Gender Equality in the Workplace - Article Example

Are men and women treated equally in the workplace? The expression, ‘a woman has to be twiceas good as a man for 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. 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 institutions, 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 show that women are not treated equally to men in the workplace, the reasons for this cultural phenomenon and evidence to support this claim. 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. In addition, 60 percent of working women are employed in just 10 percent 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 percent of the labor force (Anker, 1998). Despite increasing levels of labor market participation, women still are not equally represented, especially at higher positions within organizations. This includes those companies that cater specifically to women 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” (Hewitt & Roche, 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 & Furchtgott-Roth, 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 (Hewitt & Roche, 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 organization, 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 a 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 in 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” 2006). However, studies indicate women as well as men are equally likely to 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” (Wells, 1997). 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 does 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 percent. 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 (Bruegal & Perrons, 2002). From the beginning of recorded human society, tasks pertaining to care of the family were considered woman’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 attain 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. Works Cited Abramo, L. & Todaro, R. 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, 2002. Anker, R. Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of Occupations in the World. Geneva: International Labour Organization, 1998. Bruegel, I. & Perrons, D. “Deregulation and Women’s Employment: The Diverse Experiences of Women in Britain.” Feminist Economics. London, Routledge Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1998, pp. 103-125. Castro, Ida L. & Furchtgott-Roth, Diana. “Should Women be Worried About the Glass Ceiling in the Workplace?” Insight on the News. Vol. 13, N. 5, 1997, p. 24. Feldman, Gayle. “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, 1997, p. 82. Hewitt, Patricia & Roche, Barbara. “Improving Life at Work: Advancing Women in the Workplace.” Women & Equality Unit. Department of Trade and Industry. London: Crown Copyright, 2003. Himelstein, Linda. “Breaking Through.” Business Week. N. 3514, 1997, p. 64. Wells, Jennifer. “Stuck on the Ladder.” MacLean’s. Vol. 15, N. 3, 1997, p. 162. “What is the Pay Gap and Why Does it Exist?” Women and Equality Unit [online]. (February 2006). Crown Publishing. September 11, 2006 Read More