More on the workplace discrimination myth
Filed under: Career
This morning someone sent me a link to an article, expecting me to be outraged at the "sexist pig" who wrote it. Sadly, I fully agree with Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, that the supposed pay gap between men and women in corporate America is a myth.I made no friends at WalletPop when I wrote about this issue two months ago. I said then that the glass ceiling was a myth that is being perpetuated by women. Quite simply, if women are making less than men, it's because of career choices they've made. My female associates at WalletPop (especially the moms) were none too happy with this, and expressed that women have difficult choices to make when it comes to family and career.
I don't disagree in the least. Women's careers are often negatively impacted by the choice to have children and be involved in their lives. It's just disingenuous to claim that discrimination is the cause of the problem. It's not.
And is it even a "problem" that women who have devoted less time to their careers aren't promoted as high or paid as well as men who have been completely consumed by their jobs? I don't think so. People should be promoted based upon their qualifications and experience, and it stands to reason that those who have spent more time developing their careers will make more and be promoted higher.
Chapman refers to the American Association of University Women's study which reported that 75% of the difference in pay between men an women is directly attributable to differences in work history and life choices. The other 25%? No one knows for sure what it's attributed to, and therefore we can't just assume that it's because of discrimination.
I know a handful of men who have put their careers on the back burner in order to focus on their families. I've never heard any of them complain that they haven't been promoted or paid as well as those who made work their focus. So why do women complain about it?
Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
7-24-2008 @ 5:08PM
SP said...
All I can say is that from personal experience, I disagree. Whether it is blatant discrimination against women or just the way our society still treats women in the workforce, there is a glass ceiling. Can women overcome it? Yes, hopefully - it depends on how much gumption you've got and if you are willing to keep moving on until you find a firm with management that support you and advance you based on your qualifications and experience, no matter your sex.
The GAO, among other entities, has done studies and has found stats reflecting the reality that serious pay discrimination still exists.
See information here:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/lr/women_s_pay_discrimination/50470/1/
or here:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/womenspay.htm
There are more studies that you can find...
Reply
7-24-2008 @ 6:52PM
Tracy Coenen said...
A couple of good quotes from that study:
* Women in the workforce are also less likely to work a full-time schedule and are more likely to leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men, further suppressing women's wages.
*Women have fewer years of work experience.
These prove my point. Women aren't paid less because of discrimination. They're paid less because of their choices.
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 10:48PM
LH said...
Just because there is an explanation for an inequity under one set of circumstances, there is no guarantee the same explanation applies equally across the board. This article makes a sweeping generalization, lumping the entire gender-based salary discrepancy under the single heading of motherhood.
I accept the logic in the position that if Jane takes a year off following the birth of her child and returns to work with motherhood as a clear priority over her job, she will have fewer career and salary opportunities than John who took no leave and for whom job remains priority one. But this is not always the case. Not every mom in the workforce puts her job in the backseat, not every man who focuses on his career does so successfully, and length of uninterrupted employment is not the only criteria used to assess rate of pay.
Experience counts, but it is not the only measure of an employee. Some people are just better at certain jobs, and a talented woman might still perform better than her male counterparts despite having taken time off to raise a family. When interviewing applicants for a position, the job doesn't automatically go to the person with the longest, uninterrupted job history. When considering applicants for a promotion the same logic applies. Sometimes the new kid on the block gets a promotion over those who've been with the company longer.
To look at gender bias in the workplace and make the assumption that women who take time off to raise children explain it all away is bad science. To further extrapolate that data into the assumption that maternity leave puts women at a permanent disadvantage to their male counterparts is irresponsible.
"Chapman refers to the American Association of University Women's study which reported that 75% of the difference in pay between men an women is directly attributable to differences in work history and life choices. The other 25%? No one knows for sure what it's attributed to, and therefore we can't just assume that it's because of discrimination."
If "we" can't just assume that the other 25% is because of discrimination, then you should not automatically assume it is nondiscriminatory. You dismiss the glass ceiling as a myth. Myths aren't based on majorities, they're based on falsehood. Your statement: "I said then that the glass ceiling was a myth that is being perpetuated by women" dismissed the possibility that any women encounter a glass ceiling, dismissed the possibility of that 25% completely. Perhaps the study you cite is correct, and the primary obstacle most women face is the result of taking time to raise children. The 25% of the data that defies simple explanation should still be reason enough to take a closer look at the data.
