How should government litigate the reoccurring question of women’s rights in the workplace when discussing time off, pay, and schedules?
Women in the workplace is a hot topic, especially with the recent vote of President-Elect, Donald Trump. It is becoming a more prominent discussion throughout corporations and firms across the nation. With the still not settled wage ratio of men to women, women are still making only .80 cents to every dollar earned by a man which is about a 20 percent gender wage gap as of the year 2015 (National Women’s). Furthermore, women in the workplace have instigated a significant conversation over companies’ ways of litigating the “elephant in the room,” so to speak. “President-elect Trump’s problems with women are significant: 55 percent of female respondents say he does not respect women and about half think a Trump presidency would be bad for women; only 11 percent think electing him would be good for women, while 45 percent of women say Mrs. Clinton’s election would benefit them (Spot on Ballot).” This can pose a serious threat to women’s rights over the next four years. If women feel apprehensive towards Trump’s election, and Trump knows they hold this feeling, then how can any policy really come from this administration? “Forty-eight percent of women, but just 35 percent of men, think there are more advantages in being a man than in being a woman in society today. Majorities of women with a college degree, those who identify as Democrats, those younger than 30, those with household incomes of at least $100,000, and black women all say men hold an advantage (Spot on Ballot).” With statistics like this, and women making up over half of the U.S. population (50.8%), it is prominent that we make policies in which women are able to be considered equal to men in terms of pay and benefits (U.S. Population). Women are almost half of the workforce. They are the main provider in four out of ten families. They receive more college and graduate degrees than men. Yet, on average, women continue to earn considerably less than men. It is not possible to instill thoughts of equality in everyone, given they are not tangible; however, we can make policies that ingrain equality on those that are tangible, such as company pay and benefits.
During a recent trial of Ellen Pao V. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Pao sued her former company for discrimination and harassment based on the fact that she was an Asian-American woman. She sued under the legislation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (Vara). “The mission of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing Act is to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations and from hate violence and human trafficking (California’s Civil Rights Agency).” The status of Pao’s employment at the firm began to deteriorate when she complained that a partner with whom she had a relationship with had professionally retaliated against her once their affair had ended. She also alleged that the environment at Kleiner Perkins was hostile toward women in general, and toward her in particular. On one occasion, women were excluded from a dinner because the male partner organizing it figured that they would “kill the buzz.” Another time, a male partner gifted Pao, on Valentine’s Day, a book of Leonard Cohen poems that were illustrated with suggestive drawings (Vara). During the trial, there was a lot of of “back and forth” on what these incidences implications were meant to say. Deborah Rhode, a law professor at Stanford said that “The sort of evidence you’re seeing in the Ellen Pao case is very typical of what’s out there in Silicon Valley. There are no smoking guns; much of it is what social scientists call micro-indignities, small incidents that viewed individually may seem trivial, but when viewed cumulatively point to a practice of insensitivity and devaluation that can get in the way of work performance.” In Ellen Pao’s case, she ended up losing the trial, but made a huge impact in legislation, especially in the Silicon Valley. Although the firm did not have to pay any damages to Pao, they will continue their time very cautiously as well as other firms that see the nature of this case when dealing with female and minority employees.
The purpose of this research paper is to illustrate the various options that the government of the United States have in dealing with the ongoing problem of inequality with women in our workforce. Examination of women’s pay, maternity leave, and how it affects women of all ages, races, and education levels will be addressed throughout this paper. Women in leadership positions, in 2009 only held 24 percent of CEOs in the US were women and they earned 74.5 percent as much as male CEOs (BLS 2010 p.9). The predominant research topics proposed in this paper are as follows: (1), What are some policy options for the government when dealing with this issue of unequal pay? And (2), How can the government work on closing the gender gap in the American workforce when referencing time-off?
Harvard Business School, in conjunction with Catalyst, recently released a research report regarding the level of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of Fortune 500 companies with respect to the amount of women on the companies’ Boards of Directors and serving as Corporate Officers. Of the Fortune 500 companies, in 2007, companies with three or more women on the Board of Directors averaged 28 times more money in philanthropic donations than those with no women. Also, companies with 25 percent or more women in leadership positions as Corporate Officers averaged 13 times more philanthropic donations than those with none (Catalyst and HBS 2011). Out of all the companies surveyed, only 14.5 percent of all board members and directors were female. Statistics like this accurately demonstrate why more legislation needs to be enacted so that United States companies can work on closing these gender gaps.
