A new study conducted by the World Economic Forum yielded completely unsurprising results - American women are making zero progress in terms of workplace pay equity and job satisfaction. In an era where corporations always seem to pay lip service to workplace equity, why does this gender gap remain?
The 2010 WEF project was the first study to cover the world's largest employers across twenty countries and analyze the workplace environment for women, effectively benchmarking them against the gender equality practices that should actually be in place. The survey contained twenty-five questions regarding representation of women within their establishments and the use of gender-equality practices such as target-setting, work-life balance policies, and availability of training and mentoring opportunities for women. The results were staggering.
While the US has the highest percentage of female employees (52%) across all levels, these workers are concentrated primarily in entry or middle-level positions and remain scarce in executive, board director, or senior management positions. The pay gap was found to be a universal problem, and American women still make only 78 cents for every dollar that equally qualified men earn. 72% of companies surveyed admitted to not even tracking gender pay gaps, though 40% claimed to be setting quotas or other affirmative action devices to help close the gap.
While the study didn't address regional differences within the U.S., it is well-known that the South boasts an even greater gender pay gap. I once had a male manager from a prior job attempt to justify this inequity by explaining to me that women cost corporations about 25 percent more than men do, considering the "extravagant expenses" associated with health insurance for expecting mothers and FMLA pay. I was stunned that anyone would even try to argue this point. If all women stayed at home, then the added insurance costs would be pushed over to their working husbands. Additionally, the average U.S. woman has two children and takes only six weeks off for each child. Does three months out of a woman's entire life justify a 22 percent pay decrease? I think not.
I noticed one major exception in the WEF study: Sweden. Sweden has a government regulation in place that mandates a minimum of 40% of each gender on the boards of public companies. Apparently, compliance is not a issue, as more than 40% of Swedish women are executives or board-level. Why can't other countries follow suit? While I do have some personal issues with quotas and affirmative action, if American minorities and religious groups deserve to be protected by such means, why don't women deserve the same treatment? At the very least, shouldn't there be some loose regulatory force that actually analyzes pay across American corporations and identifies and investigates unexplained gaps?
The practice of pay discrimination benefits no one. The WEF estimates that closing the pay gap could increase U.S. GDP by up to 9 percent. Research has also indicated that workplace morale and productivity generally increase in environments where men and women work together in tandem. I can only hope that by the time my three-year-old is out of college and entering the workplace, he will be joining an environment where professional, educated women are treated with the same dignity and appreciation as their male counterparts. However, considering the amount of progress we have made in the past 30 years, I honestly have my doubts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well written as always, Mel. Though we often disagree, or at least have differing viewpoints, I always enjoy reading your thoughts. Your articles are always thought provoking and provide me opportunity to explore my feelings regarding matters previously unconsidered.
ReplyDeleteRegarding this particular piece: Though I find it ultimately disheartening that we, as a culture, still struggle to find equity in treatment, I am hopeful that true balance can be achieved without the use of quotas or other mandates. I have long felt that these systems are far more damaging in application than one would assume in theory. Perhaps too idyllic I know, but I still believe that there are ways to select the absolute best candidate while remaining blind of gender, race, et al.
My own experience regarding the gender issue specifically, has lead me to see that, in some instances, the numbers do not tell the complete story. Some industries may be dominated at one level by a certain gender, while the reverse is true in higher ranks. However, closer inspection may reveal that the pool of individuals seeking to promote or take on additional responsibility offer a gender presentation more in line with the next level. Often this is dependent upon the demands of the next position and requirements such as relocation, for example.
Some industries lend themselves more readily to secondary income employees to fill the ranks, as it were. These individuals, often are motivated by schedule, flexibility and benefits, versus the financial focus of those approaching a field from a primary breadwinner perspective. Granted this does not apply across the board, but it is for reasons such as this that I feel quotas, while representing society as a whole, may not necessarily accurately represent the business.
Ironically enough, I am still looking for "change we can all believe in."