It would be interesting to see if the salaries in the study were based on more than "work history and life choices." It really feels like job performance should be the primary determining factor in salary level, and yet job performance wasn't cited as a reason for the pay rate inequities. One wonders what a similar study exploring only men's salaries might find as the reason for pay inequities between men in comparable positions.
Having spent more than a few years in the American workplace, I've seen some mighty ugly reasons masked by some seemingly logical excuses. One boss once stated to me that she didn't intend to ever hire any black people, of course she never mentioned that when hiring staff. She always found a rational reason for hiring a white applicant. Another boss told me that he didn't believe women have what it takes to be managers, yet he always found a perfectly acceptable (and seemingly nonsexist) reason to promote men.
I accept that there are some women who lean more heavily on the "equal pay" side of "equal pay for equal work" and tend to dismiss the "equal work" aspect. Choices do come with consequences. Not choosing to attend college, choosing a particular career path, deciding to have/raise a family - all come with potential financial consequences. I also have been around the block enough times to know that a plausible explanation is not always the real explanation and that reducing a complex situation to a simple, one size fits most answer rarely gives a full picture of what's actually going on.
7-27-2008 @ 8:10PM
Leslie said...
I will disagree as well, from personal experience. It's like saying that color or ethnic background discrimination doesn't exist either. I agree with 8P, you are right. Saying that women are solely to blame takes pressure off of sexist companies that "do" think that way about women. As long as women are treated as second class citizens in this country and around the world there WILL be workplace discrimination Miss Tracy.
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 8:16PM
Agreement said...
There are some sexist places out their but i personally know a woman that makes over 110k so I totally agree.
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 8:23PM
Jim said...
Wow that is a power argument ((Sarc))
7-27-2008 @ 11:09PM
Sandy Jensen said...
I agree. It is just that women who are focused so much on the discrimination aspect fail to internalize the facts and realize that bosses, companies, coworkers, may simply see the truth and promote others who work longer, dedicate more of their time to the jobs. Do women who refuse to see that discrimination is not the driving force between unequal pay not comprehend that men may simply deserve the promotion or higher pay not because they are men but because they have earned it? I have watched this trend for decades. Women expecting and requesting more time off, special priviliges, and not all of them even have children ! - then whining because a man just happens to get a raise or promotion. The women who do earn raises and promotions are not complainers. They don't whine that they work harder and blame children or sexism. They simply work harder.
Reply
7-28-2008 @ 1:21PM
Erica said...
This doesn't even begin to address the real problem . . . Women who have equal expeience, intelligence, years of service, and commitment to their jobs as similarly situated men, yet receive less pay. You have to compare apples to apples. No one disagrees that having less experience or choosing lower paying jobs results in lower pay. The problem exists when resumes are equal, but pay is not. That's the glass ceiling and it does exist. Lower pay does come from false presumptions that because some women dedicate less time to work due to family, that all women will eventually do so, and thus shouldn't receive the pay or promotions reflecting their proven success and true potential. IT HAPPENS - - - A LOT!
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 8:46PM
Debbie said...
I agree. I have been in my job longer, have better qualifications, and a male colleague with less seniority makes 20% more than I do. A grievance is in process. Discrimination does happen all to often and not just because of family choices.
7-27-2008 @ 11:01PM
Tracy Coenen said...
Erica wrote: "...the real problem . . . Women who have equal expeience, intelligence, years of service, and commitment to their jobs as similarly situated men, yet receive less pay. You have to compare apples to apples."
That's the whole point of this article. No one can prove that such a thing is happening on a wide scale.
7-27-2008 @ 8:22PM
Jim said...
There are likely many reasons women make less in certain circumstances . It is very rare that one thing causes or is even the biggest cause of issues such as pay inequity. I know of many women in my life , in fact most of them, who have quit work , stayed at home, or went part-time. It only makes sense that the amount they can demand will be lessened unless they continued their education or increased their skills while not working.
Women that think they are worth more simply need to negotiate more. If a worker is of higher value the employer will need to increase the salary to keep that person. Most employers realize this. Sure there are a few jerks out there but when it comes down to it , just as you and I do in both our personal and business lives, we will pay the least we can.
Also, please note that men work jobs that are far more dangerous. I believe men are dominant in the top 24 of the top 25 most dangerous jobs. Also I suggest you see this article and chart:http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/dangerousjobs.htm
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 8:27PM
Susan Williams said...
