Working Time as Gendered Time - Essay Example

Women in the Labour Market The expression, ‘a woman has to be twice as good as a man for thesame job’ is based on credible evidence. Employers continue to discriminate against women, not only in the selection process for many types of employment but also by offering proportionately lower wages once employment is secured. This reality is a dual battle that most all women face in the workforce thereby forcing them to double their efforts to obtain then to retain employment. Societal stereotypes that reflect past attitudes of women’s role as subservient to men still prevail showcased by the continued imbalance of employment opportunities. Workplace segregation remains prevalent as high concentrations of female employees are associated with relatively low rates of pay. And higher levels of part-time working are associated with lower rates of pay, even after other factors have been taken into account. Qualified women are characteristically denied top level jobs in corporate but instead of terming it what it is, sexism and discrimination, this form of unequal treatment is referred to as the ‘glass ceiling’ effect. ‘Most feminists believe that the position of women in the labour market is an important source of disadvantage.’ Women do indeed have to perform twice as well as a man to retain the same pay and position at similar occupational arenas. This discussion will examine barriers to equality in the workplace, the reasons for this cultural phenomenon, evidence to support this claim and some possible solutions. Women must struggle to cope with discrimination in the workplace as is evidenced by occupational segregation. This terminology refers to the reality that women tend to work in different sectors of the economy and occupy different employment standings than men within the same occupational group. Government statistics reveal that women are highly concentrated in certain jobs and that 60 per cent of working women are employed in just 10 per cent of available occupations (“What is the Pay Gap?”, 2006). While about one-half of workers are in sex-dominated employment, women are engaged in a narrower scope of occupations than men. There are seven times more male-dominated non-agricultural jobs than female. ‘Sex-dominated’ occupations are defined as when workers of one sex constitute more than 80 per cent of the labour force (Anker, 1998). In the UK, women constitute just 30 per cent of managers, 25 per cent of executives and 10 per cent of company directors (EOC, 2002 cited in “What is the Pay Gap?”). Not surprising given that the old boss/secretary mentality is not yet extinct. Almost four out of five women still believe there is a bias in favour of male staff in the office. Eighty-four percent of female employees surveyed reported they have to work harder than male colleagues to prove themselves to their employer and 78 per cent of women believe their gender is a barrier to career progression compared to male counterparts. The survey of more than 2,000 staff members in the UK also illustrated that two-thirds of women felt they had been harassed in the workplace by male colleagues (Millar, 2005). Women may decide to abandon a certain professional path because they anticipate discrimination or feel hindered to begin at all. Despite increasing levels of labour market participation, women still are not equally represented, especially at higher positions within organisations. This includes those companies that cater specifically to female consumers. This clearly observable fact of life has been called ‘the glass ceiling.’ The term refers to the “invisible, artificial barriers that prevent qualified individuals from advancing within their organisation and reaching full potential” (“Advancing Women in the Workplace”, 2003). This is not defined as simply an artificial plateau, beyond which women are denied the opportunity to advance to upper levels of executive management (Castro, 1997). The glass ceilings exist throughout the workforce in varied historically male dominated positions. These barriers, which have been in place since the beginning of mankind, resulted from institutional and psychological practices that remain in place to a wide extent (“Advancing Women in the Workplace”, 2003). Women who find themselves under such a ceiling may not, at first, even notice that a barrier was in place which separated them from higher levels because the glass is clear. But when they try to pass beyond a certain point in an organisation, they would quickly discover that this ceiling prevented them from advancement. Government figures have shown that gender bias is still prevalent in UK office work, with women earning 18 percent less for full-time and 40 per cent less for part-time positions (Millar, 2005). The jobs women have traditionally filled are not low-skilled as compared to those jobs traditionally filled by men. Sewing, for example, is a skilled art form seldom mastered by men. Women are more likely to be employed in jobs such as catering, cleaning and care-based professions because these are the types of jobs women have traditionally undertaken at home for no pay. Because of this, these types of jobs are undervalued, an attitude from the past that lives on today. Those that would argue that women should earn less than men point to the common perception that employing women ultimately costs a corporation more than do men because of the time off work and extra benefits paid due to pregnancies. However, research covering five countries refutes the conventional conviction that employing a woman is more costly than employing a man. The study concludes that the added cost of “employing a woman worker and having to cover maternity