact that men are more likely to die of heart disease, heart attacks, and various other diseases? Men die earlier too---let's cut off their pension benefits since they won't be around as long to collect them.

Then there's the "Women take more time off when the kids are sick" canard as well----but no one looks at the fact that in a 2 person household (mom & dad, woman/man, boyfriend/girlfriend), the woman will most likely ALWAYS make less than the man---SO---if Sally is sick and has to stay home from school, it makes more sense to let Mom stay home with her, since Mom only makes $15.00 an hour, as opposed to Dad, who makes $80k a year.

But that backfires on Women, because we stay at home with the kids more, therefore, our productivity is less than men (even though studies show that men take more sick days than women do---don't have that study handy...shall find).

So what came first---getting lower pay so we are the obvious choice to take care of the kids, or taking care of the kids makes us easy targets for lower pay?

And again---what about me, and the MILLIONS of other women who have no children, who don't plan on having children, who show up for work every day on time, work over, take minimal sick days, and still get paid less than our male counterparts?

Strange how the burden ALWAYS falls on the women---I must carry the weight of my child-bearing sisters, yet men who have children: feh. That's NATURAL. It's OKAY for men to have children and not get penalized finanically for it, but the mere fact that I have a uterus makes me worth THAT MUCH LESS in the jobplace.

What about postmenopausal women? Or women who have had hysterectomies? Women who are sterile? Women who can NEVER have children---why are they punished as well?

For many years I worked in sales---half of the salesforce were women, the other half men. The Manager of the dept always wanted to hire women more than men because in sales, sex sells, and the women that were hired (aside from me and a few others) were all busty, buxom, short-skirt wearing women. This dress and behaviour were encouraged by the manager because---sex sells. They (the women) had a quota of meeting a minimum of 8 clients a day.

The men, on the other hand, were ALL fat. Good ol' boys from South Carolina---their quota---ONE customer per day. See, they could go in, shoot the shit about fishing or hunting....that sells too.

However, the women, who brought in MORE sales than the men (because they met with more customers per day) were paid a LOWER commission percentage than the men, who had FEWER sales than the women (because they'd spend all day in one car dealership blabbing about hunting or NASCAR). The reason, as per the sales manager "The men, because they only see one customer a day, have to work THAT MUCH HARDER to get the sale".

:wtf:

For a few years, I worked as a chef. Had a culinary degree and everything. As an assistant kitchen manager, I got paid the oh-so-high salary of $7.00 an hour. ASSISTANT KITCHEN MANAGER. A grill cook, who had no education, no experience, no skills, got $9.00 an hour. Why? Oh well he's slaving over a hot grill. No explanation about why my pay wasn't adjusted for the times (which was, every night) that *I* slaved over a hot grill, AND a hot fryer AND a hot pizza oven.

But that's okay---because according to some, I should just suck it up and accept the fact that two ovaries and a uterus makes me worth less as a worker, worth less as a human being. I'm only a woman---why do I want "special rights" like equal pay. Shit---if I was smart, I'd be surgically changed into a man so that I could get that extra pay.

Fking morons.

[lukasahero]

15. Excellent post

and great analogies.

[Tyrion]

18. Missed the Point

As a Nation a few things need to change:

1. People have to be educated of their rights. There are organizations out there (like the ACLU) where people can turn to if they feel they are being discriminated against. These organizations investigate the charges and if they are valid they DO bring legal suits.

2. Look at statistics. The point earlier wasn’t that women who don’t get pregnant are being paid less because of the chance. The point was that those women who do take maternity leave are causing the statistics to be skewed. If they take 1-3 months off for maternity leave then their salary will reflect that. Most companies don’t pay 100% for maternity leave and some companies don’t pay anything. Although they may be making the same amount as their counter parts they may actually be paid less because they were out. This will cause numbers to be skewed across the board and that is the point I was trying to make. I haven’t seen the same statistics that are being quoted so I can’t say for sure. I’d actually like someone who is throwing out all these statistics to actually post a website where they can be verified. I would also like to know if these statistics take the entire female population and then the entire male population of a state and average out what they make or if they do it industry by industry and specifically job by job.