So they have the young girls backing up their non-discrimination myth. These girls have to do this to keep their jobs. The fact that a woman cannot express herself on the job and has to tow the company male line is discrimination. Two years ago I worked in an office where I trained a young man who was younger than my oldest son and later found out he was making $4000 a year more than I was making. I had more education and experience than he did. I practically had to do his job and mine. I cried when I found out he made more. I loved my job and they really showed me what they thought of me. I immediately found another job for myself and contacted the EEOC about the discrimination. After having to stay after these people for 6 months, the EEOC finally got the company records and because he technically worked in another department there was nothing I could do. After I left, the young man wound up being fired because he didn't do anything. I was doing all the work. All you have to do is look at the current Presidential election. Hillary Clinton had the support of the people but Obama had the male dominated media in his back pocket. This current election has brought to the service again the big discrimination felt by all women.
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 8:30PM
Jim said...
A "woman cannot express herself"? Hmmm seems you are saying women lack communication skills. Who are you blaming for this?
7-27-2008 @ 8:59PM
Stephanie said...
"This current election has brought to the surface again the big discrimination felt by all women". This current election has brought nothing to the surface that wasn't already there. Because a woman was running, doesn't mean she was the best candidate. Because she didn't win, doesn't mean she was discriminated against. As her husband banged on repeatedly during the primary season, this is a fight that isn't for the faint of heart. She fought hard and she lost, period. Speaking for myself, what bothered me, more than any sign of the sexism in our country, was the candidate's air of air of entitlement and it turned me off. As for discrimination and sexism yes exists, those who deny its existence have not experienced it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The challenge is to be prepared and confront it when it rears it's ugly head, but don't blame it if you're not prepared. The working mom issue is a another issue all together-those of us doing the 9-5 and running a household know we don't have time to be distracted by the noise, the boys still care for their own and we care for the kids, period!
7-27-2008 @ 8:27PM
Roger Landley said...
All I can say is, as a man, I believe that the real problem is the growing discrimination against men by women in the office. This problem will only compound as more women than men enter white collar work in the next ten years (since more women go to college than men now). On the whole, men do eveything in their power not to appear discriminatory toward women. Not only that but having worked with female bosses I can honestly say they are simply harder for men to deal with. I say bring women back to the kitchen. I am tired of working for them. I would sooner move to another country than work for another female boss.
Reply
7-28-2008 @ 3:35AM
Mad Dog said...
I agree with the author. Let's not forget that the world doesn't revolve around the white collar jobs. Men do a lot more of the grunt and dirty work that you don't ever, ever or would see a woman stoop down to.
Everything around you, buildings, roads, sewage, the traffic lights, the electric poles were put there by men. Is it any wonder men die younger, at least ten years, to women? Could it be men do the riskier and arduos work that exposes them to chemicals, etc and work harder and longer for their families. Hence the bigger pay check for the one who takes the most risks.
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 8:25PM
Jim said...
Prove it.
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 8:34PM
Alex said...
I can only speak from my experience. I had more experience, took less time off, worked longer hours, achieved a hire profit, and better over all productivity with my team. I was also the lowest paid of 11 people in the same title and the same store, most of whom were men. I found that (even though we were not supposed to discuss our salary) new hire men with little or no experience were hired making up to $7000 more per year, then I was after 3 years of working with the company, and they were more then happy to tell and even complain about their paychecks. When raises were handed down each year, I know for a fact that at least once three of the men were given 4% raises, while two of the women including myself were only given 2%.
So as I can only speak from my experience, I know for a fact that there was discrimination in that particular organization, and heave heard from others that this same situation goes on in their work places.
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 8:43PM
Jim said...
Alex.
Please explain how that proves discrimination? What other factors are used to determine raises? Are you sure these men were telling the truth? God knows they would never lie. How do you know the other woman did not only deserve 2 %?
When did you ask for a higher raise? What did they say?
Somehow I bet you never asked.
If you did and were shot down when did you send out your first resume to other employers?
7-27-2008 @ 8:36PM
Jenna said...
This article is lame, if not extremely naive and biased! I am a female, under 40, worked for the same corporation for 20 years. I clawed my way up the ladder, refused to accept when a man of less experience and commitment was promoted before me, especially since I had a proven record of increasing revenue and was given several awards for achievement, yet that did not stop them from trying! At one point I gave my notice, in writing, stating the reason for leaving. Within a day, human resource dept. was calling me, within a week, I was given the promotion and my resignation withdrawn. Some try to slam the door on women no matter what they do. The point is, FIGHT BACK!
Reply