The Causes and Consequences of Gender Segregation in Employment - Essay Example

Women and Employment THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF GENDER SEGREGATION IN EMPLOYMENT Introduction During the last twenty-five years, research on women and employment has focused significantly on gender segregation: which is the fact that the majority of women tend to work in occupations that are dominated by women, and men in ones that are dominated by men. Gender segregation has been shown to be directly related to inequalities in pay, career prospects and employment protection. It has proved to be one of the most important and enduring aspects of workforce inequalities as compared to race or class differentiations (Scott, 1994: 1). Gender segregation of the labour market originally means that it occurs as horizontal segregation when women and men work in different sectors, and vertical segregation when they hold jobs with different occupational status (Gonas & Karlsson, 2006: 65). Gender segregation in the workplace has deep roots in the gender division of labour in both historical and modern societies. The increasing proportion of women in the workforce in post-industrialized society, has resulted in women entering both traditionally female as well as traditionally male occupations (Jacobsen, 2007: 189). Gender segregation with inequality in pay is recognized as a major factor that pulls down the economic efficiency of the nation. Even so, patterns of segregation continue to remain through education, training and employment (Rees, 1998: 15). This can be associated with continued differences in women’s and men’s choices of education and career paths, besides other causes such as high childcare costs which may prevent women from full-time paid employment. However, globally, even in countries where there are organized, publicly financed domestic and childcare services, women still do most of the unpaid work. Unpaid work is not accounted for or valued like paid work (Gonas & Karlsson, 2006: 37). This paper proposes to investigate the dynamics of gender segregation in employment, the legislative reforms focused on introducing equality in working conditions and wages; and to identify the causes and consequences of gender segregation at the workplace. Discussion The Dynamics of Gender Equality in the Workplace: With increasing growth in the female labour force, women are entering many occupations in which they had previously been under-represented. Though sex segregation at work is reported to be decreasing since 1960, the change is slower than for segregation based on race (Jacobsen, 2007: 215). Gender segregation occurs at three levels: horizontally, where men and women work in different areas of work; vertically where they are found at different rungs of the ladder; and by the length of contract, where men tend to have permanent, full-time contracts, and women to have temporary, part-time contracts or sometimes no contracts at all. In the post-industrialized economy, with intensive growth in the service sector and associated part-time employment, increasing numbers of women have joined the workforce. In the member countries of the European Union, there are close similarities in the structure of gender segregation, with low proportion of women in the manufacture-related occupations, and high proportions in service employment, clerical, sales and professional occupations (Rees, 1998: 16). The relationship between gender segregation and social change is found to be puzzling because segration has continued and even increased, in spite of social change. Extensive changes in the structure of employment, fluctuating levels of employment, rising numbers of women joining the workforce, and the introduction of legislation against sex discrimination, gender segregation has continued. Though small changes have occurred in the sex composition of particular occupations, they have been offset by more concentration in others, so total levels of segregation continue to be high (Scott, 1994: 4). Higher qualifications help women to find less segregated jobs, where sexist attitudes are often less, and also play an important part in helping women get higher earnings. Firms recruit women with higher qualifications to reshape the firms’ internal labour markets. However, there is evidence of women being higher qualified as compared to men employed at the same level, so overqualification does not give women a competitive advantage over men. Also, discrimination at the selection process is possible, which cannot be overlooked (Scott, 1994: 19). Governmental Legislation and Reforms for Gender Equality in Employment: Around thirty years ago, a series of new legislation were developed in the United Kingdom for the purpose of creating equality for women, thus bringing considerable change in women’s working lives. In the year 1975, several new laws came into force: the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, and the Employment Protection Act 1975 which made maternity leave a statutory right; further the Equal Opportunities Commission was established the same year (Bellamy & Cameron, 2006: 1). As compared to the European Union average rates, the gender gap in economic activity is smaller in the United Kingdom. Nearly half, that is 46 % of the labour force in Britain is made