3. Review case studies as to why employers would pay men more than women and then work on those issues. In my industry I haven’t seen discrimination. It’s not like “Know this one woman who made more money”, I have worked with many women throughout my career and although I don’t know what all of them made I do know what many of them made and it was always competitive. Some of these women made more than their male counterparts and some made less. Sometimes pay was based on experience but a lot of time it was based on personality and “fitting in”.

[Heddi]

19. Face the facts that women DO get paid less than men for the same job

You talk about statistics, as if that explains it all away---well, I guess it makes it easier to gloss over the REALITY of the situation. Do some women get paid more than men? Of course. HOWEVER---more women get paid LESS than men than men get paid less than women.

You say that we should go to the ACLU and other organizations to fight discrimination---gee whiz, Einstein...like we never fucking thought of that before. Do you know how HARD it is to prove discrimination? You say that sometimes pay was based on "experience but alot of the time it was based on personality and 'fitting in'"---DUH!!! Do you know how HARD it is for a woman to 'fit in' when she's the ONLY woman working in her department? When all of her male colleagues and the boss can get together on weekends and go hunting....or get together after hours and go to the strip club...or get together and go golfing. Hard to "fit in" when you're only hired as a token anyway.

As if it's easy to prove discrimination. It's not like the HR department keeps separate files marked : MEN--paid more WOMEN--paid less. It's not that easy.

And bosses make the same excuses you do---"Oh, it's not just education that counts, it's EXPERIENCE!!!" then two seconds later "Oh, but see, it's not just experience, it's PERSONALITY!!!" and then a year later when review time comes up "SEe, you have alot of EXPERIENCE, but you just don't have the EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT" --- so, as a woman, I've been passed over for raises when male counterparts, who call out on a weekly basis, who do 1/2 the workload I do, who come to ME to help them on their work, constantly get raises. Get promotions.

And, of course I'm sure you know that it's hard to "fit in" as a woman when I'm perceived, just because I'm a woman, as being "lawsuit hungry" (as I was described once). See, I went to HR because my boss constantly rubbed my shoulders, even after I asked him to stop numerous times. He'd stand behind me, look down my blouse, and rub my shoulders. Sometimes, he'd rub himself against me. But for me to complain means that I'm not a TEAM PLAYER. So there went my raise that month.

But try to prove it in court. Try to prove racial discrimination in court. Don't you think that all of us uppity, whiny bitches and coloreds and jews and cripples would be rushing into court every day if the cases of discrimination were so easy to prove? Don't you think we'd all be getting that financial windfall we're just waiting for, so we can make millions of dollars, sit on our asses, and bitch about the system? Because that's what we all want, you know. We just want a free ride. :eyes:

You should really check out labour statistics in this country--by race, by gender, by occupation. In EVERY OCCUPATION, women make less than men. ACROSS THE FUCKING BOARD women make less than men. Hispanic women make less than black women. Handicapped women make less than all of us combined.

But I'm sure it's all statistics...just made up in our heads...that we're just imagining getting paid 20% less than our equally qualified male counterparts. It's all hype :eyes:

[Tyrion]

20. Actually I haven't seen any "Facts"

I haven't seen any hard facts that women in general are paid less then their male counterparts. My post was asking for more information on those statistics. Maybe some links to some legitimate sources.

Heddi - Most people on this post are simply having a discussion while you seem to be very hostile in your posts. If that hostility comes across in your work place maybe you should consider that it's not that you are a woman that you are being passed over but instead it's your attitude. Both men and women who are passed over seem to always want to blame discrimination for it. I've seen tons of white males complain and blame affirmative action if they lose a promotion to a minority or a female. Some may have legitimate cases but others should not have been promoted and are unwilling to look at their own actions and want to blame someone else.

You seem to want to rant about how unfair the system is without offering up any ways the system could be made better.

My post was actually a positive post talking about some things that could be done.

1. Maybe you know about the ACLU and where women who are discriminated against can go for assistance but that doesn't mean that women in general do know. I think it might be beneficial for the US government to put out packages to businesses that lists agencies that people can go to. Make it a requirement that employers make those packets available to their employees.