When observing the various options presented in this paper, age, gender and race discrimination should be considered as well as racism and inner-company bias upon reading. These are all challenges that the government as well as companies must dispute when dealing with this issue of women’s rights in the workplace. There are more that one right answer when litigating this topic. Furthermore, the discussion needs to start and changes need to be made in order for change to come forth from our legislative and judicial system.
What are some policy options for the government when dealing with the issue of unequal pay?
Women, on average, earn less than men in virtually every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio. In middle-skill occupations, workers in jobs mainly done by women earn only 66 percent of workers in jobs mainly done by men. The visual depicts how all different races of women are effected by the wage gap in the United States. “If change continues at the same slow pace as it has done for the past fifty years, it will take 44 years, or until 2059, for women to finally reach pay parity (Institute for Women’s Policy Research).”
A very heavily discussed example of how the wage ratio is affecting women is the United States women’s soccer team’s salary when being compared the men’s soccer team. The United States men’s soccer team collected $9 million for making the second stage of the 2014 World Cup. The U.S. women’s soccer team collected $2 million for winning the 2015 World Cup. Jeffrey Kessler, the lead attorney representing the U.S. women’s soccer team, said both women and men “should be appalled by this claimed ‘defense.’” He criticized U.S. soccer for arguing that it was perfectly fi
ne for men to work less and get paid a higher rate for each game. “It is like arguing there is no discrimination when you pay men $20 dollars an hour and women $15 an hour, but the women work 25 percent more hours than the men and get a bonus for outstanding production, so they make almost as much (Futterman).” There has not been much movement till date on the salary gap between the men and women’s teams; however, the U.S women’s soccer team is determined to receive “equal pay for equal play.”
As of 2015, 45 states, including Missouri, have equal pay laws (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin are the exceptions). Of those, only four go beyond the provisions of the 1963 Equal Pay Act, with California requiring employers to keep written wage records for two years, Illinois protecting workers’ right to compare wages, and New Mexico prohibiting employer retaliation for a worker who asserts pay discrimination. In 2013, Vermont passed the most far-reaching equal pay law in the country, which requires that any pay discrepancies must have a provable business reason; prohibits bans on discussion of salaries; and includes protections for nursing mothers and for workers who request flexible work schedules.
The Missouri Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963. This statute reflects the language of the federal Equal Pay Act, requiring that equal pay be based on “the same quantity and quality of the same classification of work (Missouri Revised Statutes).” This act gives women the right to file a complaint with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri if she has been paid lower wages due to her sex, and to file a civil action to receive compensation for unequal pay. As with the federal Equal Pay Act, the woman bringing the claim must prove that the pay discrimination was based on gender and not on any other differences. Missouri also passed the Missouri Human Rights Act in 1986, which prohibits employers from compensation discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, or disability. Although there have been several attempts at the federal and state level to provide women some legal protections from wage discrimination, the continuing gender wage gap indicates that these laws have not solved the problem. Most importantly, the legal requirement of equal pay for equal work, and determining what constitutes equal work, has created a standard of proof that is often impossible to meet. The Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and most state laws have placed the burden of proof firmly on the female worker claiming wage discrimination. This complaint-based approach often requires lengthy trips through the legal system for the woman filing the complaint, where she faces the difficult task of proving that an employer has engaged in discriminatory pay practices based on gender. Fewer than 30 percent of the gender pay discrimination claims led with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since 2004 have resulted in favorable outcomes for the woman filing the complaint, while more than half were dismissed with a finding of no reasonable cause.
Shifting the burden of proof from the woman to the employer could mitigate gender bias, and have a more immediate impact on pay equity. For example, the International Labor Organization (ILO) has determined that a proactive model, which places the responsibility on employers to demonstrate that their wage policies are equitable, is the most effective tool against gender wage discrimination. Both Sweden and Canada have adopted proactive legal models, and employers in these countries are responsible for reviewing pay practices, adopting an action plan to remedy pay discrepancies, and for complying within a specific timeframe (Yoshino). Both countries have passed litigation that requires companies to ensure jobs of equal value have equal pay and have government commissions to ensure compliance.
How can the government work on closing the gender gap in the American workforce when referencing time-off?