protection and childcare expenses is very small as this component of non-wage costs amounts to less than two per cent of the monthly gross earnings of women employees” (Abramo & Todaro, 2002). If all non-wage costs are taken into consideration, then the additional cost of hiring a woman comes down to less than one per cent. This figure includes training, compensating work injuries and other costs which apply to different categories of workers, both men and women. (Bruegel & Perrons, 2002). The gender pay gap between men’s and women’s average full-time hourly wages is 18 per cent in the UK. “This means that women working full time are currently paid, on average, 82 per cent of men’s hourly pay” (“What is the Pay Gap?”, 2006). “Why does this happen? It’s not because women are not prepared. The number of women holding bachelor and post graduate degrees has steadily increased. More and more postgraduate degrees are in the field of business management and law, the credentials that are now considered to be prerequisites for senior management positions” (Wells, 1997). This does not imply that women are not moving up the corporate ladder. “Surveys show that between 1982 and 1992, the proportion of women holding the title of executive vice president rose from 4 to 9 percent. Those at the senior vice president level rose from 13 to 23 percent” (Feldman, 1997). There is a growing concern in the UK that the employment laws designed to end gender discrimination has inadvertently influenced the advancement of equal opportunity in a negative way. In addition, the current laws are an impediment to employers who might otherwise endorse the necessity for advancement of diversity in the workplace. The laws can invoke a negative and defensive reaction from employers, especially those of smaller businesses. While protecting the rights of women by imposing penalties on gender-biased employers, it is also imperative to encourage progressive-minded employers who are themselves dedicated to promoting diversity. Studies conducted by the Small Business Council (SBC) discovered that many small business owners think that legislation designed to end gender bias has made no positive differences in hiring practices and very probably has impacted the fair hiring of women in a negative way. According to the study, employers view the laws as a simplistic measurement of discrimination that itself directs prejudice against most employers who are not inclined to discriminate so as to protect a small number of employees from a minority of employers that would. (“Discrimination Laws”, 2004). The discrimination of women in the workforce is in the direct interest of capitalism. By giving women the worst work, with no job security and low wages, an organisation creates an economical workforce, which they can replace at-will. Corporations keep their labour costs low and their profits high by hiring women as casual or part- time workers and by keeping women’s wages low, they divide the working class and keep all wages low as women workers can be used to threaten the job security of male workers. Women are often dependent on men because they, on average, are paid lower wages, a potentially dangerous circumstance to those women that find themselves in an abusive relationship. (Sirianni & Negrey, 2000). Modifying social attitudes concerning the separation of duties at work and at home is essential if women are to gain full equality. Generally speaking, men have recently begun to share some of the home duties but this must become a truly equal share for there to be any chance of true equality. If not, the old stereotypes will persist and women will continue to be second-class citizens in jobs where they perform at or above the level of their male counterparts. Persistence is the key. Those who complain about glass ceilings should keep in mind that glass can be shattered if one strikes it hard enough and long enough. References Abramo, L. & Todaro, R. (2002). Cuestionando un mito: costos laborales de hombres y mujeres en América Latina [Examining a myth: Labour costs for men and women in Latin America]. Lima, International Labour Organization. “Advancing Women in the Workplace.” (29 January, 2003). Women and Equality Unit. Improving Life at Work Conference: Crown Copyright. 10 April, 2007. Anker, R. (1998). Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of Occupations in the World. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Bruegel, I. & Perrons, D. (Spring 1998). “Deregulation and Women’s Employment: The Diverse Experiences of Women in Britain.” Feminist Economics. London, Routledge Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 103-125. Castro, Ida L. & Furchtgott-Roth, Diana. (1997). “Should Women be Worried About the Glass Ceiling in the Workplace?” Insight on the News. Vol. 13, N. 5, p. 24. “Discrimination Laws Hindering Equal Opportunities.” (10 September, 2004). Management Issues News. 10 April, 2007. Feldman, Gayle. (1997). “Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Women Have Had a Long Hard Struggle to Reach Their Current Status in the Industry.” Publishers Weekly. Vol. 244, N. 31, p. 82. Himelstein, Linda. (1997). “Breaking Through.” Business Week. N. 3514, p. 64. Millar, Michael. (7 September, 2005). “Women Perceive Male Bias in the Workplace.” Personnel Today [online]. 10 April, 2007. Sirianni, C. & Negrey, C. (March 2000). “Working Time as Gendered Time.” Feminist Economics. London, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 59-76. Wells, Jennifer. (1997). “Stuck on the Ladder.” MacLean’s. Vol. 15, N. 3, p. 162. “What is the Pay Gap and Why Does it Exist?” (February 2006). Women and Equality Unit [online]. Crown Publishing. 10 April, 2007. Read More