2&3. By understanding those statistics and doing more research we can try to pinpoint what the actual problems are. I really don't think there is some huge conspiracy out there to "keep the woman down" and not pay her what she deserves. By getting more detailed information and trying to pin point where the major discrimination is happening. There should be more studies done on an industry by industry basis and also region by region. Again my experience is mainly in the industry I'm in today and I don't see discrimination the mass scale you are talking about but that doesn't mean that other industries aren't worse and it's not happening there. The broad statistics being quoted here doesn't help anyone to actually pinpoint and work on a solution to the problem.

I was also making the point that personality does matter. You don't have to go hunting with the boys or out to strip clubs to fit in and get along with people. You do have to take the chip off your shoulder and try and get along though. I've known both men and women who couldn't do this. If most of these cases come down to the fact that Male Managers do feel more comfortable hiring and paying men more than hiring women then the question should be asked why that is. If it comes down to "personality" or "fitting in" then that needs to be looked into. There have been many MEN I've worked with who interviewed very well and were hired only to be nightmare co-workers. I think it would be good to look into whether or not these men who are getting the higher pay are doing so because they've been conditioned to do better in interviews. You have admitted yourself that there are women out there who are making more than their male counterparts. My point to this was what made them different. How were they able to break the glass ceiling? The key is there but most people are too busy going off on how unfair the system is that they are unwilling to actually look at what is making the system unfair. Is it the game that needs to be changed or the way the game is played that needs to change. I'm saying that the system needs to be investigated. The key might not be to change the system but give women the information they need to level the playing field. Teach women who have been unsuccessful in breaking the glass ceiling the techniques of those who have.

[lukasahero]

21. You have some excellent points

and I wish I had more time but I want to address the one that I can personally testify to: women are not trained to negotiate/interview as well as men are. Women are "trained" to be more accomodating and less "pushy" in getting their "needs met" in the interviewing/hiring process.

I recently went through outplacement and was taught about interviewing and negotiating. I heard an interview saying the same on NPR as I drove home from an interview one day. I had two offers on the table so I figured it couldn't really hurt to give it a try. I was terrible at it, bit my finger nails down to the core thinking about it but I did it. I told the one company I really wanted to work for that I liked everything about them except that the salary they were offering was "a little low". They came up (way up!) So I realized they had the money, they were more than willing to give it, but I had to negotiate to get it. (Hey, they're always out to pay the least for the most they can get.)

On the other hand, I used to work at a company where a guy was hired as my "backup" for $15000/year more than me and I not only had to show him the ropes, but I had to actually teach him the programming fundamentals of the language we were working in. Heh. I'm making $30k more than he is now thanks to my "negotiating skills". ;-)

There are some things women can do to improve the situation and there are some attitudes out there that need to be changed by those who are not women. But I agree with you on this point. Let's start to get specific about how/why/where the problems are so we can all start to address them and earn the money we deserve.

[pmbryant]

23. Be careful

If that hostility comes across in your work place maybe you should consider that it's not that you are a woman that you are being passed over but instead it's your attitude. Both men and women who are passed over seem to always want to blame discrimination for it.

I don't think it is tactful or necessary to presume what another person has gone through. And dismissing anger and hostility--a natural reaction to be being treated unfairly--as the cause for the unfair treatment, is downright insulting.

--Peter

[Heddi]

24. I don't have an attitude, and I don't have a chip on my shoulder

of course, it may seem that I'm a bit intollerant to bigoted ideas about how women need to 'stop getting pregnant' if we want equal pay, and moronic plattitudes about having a better attitude.

You don't know one iota about me. If I seem pissed, it's because this is one of HUNDREDS of threads that have popped up on DU---whether about racial issues, gender issues, etc---where the prevalent attitude of the white straight males always seems to be "Well, *I* don't see gender discrimination/racial discrminiation/pay discrimination, so therefore, it doesn't exist"

You don't know my experiences or the experiences of millions of women who go to work every day, worker 3x's harder than their male counterparts, and STILL are passed for raises and promotions. Of course, it's quite easy to say "Hey! You're complaining about it! OF course you're not getting promoted--YOU HAVE AN ATTITUDE"----but nothing is said about the palm greasing and back slapping between Bubba the sales manager and the male sales crew.