Paid Family Leave
The financial impact of women leaving the paid labor force to meet caregiving responsibilities is another explanation for the gender wage gap. Offering women the option of paid family leave, with a promise of returning to the same job at the same wage, could help mitigate the financial impact of unpaid maternity leave, and increase earning over a woman’s lifetime. Currently the United States is the only high-income country in the world which has no mandated paid leave for mothers of newborns (see figure). The only federal family leave law is the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which provides some workers up to 12 weeks of job-protected, but unpaid, leave for illness or caregiving responsibilities. In the private sector in 2014, only 12 percent of employers offered paid family leave.
Paid Sick Days
At least 43 million private-sector workers in the United States were not given paid sick time (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). On average, workers who do not have paid sick time earn less than those who do (Gould). Because most minimum wage jobs are held by women, and women more often than men are caregivers for sick children and aging parents, taking unpaid leave to fulfill caregiving responsibilities results in a disproportionate loss of income for women workers.
Fair and Flexible Work Schedules
A woman’s ability to do her job and meet her family obligations relies, in large part, on her work schedule. Work schedules which are erratic, change with little notice, or offer no flexibility make arranging and paying for child care nearly impossible. Also, workers cannot attend to unexpected needs, such as a sick child, unless they have some measure of flexibility at work. Recent polling data indicates that 36 percent of parents believe they have been “passed over” for a promotion, a raise, or a new job due to a need for a flexible work schedule, while 49 percent said they have chosen to pass up a job they felt would conflict with family obligations (The Council of Economic Advisers). Currently only the state of Vermont and the city of San Francisco have passed laws which require employers to respond to an employee’s request for schedule flexibility, including requests for a reduction in hours, different working hours, or different working days. These laws also protect employees from retaliation in response to their request.
Although workers across the economic spectrum can experience inflexible work schedules, the women who make up two-thirds of the minimum-wage work force often have the least control over their schedules. To control costs, many businesses have come to rely on sophisticated software to determine real-time staffing needs. For many workers, this means they may report for work only to be sent home for lack of demand or, alternately, may be called in to work on very short notice if demand justifies additional staff. This results in an unpredictable income for workers, and makes it nearly impossible to manage caregiving responsibilities. In response, nine states and the District of Columbia have passed “Reporting Time Pay” laws, which require employers to pay workers for a set number of hours, regardless of whether they are sent home or called in (National Women’s Law Center). Currently, Missouri has no laws which promote or protect the right to flexible scheduling or reporting time pay. While passing laws such as these will not provide an immediate solution to the gender wage gap, they can help minimize the “push” out of the workplace that many women feel when personal and professional obligations conflict, and offer women better options for earning a living wage while meeting their caregiving responsibilities. And, again, reducing women’s time out of the paid labor force will increase their lifetime earnings, which can help to close the wage gap.
Raising the Minimum Wage
Because two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, raising th
e minimum wage would have a significant impact on the gender pay gap. In 2016, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, and the federal minimum wage for tipped workers is $5.12 per hour. Arguments against raising the federal minimum wage include concerns that higher wages will result in a loss of jobs, will increase consumer prices, and will keep workers in lower-wage jobs longer, preventing the entry of young, new workers into the job market. Because of significant opposition, the federal minimum wage has not been raised since 2009. Individual states have raised their minimum wages more frequently, often as a result of voters approving the increase through ballot measures. There are 29 states with a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum as of October 18, 2016 (National Conference of State Legislatures). This disparity between states has allowed for a comparison of the gender wage gap in states with higher and lower minimum wages. Generally speaking, states with a minimum wage higher than the federal level have a smaller wage gap (see depiction).
Summary and Conclusion
Labor statistics show that women workers in the United States continue to earn significantly lower pay than men. While the size of this wage gap varies by age, educational level, occupation, and race, the difference between men’s and women’s wages persists. Federal and state equal pay laws including the federal 1963 Equal Pay Act, have had limited success in closing the gap. Because women earn less than men across all occupations, there is a likelihood that gender bias has been difficult for women to prove and nearly impossible to eliminate through legislation.
Policy makers may more effectively narrow the wage gap by focusing federal, state, and local efforts on the other issues in which create it. Such policy efforts would include mandating paid family, raising the minimum wage, and sick leave and supporting flexible and fair work schedules. By seeking ways to even the playing field for women workers, policy makers have an opportunity to significantly narrow the gender wage gap, and move men and women into an equal earning 21st century.