Gender Discrimination in Employment - Assignment Example

Gender Discrimination in Employment The expression, ‘a woman has to be twice as good as a manfor the same 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. Women’s employment is highly concentrated in female-dominated occupations which are often the lowest paid. Women are still under-represented in the higher paid jobs within occupations. 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. 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. Some have attempted to justify the concept and utilization of the glass ceiling for several reasons. “First of all, to become a CEO or president of a major corporation means forsaking, or at least subordinating nearly all other aspects of life to one’s career. Such a level of responsibility along with its attendant financial success requires putting in seventy or eighty-hour weeks” (Feldman, 1997). The argument supposes that men, much more so than women, are willing to completely submerse themselves in their work. Men will more readily dedicate their life to overseeing both the short-term and long-run needs of an organisation. This viewpoint speculates that women, on the other hand, would be less likely to sacrifice the loss of time spent with family or in the pursuit of leisure activities. It also relies on studies that have found that, on average, women are less likely to accept jobs that require the additional time a longer commute entails than are men. This is largely due to time constraints due to balancing career and parental responsibilities. This can impact on women’s pay in that they have a statistically smaller pool of jobs from which to choose. Also, the more women wanting work in the same location near to where they live correlates to lower wages for those fewer jobs (“What is the Pay Gap?”, 2005). Many women, however, are less family-oriented and more job-oriented. Women as well as men abandon ambitious business careers in favour of the less materialistic rewards that are presented by flexibility in their work schedules. This allows the individual to invest more time in raising the family and participate in leisure activities. Seemingly, however, men more than women are willing to commit themselves to the schedule demanded by the laborious objective of corporate achievement. An upward progression mentality in the business world frequently can be traced to values and ideologies that most men subconsciously learn while children. Corporations operate in much the same method that team sports and the military ‘chain-of-command’ teaches. “Women who fail to understand the importance of office politics, going through the proper channels, and being able to make decisions quickly put themselves at an automatic disadvantage. Even for many women who devote their full attention to career issues, many fail adequately to understand how much of the corporate world works” (Wells, 1997). Corporate life is a contest seldom perceived as fair for either men or women but more advantageous to men as the inner structure of advancement within organisations emulates what is already deeply entrenched in the male. “Whatever the objective merits or shortcomings of the different goals selected by men and women, the reality of those differences provides a sufficient explanation for most situations” (Himelstein, 1997). It has become unspoken standard operating procedure to disallow many qualified women top level positions which were merited by their performance. “The ‘glass ceiling’ barriers toward women are nothing but an insidious form of sex discrimination, in violation of law” (Feldman, 1997). Glass ceiling barriers exist almost unimpeded at all levels of organizations affecting women at different levels and in various types of business. Businesses which continue to hire only males for top level positions out of a desire to maintain a male dominated environment will inevitably “find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with rivals who promote more competent, underpaid females to do the same kind of work” (Well, 1997). 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 profession 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. In many industrialized countries, the progression of women into ever expanding and higher paying jobs has led to a rise in the earnings of the top echelon of women compared to average income for men in the same capacity. This has resulted in greater gender equality but at the cost of higher inequality between women as the majority of them remain concentrated in ‘women’s jobs’ that are of low salary and status (Bruegel & Perrons, 2002). With a goal of gender pay equity, particularly for part-time workers, the UK introduced a national minimum wage in 1999. Women accounted for 70 per cent of those who benefited from this measure. The pay gap between men and women’s part time hourly earnings and men’s full time hourly earnings is particularly large and because so many women work part-time, this is a major contributor to the gender pay gap. Some of this gap is due to part-time workers having lower levels of qualifications and less work experience. However, it is also due to part-time work being concentrated in less well-paid occupations normally possessed by women. 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). Woman must overcome historical social biases in addition to biological impediments when trying to enter and compete in the workforce. Most women, for example, return to part-time work or to jobs that can be termed low or mid-level skilled following childbirth because these positions are better suited to serve the needs of these women who need more flexible working schedules. In contrast to Britain, “Sweden enjoys a much narrower gender pay gap and has maintained a relatively high birth rate compared to the UK” (Foroohar, 2006). Since 1975, legislation has been in place that was supposed to enforce equality in the workplace regarding equal compensation among genders and protect against sexist discrimination in the UK but legal remedies have not eliminated the ever-worsening disparity of pay. Legislation in Sweden has provided more benevolent employment regulations for its citizens even when taking into account recent legislative efforts in Britain. On an average day, 20 percent of Swedish women in Sweden are home enjoying some type of salary-compensated leave. However, as compared to the UK and the US, the Swedish workforce is more segregated by gender and its glass ceiling for women is at a higher level. Though Sweden has strict policies regarding gender discrimination in the workplace, the gender-bias problem is more rampant than in the US where family-oriented policies are nearly non-existent. While employment legislation in Sweden allows women to better balance their home and work life, it seems to only impact low or mid-level skilled workers. American women hold an impressive 45 percent of all management jobs in that country. This number drops to 33 percent in the UK and 29 percent in Sweden. Woman in management positions make 15 percent less than their counterparts in the US and in Sweden this difference swells to 40 percent (Foroohar, 2006). Consequently, the policies that were instituted to allow women to be treated more equitably in the labour force may actually be hindering their advancement against the historical and biological biases they face (Morgan, 2005). Though U.S. policies generally lack empathy towards women and the poor alike, perhaps Britain should lead instead of the more benevolent Swedish policies. The U.S. government