You say "you don't have to go out hunting with the boys or go to strip clubs to get along with people"----you've obviously never really worked in any male-dominated field, have you? Because I literally CAN NOT count how many times a meeting was held at a strip club after hours. OF course, the women managers and workers were invited, but none showed up. I guess we were just being "poor sports". The men I worked with got together and went to NASCAR and Hunting and Fishing and Football Games---of course, the women were invited...but only as a passing "ohyeahyoucancomeifyouwantto". We were never expected to show up (boyz can't have a good time with a bitchy woman sitting around don'tchaknow) and all was well and good if we DIDN'T show up. Upon one woman department manager's suggestion that perhaps we could participate in gender-neutral after-hours meetings, the men laughed and said "What fun is going over sales figures if we don't have naked women around" and a hearty laff was had by all who had a penis. THe after-hour meetings continued at sports bars and the like. The women in the department were continuously denied input into important departmental policies, etc, and the wheel just kept on turning.

How is my unwillingness to go to a strip club after hours to go over sales figures "not getting along" with people? Attendance at these meetings was MANDATORY if you expected any kind of raise or promotion. Therefore, by MALE managment holding these meetings either unannounced (as happened several times) or at places that the women expressed an unwillingness to attend, then that flies in the face of your idea that we (I) were passed over for not getting along. WE (females) got along just fine. It seemed that the MEN were the ones who weren't being too willing to compromise a bit. They weren't willing to hold meetings *gasp* during regular business hours, or at neutral places like a restaurant.

But I'm sure that's just my own interpretation of the situation, right?

I guess I rescind my statement that I don't have an attitude---I do have an attitude. Fortunately, I now work in a female-dominated field and I get paid a salary that directly matches my experience and education. However, since I had my first job (flipping burgers) and had my eyes opened to the true face of gender inequality and pay inequality, I've been told time and time again by men (and some women!) how every incident is just an 'isolated' incident. How WE are the problem (re: your insinuation that I have an attitude and chip on my shoulder at my places of employment). Strange how I have no hiring power, yet it's my fault that more women aren't hired; I have no power to give raises, but it's my fault that I didn't give a raise; I have no power to promote, but it's my fault that not just me, but ALL women in the department were constantly overlooked for promotions that they were MORE than qualified for.

Your assumption that you can gauge me, my character, and my work ethic based on an internet posting board is laughable. I suppose that I could extrapolate that someone who gets mad at a waitress for bringing an incorrect order is a schlep at work, beats his wife, and fucks underage girls, right? Of course not. But you seem to be making unfair assumptions about me.

Maybe I'm just being a 'hysterical female'---what can I say...we're like that. It's the uterus, you know---the downfall of western civilization rests upon my mighty cervical os and the desire to get equal pay for an equal day's work. Sill me. Maybe I should shut up and make dinner, or something :eyes:

[Tyrion]

26. Nice way to overlook 90% of my post

I never assumed anything about your attitude at work. I premised my statement with "IF" which is a very important word. That word was a very important one in that sentence.

I would also like to point out that this thread is not about YOU and your response had very little to do with the meat of my points. It's about all women in general.

That is what I'd like to focus on since you have your experience and other people have other experiences many of them differ greatly from you.


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf

This report says almost exactly what I was saying.

There is no conclusive data that there is discrimination in the workplace. The study being done here does say that there is a wage difference but stopped short of an explanation why. They state that further data would have to be collected to determine causes. That is exactly what I think needs to happen.

Let me clarify and break this down into two parts:

1. Men vs Women in same job and same position(peers). I think that in some cases it is possible that men are earning more than women however I do not believe that to be the case as a rule. Most hiring managers these days have some say as to what people are paid but they have to follow guidelines written by their HR department and HR has to approve decisions. That being the case most companies are so paranoid about lawsuits that their hiring practices are closely monitored. This report does not answer this question about peers in the same position. They do state that it would have to be further investigated. I think that should happen and we should get answers that it. If their is a difference between peers then there needs to be case studies done to determine the reason for that. Is it because of discrimination or other reasons. As lukasahero pointed out it could be that men tend to be more aggressive when interviewing and negotiating for a job. I'd like to see studies done to show whether or not that is the case. If you take the first offer to you versus asking for more then you would be making less than a counter part. I'd also like it broken down from the corporate world to small business. As I stated in the beginning most managers in the corporate world have to follow HR guidelines and they have the HR watchdogs looking over them. Small Businesses are privately owned and make up their own guidelines. I'd like to see the report break down between the two. It's very possible that one sector could be doing the majority of the discriminating. I've mainly worked in the corporate world for companies that have strict HR guidelines. It's possible that that is why I have not seen the mass discrimination that many people say is out there.