up of women and 70 % of the total number of women are in employment. However, the perception of near equality of participation of women is not supported by fact. There are major differences in employment conditions and gender pay gaps in the United Kingdom, which are the worst in Europe, as disclosed by the Women and Work Commission. Women working full time earn 17 % less per hour than men, and women working part time 39 % less per hour than men working full time. The Equalities Review Interim Report revealed that working mothers are one of the most disadvantaged sections of the nation today. Mothers of young children face the widest pay gap, earning on an average only 67 % of the male hourly wage. Though the Labour Government has taken steps to improve the work-life balance for parents of young children, it is found that each year 30,000 pregnant women are still unlawfully dismissed from their jobs. Research has identified that discrimination is the main contributor to the gender pay gap, which implies that legislation against gender discrimination is not working effectively, and is poorly enforced. Legislation which deals with the complex and deep-rooted causes of discrimination, so that the focus is on prevention rather than cure, is required (Bellamy & Cameron, 2006: 1). Reform is now being undertaken again by the government, around thirty years after gender equality legislation was first introduced. Equalities legislation currently under review is part of the Department of Trade and Industry: DTI’s Discrimination Law Review (DLR) in the lead up to the introduction of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) and the introduction of a Single Equality Act (SEA). The Fawcett Society is working with legal experts to examine the problems in the current system and set out recommendations for the Single Equality Act. These are: simplification of gender equality legislation, ensuring effective enforcement of the Single Equality Act, employers’ role in tackling gender inequalities, and class or group representative actions should be encouraged, for a collective approach to reduce costs (Bellamy & Cameron, 2006: 5). The programme of social policy reform of the British Labour Government which rose to power in 1997, has proceeded at a rapid rate. The focus is on supporting the roles of citizen worker, parent/ carer and spouse/ partner with the help of The New Deals, tax and benefit policy such as the Working Families Tax Credit and childcare policy. More gender-sensitive policies are being formulated with consideration to both paid and unpaid work (Rake, 2001: 209). Further, the government supports men and women to overcome gender stereotypes in selecting study or career options, helps to develop work-life balance by making high quality, affordable childcare available, introduces flexible working arrangements for parents of young children, works in partnership with industry to use best practice in the recruiting and retaining of women at all levels, addresses occupational segregation and gender pay gap based on Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets: specifically PSA 9 on gender issues. The government is also taking steps to create opportunities to enable women to fulfill their potential in jobs which are relevant to their skills. For this purpose, a wide range of hurdles have to be tackled: by enabling and encouraging women to access the opportunities in education, vocational training and in highly paid employment in male-dominated sectors. Also, the men are encouraged into the traditionally female-dominated sectors, and women’s transition to the workforce after a break is eased (O’Neill, 2005: 105-106). The Causes and Consequences of Gender Segregation in Employment: Various factors may contribute to gender segregation at work. Causes such as personal choice of individuals, employer’s discrimination, inadequate information on the part of employers on women’s actual capabilities, company policies, and other factors will be identified and discussed. The consequences of segregation may be positive in some respects, but it is seen that significant negative impacts on women’s financial self-sufficiency, the organization’s efficiency and the country’s economic health can result from gender segregation in employment. Causes of Gender Segregation in Employment: The gender division of labour in households, regarded as a private agreement within domestic spheres, has prevailed since early times without any problem arising out of it, except for some feminists who have shown concern about it. In contrast, the gendered division of paid work has become an important issue in social science, politics and public debate (Gonas & Karlsson, 2006: 65). Domestic division of labour is seen to be a major factor in gender segregation due to several reasons, such as the influence of marital status on pay (Sloane & Williams, 2000: 473) and the negative effects on career prospects created by breaks for full-time housework (Horrell, Rubery and Burchell, 1990: 189). The attitude of employers that women will not be able to work full-time at certain stages in their life cycle, and cannot be relied upon to devote themselves to their employment due to domestic demands on their time, causes them to discriminate against women. Traditionally, men have been considered to