offers far less in the way of protective employment measures than Sweden or the UK but American women have greater access to management positions which suggests that the glass ceiling is less of an obstacle despite the lack of legislative intervention. There has been some support for the UK to adopt more of an American mind-set regarding employment discrimination legislation and include fewer provisions in its legislative efforts. Either way, one thing is certain, the UK is far from achieving true equality in the workforce where women are paid the same as men and do not have to choose between family and career. However, the latest legislative guidelines may not be the best method by which to attain this goal. “Discrimination law may be hindering the progress of equal opportunities in Britain by creating hostility and negative attitudes around the issues it is intended to promote” (Foroohar, 2006). A survey of Human Resource professionals in the UK discovered that more than eighty percent believe that managers are apprehensive when considering the job application of women who are of childbearing years. The survey was conducted following the extensively reported remark by Godfrey Bloom of the UK Independence Party who said, “no small businessman with a brain in the right place would hire a lady of childbearing age” (“Bosses Think Twice”, 2004). This widespread bias affects the ten million employed British women who are of childbearing years, 16 through 49. Given the option of hiring a woman that has older children or a young woman that has yet to start a family, most employers believe that the smart business move would be to choose the older woman because they are far less prone to require maternity leave. Of course, this is an unlawful practice. Employers cannot decline to hire a woman because she is pregnant or suspected to be nor can they refuse to consider the application of a woman who is in her childbearing years because these circumstances does not prevent her from performing the job. Employers are not allowed by law to inquire as to whether a woman plans to become pregnant in the future or consider their age in the hiring process. This practice is considered discriminatory. Employers of small companies many times believe that they have a reasonable cause for not hiring young women because it creates an undue hardship for them to replace an employee temporarily for maternity leave or to accommodate their needs for a flexible work schedule before and after the pregnancy. However, “the law is very clear. It is unlawful sex discrimination to take into consideration factors relating to gender when recruiting staff” (“Bosses Think Twice”, 2004). 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 debate seems to be growing regarding the need to make employment laws more straightforward to employers. Because the legislative efforts to create equal employment opportunities has been essentially ineffective, perhaps the UK should further consider the impact this legislation is having on employers. Is it possible that it has created negative feelings among employers regarding discriminatory matters? 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 businesses 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. More than 70 per cent of employers view this legislation as a genuine disincentive to expand their businesses which would result in creating additional jobs. Unfair employment practices will likely continue in spite of these regulations until employers appreciate the benefits diversity offers their business. When employers realise how diversity positively impacts their business, they will become the driving force in making the changes in hiring practices necessary to promote real progress (“Discrimination Laws”, 2004). Though gender discrimination is usually directed towards women, men have also experienced forms of bias as well. For example, a civil employee made a complaint regarding an employers policy that forced males to wear neck-ties. The employee, Matthew Thompson, won his discrimination case against Jobcentre Plus in Stockport, Greater Manchester. He claimed that it was unreasonable for men to dress in formal attire while the women had no such requirement. Thompson testified to the Manchester tribunal that female employees could wear informal attire such as T-shirts without facing punitive actions by the company while if men refused to conform to the formal dress code, they could be fined 10 per cent of their pay and also faced termination of employment (“Man Wins”, 2003). While opportunities for women in business have improved considerably and steadily over the years, it remains apparent that the door to the summit of business is not readily open to them. A 1993 survey indicated that 37 per cent of women who left their jobs “were tired of battling the glass ceiling” (Feldman, 1997). The eradication of discrimination of wages is vital to achieving legitimate gender equality. No permanent progress in the economic status of women can be expected on condition that the market rewards their time at a lower wage than that of men. While people in upper management progressively recognize the value of work force diversity, particularly at the management levels, glass ceiling barriers continue to disallow women the chance to compete for and secure supervisory level titles. Low pay is not just an issue for women but for their children whose quality of life depends solely on these wages. 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. Women comprise the preponderance of single parent households and the rate they have entered the work force has grown. The proportion of female-headed households has also increased in many developing countries. “Despite the redistribution of financial responsibility within the family, the burden of household duties and care functions still continues to fall largely on women’s shoulders, thus reflecting the endurance of well entrenched assumptions about work, family, society and gender roles in these spheres” (Sirianni & Negrey, 2000). From the beginning of recorded human society, tasks pertaining to care of the family were considered women’s responsibility. In recent times, economic and social behavior patterns have questioned specific gender roles at home and in the workplace. This is an important aspect of wage differentials between men and women. Even if women were paid the on the same scale as men and were afforded equal opportunities to advance within a corporation, they still would be expected to care for the household and everyone in it. 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. 4 December, 2006. Anker, R. (1998). Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of Occupations in the World. Geneva: International Labour Organization. “Bosses Think Twice Before Employing Women.” (17 September 2004). Management Issues News. 4 December, 2006. 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. 4 December, 2006. 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. Foroohar, Rana. (2006). “The Gender Gap: Moms Not Wanted.” Newsweek International. 4 December, 2006. Himelstein, Linda. (1997). “Breaking Through.” Business Week. N. 3514, p. 64. “Man Wins Tie Sex Ruling.” (11 March, 2003). BBC News. 4 December, 2006. Millar, Michael. (7 September, 2005). “Women Perceive Male Bias in the Workplace.” Personnel Today [online]. 4 December, 2006. Morgan, Patricia. (2005). Family Policy, Family Changes: Sweden, Italy and Britain Compared. London: Civitas. 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. 4 December, 2006. Read More