2. Women vs Men as a whole. I would say without a doubt that men earn more than women and that is what this report is saying. This report took a pool of men and a pool of women and compared them. The fact that they didn't break this down on a peer basis is one reason they were unable to conclude the pay differences were actually discriminiation and not another cause. They specifically state in the report that further investigation would have to be done. They state that in many cases women took jobs that were more family friendly. They took jobs that would give them a little more freedom if they had to deal with family emergencies. These jobs usually end up paying less.



The two issues above need to be explored but also a clear line needs to be drawn to show the differences. The report is very clear that more investigation needs to be done to determine whether or not women are making less money on a peer to peer basis or if more women accept lower paying jobs that give them more flexibility. If they are accepting lower paying jobs that offer more flexibility are they doing that by choice or are they forced to do so because those are the only careers they are able to get employment in. This basically means is a woman choosing to practice medicine in private practice because she wants to do so in order to give her more family time or is she choosing to do so because she can not get a job as a surgeon. If the latter is the case then an investigation needs to be done as to why she couldn't get that job.


Heddi - I'm not saying that I disagree with you. What I am saying is that there is not enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the personal experiences you have had are the norm and not isolated incidences. My own experiences and the things I've seen have been totally different than yours. I am open to the idea that mass discrimination is happening but think that more data needs to be collected before I come to that conclusion.

[cap]

30. unfortunately I dont have the link

but it was on the "memory hole" . One of the big 4 accounting firms was commissioned by the US Dept of Justice did a study on why female associates werent advancing in the careers at the same rate as men. To level the playing field they only tracked "merit hires" (graduated from Ivy League or top 10% of their class). They found that women did not advance at the same rate as men and that the main cause of it was that their line supervisors were not giving them the same assignments as their male counterparts so that women did not acquire the right skill sets needed to advance in their careers. Lots of stats for u in that study.

Merril Lynch just settled a class action lawsuit where the female brokers claimed discrimination because the plum accounts were going to males.

Look at Walmart or any retail chain. Checkout girls are female. When you complain to a manager, he is male.

BTW, pregnancy doesn't really matter 5 years after you've rejoined the workforce. Men change careers all the time and start over and they recoup within 5-10 years. Nobody counts years on job experience after 10 years anyhow. When was the last time you saw an ad asking for 15, 20, 25, 30 years of experience?

[pmbryant]

22. Statistics here.

The point was that those women who do take maternity leave are causing the statistics to be skewed. If they take 1-3 months off for maternity leave then their salary will reflect that. ... This will cause numbers to be skewed across the board and that is the point I was trying to make.

This is a myth. The pay discrepancy between men and women is still very significant, even when factors such as this are taken into account.

In post #2, I referred to the comprehensive GAO study from 2003 on this. To make it easier, I looked up the link for you: WOMEN’S EARNINGS: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings. (The PDF file is not downloading properly for me for some reason, but I read the report when it came out last year.)

Note that the title does not tell the major finding of the report:

"When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000."

--Peter

[Heddi]

25. Oh fer pete's sake (har har)

Don'tcha know that them thar staticiscs were prolly made up by some woman with a chip on her shoulder. In FACT---I know of MILLIONS...nay, BILLIONS of women who have made more than their male counterparts. In fact, right before my friend Jimmy got promoted from file clerk to CEO, his secertary made .25 an hour more than he did. SHE said it's because she had an MBA and Jimmy only had an 8th grade edumacation, but we all know that it was because she prolly threatened the old CEO with Sexhual Harangment if he didn't pay her $8.50 an hour. Therefore, Ergo, I.E. women make more than men in a variety of ways. Perchance no one notices that it's the WIMEN who run daycares. In fact, I have never seen a man run a daycare facility. So therefore, logically, women daycare workers make more than men. And I read a study once that stated that daycare center workers are amoungst the most higest paid workers in the WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And don't even git me STARTED on the leaps and bounds women have over men in the fields of science, medicine, engineering and other "girly" carrers.