be the breadwinners of the family, hence the better paid and more challenging jobs have been allocated to them, as against equally well-qualified women. Discrimination causes vertical segregation, with women getting lower types of jobs. Further, the different structures of occupations may result in segregation. For instance, whichever sex has the main responsibility for non-market activities such as domestic work or childrearing, may choose market work that will be compatible with the demands for time created by the non-market work. This may include the selection of part-time employment, or work in which partial involvement in the labour force is not penalized. However, if particular tastes or abilities are not required, it would still not be possible to determine which sex would be the one to choose non-market over market activities (Jacobsen, 2007: 203). Gender differences in tastes for work activities and/ or abilities: In pre-industrial societies, only in some occupations such as hunting did men predominate in all societies. Women being ascribed domestic work and childcare activities was specific to only some societies and was not a common feature among all. Because of the differences in tastes among men and women in various societies, it is doubtful whether it can be considered as a cause for gender segregation in employment (Jacobsen, 2007: 202). Segregation as a result of labour market imperfections: such as employers relegating jobs according to sex-types, due to inadequate information about an individual’s abilities. Thus, they may hire women only for female-dominated jobs if individual ability is unobservable. With more information workers could be better allocated to appropriate jobs, resulting in improvement in overall efficiency of the organization. Further, whether segregation favours men, and ignores the needs of women, can be noted by factors such as lower pay levels in female-dominated occupations. Sex-typing of jobs ensures female subordination. If segregation is based on discrimination, then it would be necessary to remove the root cause, by the introduction of attitudinal changes. For the social system of gender segregation in employment to persist, the majority of the society should find some benefits in it, depending on individual social situation. For instance, in the case of married women, in lower paid jobs, it may not be possible for them to get large monetary reward. However, in an income-sharing system such as marriage, they may find that other rewards are available, such as the possibility of being involved only in non-market labour such as domestic work during certain periods in their lifetimes. However, in current times, the high divorce rates and lower marriage rates can cause may cause great dissatisfaction in the system of gender segregation with lower pay for women (Jacobsen, 2007: 204). Discrimination: Workplace policies in favour of gender discrimination may affect the extent of segregation practised by the organization. Policies that do not promote women’s joining the workforce through a wide pay gap between the genders, lack of training or growth opportunities for women, no provision of benefits or long-term employment contracts, offering only part-time work and jobs at a lower rung in the corporate ladder, ensure gender segregation (Vogler, 1994: 39). The presence of discriminatory attitudes that differentiate between the value of men’s and women’s work is a major cause of segregation. Social class is a powerful reason influencing educational qualifications and level of employment. Gender norms and expectations in different communities vary, but do not always remain the same. The increasing presence of ethnic minorities in higher education and in the job market is that the proportion of Africans, Chinese, Asian-others and Indians in the 18-24 age group who enter university is double that of whites, who are under-represented in both genders. However, it is not possible to assume that cultural identities based on gender or other kinds of norms remain the same. Research shows that those cultures which had until recently opposed the education and employment of women are now producing increasing numbers of highly motivated young women (Ahmad, Modood & Lissenburgh, 2003). Personal choices: An important cause of gender segregation is the choices that individuals make about their training, career or employment. Several factors may contribute to these choices, including following gender stereotypes, personal preference, the requirement to meet simultaneous domestic demands, or lack of sufficient information, advice or guidance. Provision of guidance is crucial. Also, evaluation of careers especially those suffering from skills shortages, to determine whether fundamental changes have to be made so that they are sought after by both men and women, is important (O’Neill, 2005: 106). Consequences of Gender Segregation in Employment: Occupational gender segregation is one of the main reasons for the pay gap between men and women. Another consequence of occupational segregation is the skills shortages currently affecting several industry sectors. It also makes the structure of the workforce more rigid, thus impacting the productivity of the United Kingdom. This reduces the country’s potential when competing in the wider global economy (O’Neill, 2005: 105). The Gender Pay Gap: The headline gender pay gap is defined as “the gap between men’s and women’s median full time hourly pay, excluding overtime, as a percentage of men’s full-time hourly pay” (O’Neill, 2005: 105). The median is the middle value in a series of values, below and above which there are an equal number of values. This measure is preferred to mean or average pay, since it is not influenced by the higher pay levels. Since men and women work different number of hours per week, the government uses the system of hourly pay. The gender pay gap is observed to be closing every year, progressively, though the closure of the gap is slower in recent years. It is now at its narrowest since the Equal Pay Act came into force in 1975. Women working part-time are affected more by the disparity in pay. They earn 43.2 % less than men working full-time, as measured by the median, and 33. 7 % less than women working full-time. Women working part-time are in a few lower-paid occupations, due to the unavailability of part-time work in better paid occupations especially at the senior level. The other factors that impact full-time gender pay gap are: “occupational segregation, discrimination, differences in education, work experience and travel patterns between men and women, and the different caring roles which men and women perform”(O’Neill, 2005: 105). While the denial of access to women, regarding particular jobs is a status closure process and causes gender segregation, a major consequence of segregation is the devaluing of women’s work which is a status composition process. Together they produce most of the gender and racial inequalities in the workplace (Tomeskovic-Devey, 1993: 13). An important consequence of gender segregation and the allocation of work on the basis of gender, is the restriction of individuals’ chances for self-fulfillment. When jobs are classified according to gender, neither men nor women are free to take up work that suits them best. Individual members as well as society as a whole loses when workers are allocated jobs based on gender rather than aptitude, because of the substantial investments that have been made in developing the members’ abilities. It represents a failure of the economy to make use of available, qualified labour supply most appropriately. This lowers national productivity, which will decrease even more since more women currently attain advanced education and their expected work life increases. Labour shortages may occur unless these jobs are open to qualified individuals irrespective of their gender (Reskin & Hartmann, 1986: 9). While gender segregation affects the type of jobs available to both sexes, segregation is more harmful to women. This is because the occupations held by mostly women, are less desirable in various aspects than those held by men. Further, female-dominated occupations provide less on-the-job training and fewer opportunities for promotion. The consequences of gender segregation in employment follow women even in retirement, in the form of lower pension and other benefits as compared to men (Reskin & Hartmann, 1986: 9). Research shows that in many cases it is in integrated jobs, departments and hierarchical positions, that gender segregation operates most clearly. In female-dominated departments, women are able to attain higher positions. Further, the working conditions in which women and men function is an important aspect of studying equality at the workplace (Gonas & Karlsson, 2006: 61). Thus, a highly segregated situation may be considered to be more efficient than an integrated one. This is supported by Blackburn & Jarman (2006: 289), who state that the horizonatl dimension of gender segregation measures difference without inequality among the two sexes. On the other hand, concern regarding sexual harrassment, disruptive office romances, favouritism and other problems are seen to increase with more women joining the workforce. These problems arise whether men and women are in the same job class or not. Thus, segration of work sites are found to increase efficiency in work. However, the genders even when highly segregated by occupation may come into contact at work, such as the female secretary and male boss. Benefits to both employers and employees are observed to occur with increased workplace contact, such as increased cooperation and loyalty to the firm (Jacobsen, 2007: 203). Workplace Policies and Equal Opportunities in Employment: Workforce policies aimed at improving women’s well-being, including anti-discrimination policies, equal worth, and job training programmes improve the efficiency of the organization, besides benefiting women. Workplace policies may also be designed to modify employer behaviour concerning hiring and promotion, focus on programmes such as childcare subsidies that affect decisions regarding women participating in the workforce, and target sex integration as a desired outcome. However, it is observed that current policies have had a limited effect on segregation. Desegregational policies in the workplace can have permanent effects only if employers and employees become progressively more gender-blind in their work behaviour, while they are exposed to more men and women working in non-traditional jobs. A normative decision that gender-blindness is