Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

50 More Years of Women Making Less Money Than Men?

By Jennifer Waldref, Women's eNews. Posted July 10, 2008.


Research shows pay discrimination isn't going anywhere soon. Neither are promotion barriers, sexual harassment or bias against mothers.
womensenewslogo
For more Women's eNews, visit, www.womensenews.org. To subscribe to Women's eNews, the daily news service for all women, go to www.womenenews.org/join.cfm.
Advertisement

PORTLAND, Ore. -- With two decades of experience under her belt, Lindsay Hall was confident she was a strong candidate for a promotion within the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency in Oregon where she works as a wildlife biologist.

But after agency "subject matter experts" reviewed all candidates who received the highest ranking from the agency personnel department, Hall -- who asked that her name be changed because she still works for the government -- found herself cut from the applicant pool. Two candidates, both male, were interviewed, and the one who was offered the job had about five years' experience, compared to Hall's 20.

It was not the first time she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a male applicant with less time in the field. Six years earlier, Hall and another woman both applied for an agency position that dealt with hydrosystem policy on the Columbia River's network of power-generating dams. Hall had policy experience, and the other woman had done her master's thesis on the Columbia River hydrosystem. But a less experienced man with a social science degree was hired.

After the second job slipped away, Hall filed a "pre-grievance" with the agency, providing her access to confidential personnel documents. She discovered that the "subject matter experts" ranked her a couple of points below the man who got the job despite her greater experience. They drew what she describes as an "arbitrary line" between her name and his and didn't interview anyone below it.

"When it happens to you, it doesn't take but once or twice and you start to become mistrustful," said Hall. "It's very demoralizing. You end up shifting your focus away from work as a survival tactic."

Few Squeeze Through the Porthole

Rather than calling it a "glass ceiling," Hall sees advancement within her agency as a "porthole" that only a select few can pass through. Younger men, she says, seem to have an easier time getting through the porthole than women, even if the women have more experience under their belts.

Despite her frustration, Hall has been reluctant to leave her job because of her seniority and the benefits it provides. But the thought of losing out on another promotion has left her considering her options.

While women such as Hall might keep their jobs, they say the cracks in the glass ceiling that once seemed to be widening have been filled by a number of sticky problems, such as sex bias in promotions, sexual harassment, pregnancy and motherhood bias, and unequal pay for equal work.

The average 25-year-old woman who works until age 65 will earn $523,000 less over her lifetime than the average working male, according to a 2004 report compiled by Milwaukee-based 9to5 National Association of Working Women.

It's a discrepancy largely due to women earning less than their male colleagues for doing the same work.

Although the gender wage gap has narrowed over the last three decades, at its current rate it will take until 2057 to close, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently dealt a blow to women's ability to sue their employers for pay discrimination. In the 5-4 Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision handed down last year, the court's majority ruled that employees cannot sue unless they have first filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 of the discriminatory pay being set. Since salary information is often secret, a woman may not know she was paid less until the clock has run out.

While some members of Congress attempted to redress the court's decision through the Fair Pay Restorative Act, so far their efforts have been stymied. The bill is stalled after a Republican filibuster in the Senate, but a group of female senators hopes to resurrect it later this year.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: sexism, workplace, gender bias, pay discrimination, wage gap

Jennifer Waldref is a freelance writer and communications specialist in Olympia, Washington.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
a few questions
Posted by: leta on Jul 10, 2008 3:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If companies are constantly trying to save money why don't they just all hire women?
How much is women's choices affecting the wage gap? Does choosing to get an arts degree instead of an economics degree affect their earning potential? Men are more likely to choose dangerous occupations that come with a premium. Does the tendency for women to choose non life threatening occupations affect their earning potential?

If women earning less than men signify discrimination does that mean men earning fewer university degrees also signify discrimination?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh yeah... Posted by: Moira61
» RE: Oh yeah... Posted by: leta
» RE: Oh yeah... Posted by: writer7
» RE: Oh yeah... Posted by: leta
» RE: Oh yeah... Posted by: Moira61
» RE: Oh yeah... Posted by: leta
» RE: Oh yeah... Posted by: Moira61
» RE: Oh yeah... Posted by: marilee
» RE: Oh yeah... Posted by: leta
» RE: Oh yeah... Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» Females earn 97 % of the male salary Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» RE: Right again! Posted by: Crazy H
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Cry me a river Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Cry me a river Posted by: rickiey
Okay, enlighten me...
Posted by: Q30 on Jul 10, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...where is the PROOF that "discrimination" AND NOTHING ELSE causes this wage-gap?