Wimmen!

</male chauvenist pig>

[highlonesome]

34. Well actually...

Studies show that childless men and women doing the same job with the same education and experience make pretty much identical salaries. I think the wage gap there shrinks to 93%. Some of that may be discrimination, some may be that men tend to work more hours. I'll have to find the study if you're interested. So in effect, women who choose not to have children aren't getting punished for it.

I think the wage gap is based on two main factors:

1. The fact that the most dangerous and undesirable occupations are predominantly male occupations. Resulting from this, the vast majority of workplace death and injury are men. If you don't pay more, no one will do those jobs.

2. It's the way we are culturally conditioned to choose marriage partners and set up our families. The irony is that men as fathers having high paying careers is somehow a voluntary abandonment leaving women with an imposed burden of caring for the family. Not always true of course, but the public discourse I think generally bears this out.

In reality, there is an aspect of it that men leaving their families to work is more an imposed exile with a high price to pay emotionally in exchange for the income to support the family. On the flip side for most of the families I know, mothers staying home with the kids is something of a voluntary embrace that while it impacts financial earning ability, has a tremendous payoff in terms of emotional satisfaction.

If parental roles could be made more equitable -- ie having more stay at home dads and working mothers or similar arrangements -- the wage gap would shrink further. Until this happens it will remain the same. That's why it's basically stalled out: though gender roles have changed, they've only changed so much. Fathers may be much more involved in primary care of children than they were 30 years ago, but even so they're still doing the breadwinning while women are assuming the primary role of parenting.

This is a change that will require work, sacrifice and letting go by both genders. As a dad I have to say that the idea that women want an equal partner in raising children is a fallacy. In my experience and observation, what women really want is a really, really good assistant. That has to change before the wage gap will shrink any more.

[renaissanceguy]

43. EXCELLENT points.

I particularly liked what you said about women taking off because of less pay than their husbands. Economically, it makes sense. At the same time, let's say the woman makes more than her husband. What if that husband is jealous? He might pressure her to stay home, so he could be the bread winner.

I think it's laughable and downright sad how the amount of pay we get depends on our GENITALS. It's like--pull down your pants and let's see how much penis you have. Do nine-inchers earn more than the average guy?

Sorry for being grotesque, but I had to prove a point.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16779191

[Nikia]

27. There are a couple more issues

"Women's work" tends to pay less than "Men's work" when one takes into account education required. By that I mean that fields that are dominated by women like child care and nursing pay less than fields dominated by men like consturction and a number of "skilled" trades. Unfortunately, this is a cross cultural phenomenon, for example in some countries denistry is a women's field and pays comparatively less than in country's where it is a men's field. Maybe, we should examine why that is. Is it that companies value "male work" more or is it just that women are willing to work for less.
In the blue collar world, more physically intense jobs usuaully pay more and held by men. In general, men are more likely than women to be able to do many of these heavy labor jobs without injury. On the otherhand, women may be also actively discouraged to do these jobs in one of several ways: Requiring women to prove their ability but not expecting it from men, exaggerating the physical requirements, or showing less patience with a female new hire than a male new hire.
In traditionally male jobs, women are assumed to be less competent than men by the very fact of being a woman. Although some companies have embraced affirmative action and actively try not to do this, some see nothing wrong with this. A typical male (or even female) interviewer will judge a female engineer as less competent and worth less to the company than a male engineer with the same background. Gender assumptions and prejudices may come into play other ways with female managers being judged less assertive than male managers, but if she is more assertive than the average male manager, she will be judged as difficult and not fitting in. This issue might also come into play in salary negoiation and asking for raises. Women aren't suppose to be pushy or brag about themselves.

[renaissanceguy]

28. Good luck with that happening.

BushCo* & the religious right want women at HOME. They don't want them to work, because that would mean women are independent. Look at Laura Bush--always in the shadow of her husband, refusing to speak out if she disagrees with him (and it's obvious she does in the cases of abortion and gay rights). Right-wingers hated Teresa Heinz Kerry because she's a modern woman, not afraid to speak out about her own views. She's independent and very aware of her sexuality.