desirable because discrimination is undesirable or because the results of discrimination such as women receiving lower wages is unsatisfactory, would be required before underlying tastes can be modified. Beliefs are changed “through seeing men and women perform capably in a wide variety of roles” (Jacobsen, 2007: 204). Equal opportunities policies: Ninety percent of organizations have equal opportunities policy for appointing women including those from ethnic minority groups, in order to promote equality and diversity. Research conducted by the Equal Opportunities Commission showed that many employers did not implement this policy, and that about 15 percent of employers who did abide by the equal opportunities policy, included targets for the recruitment of black and Asian women. Sixty percent stated that their policy did not include targets for the recruitment of ethnic minority women, and a further 15 percent did not know about it. Moreover, the larger organizations were more likely to provide equal opportunities to women including those from racial minority groups, as compared to the smaller workplaces (Adams & Carter, 2007: 25-26). Conclusion This essay has highlighted the dynamics of gender segregation in employment, the governmental legislation towards equal opportunities for both genders and the causes and consequences of gender segregation in employment. Further, to what extent workplace anti-discrimination policies are effective for equal pay and privileges for both sexes, is determined. . To bring about gender equality in employment, new strategies of wage and work solidarity is expected to improve the situation. The introduction of fair wages, equal pay for the same type of work and equality in terms of working conditions would mean a sharing of opportunities and resources with marginalized women. Employers would also benefit from implementing gender equality and desegregation in the workplace: a performance appraisal system based on accurate job description to evaluate employees of both genders, the establishment of criteria for recruiting employees, the development of a formalized salary administration system, and ultimately, the loyalty of a competent workforce. The tasks of domestic work, caring, supporting and nurturing are included in non-paid work, and should be valued, whether done by women or men, according to personal liking and aptitude (Cotter, A-M.M, 2004: 32). For the gender division of unpaid caring, maternity and paternity rights to leave should be provided for, if possible supported by financial help. Thus a more just understanding of what constitutes citizenship can be implemented by the government (Rake, 2001: 227). Efficient allocation of human resources is essential. Ideally, men and women should be free to choose whatever job best suited them, given their tastes and abilities, when entering the workforce. In such a system there would be no need to ensure either integration or segregation of the two genders (Jacobsen, 2007: 202). Thus, workers, organizations as well as the national economy will be able to function at maximum efficiency. References Adams, L. & Carter, K. 2007. Black and Asian women in the workplace: The employer perspective. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission. Ahmad, F., Modood, T. & Lissenburgh, S. 2003. South Asian women and employment in Britain: The interaction of gender and ethnicity. London: Policy Studies Institute. Bellamy, K. & Cameron, S. 2006. Gender equality in the 21st Century: Modernising the legislation. London: Fawcett Society. Blackburn, R.M. & Jarman, J. 2006. Gendered occupations: exploring the relationship between gender segregation and inequality. International Sociology, 21 (2): 289-315. Cotter, A-M.M. 2004. Gender injustice: An international comparative analysis of equality in employment. England: Ashgate Publishing. Gonas, L. & Karlsson, J. 2006. Gender segregations: divisions of labour in post-industrial welfare states. England: Ashgate Publishing. Horrell, S., Rubery, J. & Burchell, B. 1990. Gender and skills. Work, employment and society, 4 (2): 189-216. Jacobsen, J.P. 2007. The economics of gender. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. O’Neill, M. 2005. Jobs for the girls: The effect of occupational segregation on the gender pay gap. London: The Stationery Office. Rake, K. 2001. Gender and New Labour’s social policies. Journal of Social Policy, 30 (2): 209- 231. Rees, T.L. 1998. Mainstreaming equality in the European Union: Education, training and labour market policies. London: Routledge. Reskin, B.F. & Hartmann, H.I. 1986. Women’s work, men’s work: Sex segregation on the job. New York: National Academies Press. Scott, A.M. 1994. Gender segregation and social change and economic life initiative research. In A.M. Scott (ed.) Gender segregation and social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1-36. Sloane, P.J. & Williams, H. 2000. Job satisfaction, comparison earnings and gender. Labour, 14 (3): 473-502. Tomaskovic-Devey, D. 1993. Gender and racial inequality at work: The sources and consequences of job segregation. The United States: Cornell University Press. Vogler, C. 1994. Segregation, sexism and labour supply. In A.M. Scott (ed.). Gender segregation and social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 39-77. Read More