Go ahead and prove it. It should be easy prove, right? Just circulate a survey among corporate managers asking them "Do you think women should be paid less than a man for doing the same job?" And tabulate the results. Easy, right? Where IS this study?

But think of it this way: there's a similar wage gap between self-employed women and self-employed men. Since there's no one setting the wage of a self-employed woman, discrimination alone CANNOT be the cause.

Furthermore, there's a wage gap between straight women and lesbians, with the gap FAVORING lesbians. Are you telling me that companies discriminate against straight women in favor or lesbians?

Or could it be, in both cases, that lifestyle choices are way more of a culprit than discrimination?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Okay, enlighten me... Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Okay, enlighten me... Posted by: ladyoracle
» RE: Okay, youre enlightened. Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Okay, youre enlightened. Posted by: chrysalis124812
» H, look... Posted by: Q30
» RE: Q, thanks... Posted by: Crazy H
The only reason
Posted by: Last Chance on Jul 10, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the first Queen Elizabeth was allowed to reign over England was because she proved she could be just as tough and cruel as any macho male king, like her mad father -- and the only reason women today can lead large corporations is because they prove they are just as devoted to bottom line profits as their male colleagues -- and your only objection is they don't get comparable salaries???? Yikes, whatever happened to the Women's Liberation movement?

The only way women can free themselves from macho domination is to eliminate macho domination, not by joining it, but by refusing to feed it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the problem with America
Posted by: nfamous on Jul 10, 2008 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is sexism in America and there are also women that complain about everything whether any sexism actually exists. In corporate America if you are a young attractive woman you can go far. The real discrimination is against old, unattractive and overweight people. Americans always think issues are cut and dried. They are not. This is a complicated issue.

Men actually do spend more hours in the office than women but maybe women work harder. Women get maternity leave but they also have to pay for daycare many times by themselves. Men in this country are angry right now and they should be. What we're seeing is a gender war created by the elite to decrease the population. We're seeing the emasculation of men on tv and in film. Not only that but women are becoming more and more masculine.

Men and women are not wired as different as people think. We are socialized to believe that nonsense from birth. Women like sex just as much as men. Women cheat just as much as men, nowadays even more. No matter what the social ills of the day are, however, capitalism will usually pay women less for the same job because it can. Power concedes nothing without a demand.

On the lighter side, female tennis players get equal prize money in the Grand Slams. I disagree with this because men play three out of five sets while women play two out of three. That is reverse sexism. Either the men should get to play two out of three or the women should play three out of five. If women are not fit enough to do that then they don't deserve equal prize money. You can't have it both ways where you admit to being the physically weaker sex and then want equal pay too and that's what women want today. It's not feminism. I'm a feminist. Women want double standards encoded into laws and they are getting their way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» really tiresome Posted by: binkey
» RE: really tiresome Posted by: Crazy H
Aah, SHUT UP ! It's not about how much they earn alone.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 10, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's what they can make out of it. Anyway, let's stop getting distracted by the gender divide and go gender blind for a change, ok?

Besides, women get to dress sexier than men so that more than makes up for it !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More than words Posted by: Last Chance
In order to maintain the status quo ...
Posted by: bdcroan on Jul 10, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vote republican. Look at the recent decision by the supreme court ruling in favor of big business for pay discrimination. Thank you George Bush.

Society loses when woman are denigrated. Generally our communication skills are different and our approach to problem solving is different. One isn't better than the other; it's just different.

I think society benefits when each gender's traits are appreciated. This macho administration has/is destroying the country with war, debt, fascism, etc. Yes, vote republican to finish us off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

company of all woman hires
Posted by: cyr3n on Jul 10, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd once worked at a company that had only 4 males in it... and 90% of the employees were women 40+. 1 guy worked in the copyroom, 1 guy handled accounts, the other 2 guys were running the company. I'd worked there part-time one Summer at 17/hr doing data entry and they pitched me a full-time job handing cobra insurance accounts.. for a measly 36k with no health benefits! And this was an insurance company!

How that's fair pay for a college grad with 3 degrees and PMP certification is beyond me. 36k is barely a living wage in the NYC-metro area. I can only imagine how lousily the other ladies were getting paid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More of that feminist reasoning . . .?
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jul 10, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone here said, if women are always paid less, and do the same work, why would anyone who wanted to make money hire anyone but women?