I think that women need to continue to push against these attitudes while trying to push for equal pay.

[Mackenzie]

29. My advice to women who want to earn as much as a man.

I'm pretty new here. I voted Libertarian in the election. This is because I favor legalizing gay marriage, and medical and recreational marijuana. And because I am against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. And because I am against corporate welfare. I oppose any restrictions on abortion. I think Bush is an evil scum who got rich off of corporate welfare for his baseball team. And his complete lack of using his veto power so far shows that he is not fiscally conservative at all.

I always feel very happy whenever a Republican tells me that I "wasted" my vote. Their anger at my voting Libertarian is 100% certified genuine proof that I did not "waste" my vote.

I do know a lot about money and economics. I offer this advice for any woman who wants to earn as much as a man:

#1 Find out what the high paying jobs are, and acquire the skills in those fields. Get a degree in law, medicine, accounting, information systems, business administration, of electrical engineering. Or get a license in real estate. Or become a carpenter, plumber or electrician. These are all good paying jobs.

#2 Be willing to work 50 or 60 hours a week at your job. Most of the people who work 50 or 60 hours a week are men. Your boss takes note of which workers are eager to be out the door every day at 5 o'clock. Make yourself invaluable to your employer. Offer a skill that no one else has. That way, when your boss has to decide who gets the promotion, and who gets laid off, you'll be the one to get promoted.

#3 Start your own business.

#4 Do not take a part time job. Most part time jobs are held by women. Part time jobs pay less than full time jobs.

#5 More than 90% of people who die on the job are men. Higher pay is a tradeoff for dangerous jobs. So more women should be lumberjacks, for example, which is a very dangerous job, but pays rather well.

#6 Don't have kids. Or if you do have kids, then hire a live in nanny. Don't take time off work to raise children. Don't show up for work late or leave early to attend to your child's school activities or medical appointments. Sorry, folks, but every decision you make involves tradeoffs. It's true. There are only 24 hours in a day. There is nothing wrong with an employer who discriminate in favor of a worker who shows up for work every day and on time.

#7 Take a course in Economics 101. You will learn that business owners are greedy. You will learn that their #1 goal is to maximize profits. You will learn that if there really was a 20% discount for hiring women instead of men to do the exact same work, then greedy business owners would fire their expensive male employees, and replace them with cheaper female employees. The truth is that greedy business owners do not pay men a dollar for the exact same work that they can get from women for 80 cents, because their greed and desire to maximize profits does not allow them to do so. Think, people! Use some commone sense! Why would any greedy business owner who wanted to maximize profits pay a dollar for something that he could get for 80 cents? In fact, for a 30 year old woman with a college degree who has never had a child, she will actually make 98 cents on the dollar, and even this 2 cent differential is because of different job choices, not discrimination. This can be verified at this link to a google search of articles from the libertarian Independent Women's Forum: http://tinyurl.com/5eaeb

[WildClarySage]

32. Many women don't want to "earn as much as a man". What we want

is for our work contributions to be valued equally. If (as in my cousin's family) a female daycare worker works as hard as her husband, a cable installer, and her job requires at least a two-year degree, why is she paid significantly less? Why is quality childcare valued less than cable television???

[highlonesome]

33. it's about the profit

Sure daycare workers and cable installers probably work about as hard as each other. The difference is that since the cable TV industry has the potential and ability to create much more profit, they're able to pay their workers more.

Daycare is very expensive and it's a service that is used quite a lot by the middle class. As such, there is a limit on how much can be charged and still get people to sign up for it. I mean, once it reaches the level of income of one of the parents, they might as well quit their job and stay home. Also, there are limits as to how many children there can be for each daycare worker which places another limit on the cost/benefit equation.

It's not a conspiracy -- it's simply the way the market works for each of these occupations.

Several years ago, I used to work for my state's health department as a research associate. The job required a BS degree, three years experience, and experience with several very specific and highly technical genetic and biochemical techniques. After three years there I was making $21,000/year -- that was 1996. Most of the associate jobs had similar requirements.

Now on the job postings though, the position of a secretary required a GED and the ability to type 50 words per minute. That job paid a full $5,000 per year more. Why? Because as secretaries they are closer to and work in conjunction with the people who control the money and set the salaries along with the fact that their positions were covered by a steady stream of unlimited tax money while mine was dependent on a grant. Same thing reversed outcome.

[WildClarySage]

36. No. People will earn what they demand to be paid.

Women are not socialized to demand comprable salaries, and there are definite corelations between perceived value and the gender of the majority of workers in that field. Nurses earned higher salaries when they demanded higher wages and left the field in droves over pay and working conditions. A rise in pay was a necessary market correction for the field. But did nurses only suddenly effect profits? No. And if your example were true, why are so many government jobs paid at such significantly higher rates than, say, WalMart, where profits are consistently growing? Professions which entail traditionally female characteristics, such as nursing (sympathy, concern for the welfare of others), social work (compassion), teaching (patience, nurturance) and waitressing (service to others) are among the lowest esteemed positions and until recently were the lowest paying positions available. It was society's way of saying You wanna work? Fine, but don't expect to support yourself indefinitely. You're gonna need a man. And for many women this was the literal truth.

[highlonesome]

37. reconsidering

Your well thought out argument has me reconsidering my stance. I think you're right. Your cousin and the other people who work at the daycare center should demand higher salaries or threaten to leave. I'm sure the profit margin of the daycare center is huge so eventually they'll cave. If they don't she should go look for a job as a cable installer. Why didn't she do that in the first place. Was she sacrificing money for something she enjoyed more?

I'm not sure about the Walmart example so I'll look into it some. Do you know where I might be able to find stats on what door greeters, stock people, and cashiers who work for the government make?

You're right about the nurse's salaries too. They didn't effect profits -- they effected prices.

[WildClarySage]

38. well, I guess you showed me.

Women have always sacrificed money for doing what they enjoy and/or perceive as socially necessary. That's not the thrust of my argument. Your straw men aren't responding to my original point that what most women want is value recognition. If it's all about profitability, as you claim, then fine. We should just leave all the non-profit jobs to you men since you're so gung ho on self-sacrifice that you take on all the dangerous jobs just to keep the poor little women from having to do them. And it's so unfair that men take on all the full time jobs that keep them away from their families. I'm sure it's a conspiracy on the part of women to keep men from finding their inner fathers.

I would be interested in seeing some statistics substantiating your claim that profitability motivates salary in all fields. This sounds like a very dubious excuse to me. IIRC from other women's rights threads, you have lots of dubious excuses to explain away a lot of things.

[renaissanceguy]

44. Your points are well-taken, but

the root of the problem is not about the skills or qualifications of women, but of the attitudes of men toward women. Women and women-dominated fields deserve the same respect as men's, just how blue-collar positions should be as respected as white-collar ones. All serve a purpose, and all are necessary in some way.

Now, let's say a woman successfully enters into a male-dominated field. She risks sexual harassment, poor treatment, a lack of respect, and lower pay than her male counterparts. This all stems from a poor attitude toward women.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16779191

[I Love Alaska]

31. Alaska

Women in Alaska earn 69 cents to every mans dollar. What to do???

[dryan]

35. Last April....

when I posted a message regarding Equal Pay Day I got flamed. Let's use real statistics and not anecdotal things. We all know of many women (myself included) who make more than their husbands or other men but the truth is the majority of women in any given field make less than their male counterparts. This is true in all professional fields, academia, medicine, even the arts.

[cap]

39. either that or start developing the first pregnant man...

then men will bear children, bond with them and stay home and miss valuable years in the work place.

also, we need to stop doing socially necessary jobs ... this way the wage rate will increase. Men will start doing those jobs when the pay rate is high enough.

[Nikia]

40. There is no reason that fathers couldn't bond with their children too

In the book that I read recently, Paradoxes of Gender by Judith Lorber, this issue is discussed among many others. She states that there is no reason that men could not bond with children also. Fathers who have lost their wives, either through death or desertation when their children are young often become as nuturing as mothers are thought to be naturually. There are various cultures, including Western Europe at various time in history where maternal bonding wasn't consider natural and women often boarded out their children with little regret. What of adoptive parents as well? The authors thought is that parent/child bonding is a learned behavior. Men can learn to bond with their children, just as women. There is no reason that a woman with a husband or other committed partner would have to take off much time after pregnancy any more than her husband would.