Anyone who has ever owned a business where men and women work knows not only that articles like this are utter claptrap, but knows why women make less money in a lifetime than men. On the other hand, for those willing to buy the kind of nonsense this article spews there's no convincing with facts.

Suffice it to say that women make less money than men not only because they invariably produce less (PMS every month, time out for the pregnanccy, and fifty things more, plus - in some instances - the obvious differences in strenth and endurance make it hard for any employer to believe a woman will do the same work as a man), but because women want different things.

This is among the most intellectually dishonest, politically-motivated and intentionally deceptive, articles I've ever read. Thanks, though, I'll use it for an essay on the subject of propaganda and "news" distortion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» wow......... Posted by: felipe
» RE: wow......... Posted by: wagadog
The power of money is not in its earning but in its spending
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jul 10, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And women account for over 80% of all consumer discretionary spending in the economy. That's why all of TV outside sports is targeted at women, which is easily seen both from the subject matter and the advertisements. Not to mention how all the malls are filled with women shopping for stuff with money they don't earn.

So maybe there's much more going on than the article covers. After all, evil is partial vision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't blame me
Posted by: SouthernWolf on Jul 10, 2008 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I voted for Hillary. If women ever want equal pay for equal work they've got to take a principled stand- and not vote in the General election just on the general principles of objecting to the way Hillary was treated in the media, and the "bros before hos" mentality of the McObama campaign. Hillary has not helped women, to be sure, by submissively standing by her man Obama in return for an increase in her allowance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Posted by: soowee on Jul 10, 2008 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless of the influences of the job marketplace and the "mommy gap," the law of unintended consequences has had destructive effects on the workforce, men and especially women.

Few, if any, foresaw that the emerging doctrines of gender equality would result in a doubling of the workforce without a consequent doubling of job opportunities.

This is not a plea to return to the "good ol' days," but merely to point out one of the horrible surprises imposed on the workforce.

It is now easier for employers to mistreat ALL employees, but women traditionally have it worse. Couple that with an indifferent Supreme Court and a President unwilling to enforce laws he does not like, and that spells trouble.

But, in defense of some employers, the glutted labor marketplace has innocently enhanced their bargaining power.

Realistic market analysis is always prudent when considering change in large-scale social policy, just to anticipate (& perhaps avoid) the problems.

H. Watkins Ellerson
PO Box 90
Hadensville, VA 23067
(804) 457-4243

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
Problems
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Jul 10, 2008 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing many people don't realize is that in matters of employment discrimination it is incumbent upon the employee to file the appropriate action against the employer. Filing with either the EEOC or the state human rights agency must be done within statutory time frames, of course. The downside is that most agencies have a backlog of cases going back as much as 3 years, or more. So the person who files the complaint either has to return to work while the case is pending (and although there are laws prohibiting retaliation against people who file discrimination complaints, well, we're living in the real world)or quit and try to find another job. Filing a complaint can be career suicide; I know because it happened to me. Pursuing a case against an employer is time consuming and emotionally draining, and then the outcome of pursuing justice is just more injustice. I worked in the legal field for more than 10 years before I filed my complaint five years ago. After developing anxiety disorder and the equivalent of PTSD, I quit my job. To this day I am not able to re-enter my field and have had to take a job making half of what I used to earn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Problems Posted by: bdcroan
Advice To Women : Work For Yourselves
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Jul 10, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can't have a bad boss if you don't have a boss. If at all possible, choose self-employment over a job. This is not an option for everyone, but often it is a "fork in the road" for professional people. Experiences like those listed in the article would certainly weigh against working for a salary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr.
Posted by: Howard on Jul 10, 2008 10:11 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have had experience with sexist, male bashing, bigoted women in the market place and on the job site. It is a shame to the flag, but there is a school of thought that has arisen in pagan America that women should be promoted and revered above men, and if they are not, a contrived scandal ensues. This country is swiftly heading toward a time and place in history when it will need to resort to foreign recruits to fulfill its quota for military troups. Society has loosened the reins on woman for the past 45 years. Abortion has become a less convenient form of "birth control", while at the same time, co-ed college has "evolved" into a place where child day care centers are always on campus. The industrial world is in a moral chaos that is one step away from conscripting women into the armed services. It may as well take the final step in the direction of giving the pants to her, and begin drafting both men and women into the military. It is about time she earned her new place in society, because she certainly doesn't make a loyal wife and mother anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hey Howard... Posted by: writer7
» RE: hey Howard... Posted by: bdcroan
» RE: Mr. Posted by: beautifulady2003
Equality means Equality
Posted by: nfamous on Jul 11, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a man among millions who are tired of women and their double standards. If women want equal and they do then men should not have to pay for dinner on dates when both people want to go out. Equality means equality. You cannot have complete gender equality at work and then go back home to traditional gender roles. People cannot switch back and forth like that. It's confusing and it's irritating. Women have to choose but they won't. They want it both ways to have equal pay, which they should have but I don't control all men, and they also want men to ask them out on dates, hold doors for them and pay for everything. The days of the double standard are over. Since women wouldn't choose one of the other men are making the choice for you and it's complete gender equality and an end to chivalry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: quality means Equality Posted by: gluck7104
The real reason that men get paid more
Posted by: rickiey on Jul 11, 2008 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A big part of many jobs, is being willing to accept humiliating comments, admitting to be wrong when they are right, accepting criticism that is pure bullshit with a smile, and generally turning your pride off.

Women train men to do that as soon as dating starts.

Women, on the other hand, are used to being flattered, told that they are right when they are wrong, and generally agreed with. That doesn't help at work, even slightly.

Woman train men to be better employees.

The wage gap is the fault of women, during dating.

(I've found the only way to combat bullshit stereotypes is with other bullshit stereotypes)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They don't all get paid more Posted by: messedup
Thanks!
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jul 12, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks, everybody here, for your remarks. I'm a researcher working on a thesis having to do with the public discourse, public group intelligence, and their effect upon the democratic process and the nation's future.

The subject wherein it is easiest to draw examples of poorly-reasoned, ill-informed debate is always that having to do with "sexism," feminism, and things related.

For instance: Usually these days, just as I did as an employer in the 1970s, employers do a (computerized) statistical analysis of the prospective productivity of the prospective employee. The analysis is a statistical projection based on literally decades of performance data and history having to do with productivity in the related workplace - a kind of military TNDM (Tactical Numerical Deterministic Model) for industry.

Most - I haven't noted an exception - of the people arguing here seem to have no realization whatever of that simple fact. Nevertheless, any employer in today's competitive world has profit in mind. Nobody but a fool - or swift failure - will hire anyone strictly on the basis of gender. In other words, the employee whose hiring is most likely to prove profitable is hired.

Everything else is utter nonsense.

Still, the extremist public staunchly lives in an intuitive, first appearance is decisive - even when based stictly on rhetoric in total absence of facts and data, ideological world. Feminism is an example of such an ideology. It doesn't care about facts, only about feeling and emotion; and, of course, feeding its biases. There's a serious lesson in that for the future, and many things other than employment.

I'm about to conclude research and participation in Internet debate, satisfied that I have overwhelming (six years worth) documentation of what I will write. Some has already been paid for - that having to do with the tactical employment models I made reference to here. Hopefully, I'll be able to sell more.

Again, thanks for your remarks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

77 cents
Posted by: mike_burns on Jul 13, 2008 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am as liberal as a food stamp and I hated some of the thing guy wrote on here. I believe in justice and equality, but there is one general fact that my life experience has taught me.
A womans earns 77 cents for every man's dollar.
A woman spends 77 cents of every man's dollar.
There is a reason womens clothing is in the front of the store, and romance novels dominate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Might be another form of discrimination
Posted by: YogiBear on Jul 13, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two candidates, both male, were interviewed, and the one who was offered the job had about five years' experience, compared to Hall's 20.

What were their ages?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women treated inequitably..
Posted by: gluck7104 on Jul 18, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WOW say it ain't so. Please this is reported as though it should be appalling. The myth of this 'united' states is that there is liberty and justice for all. Check out the medical research that has been done on women...unless it has to do with equipment that a man doesn't have, ie. ovaries, uterus, breasts..The research is done primarily still to date on men. Please!!! liberty and justice for all? Yes we have a 'blind' sydtem that cannot be repaired because in order to be repaired it has to be acknowledged and IGNORANCE is bliss for many men and quite a few women! United staes? I know this is a gap that will remain because equality is as unreal as the 'ethics' in the hearts o our political and social structures.I am not shocked. Only saddened.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jul 23, 2008 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fifty years is optimistic.Try a thousand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]