but not far enough
even though women now outnumber men in medical school...
women make 17% less than men
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/gender-gap-pay-gap-wideni_n_818071.html
so much for the protection of wage discrimination laws...
maybe equality matters after all...
redblack
Member Profile
what happened to the lilly ledbetter act?
...he thought it likely that female doctors were taking less pay in exchange for regular schedules or other family-friendly benefits.
this shouldn't even be an option.
r/b: What do you mean by "this shouldn't even be an option"?
The fact is that maternity leave is and "family friendly scheduling" are important considerations in determining a person's workplace job status (which in turn has an impact on pay rate).
Long-term maternity leave is still considered a luxury in this country. Regardless of whether their workplace "tolerates" it or not, however, many women are still choosing to leave their careers (or going part-time) after they become mothers. This in turn causes resentment among bosses and coworkers (both men and women) who have to pick up the slack.
Personally, a woman taking a year off from her job doesn't bug me. But it does bug some folks, and I think that we, as a society, have got to come to grips with that fact.
Now, supposedly, you don't even have this problem in some places (Northern Europe for example) where there's more job equality and both mothers and fathers have the right to knock off for a year (with pay) to raise a kid. But those kinds of bennies come at a cost. As we know, Scandinavia has some of the highest tax rates in the world. And if it weren't for all that oil revenue — and a lot of wealthy Americans buying Saabs and Volvos — countries like Sweden and Norway might be looking at a sharp decline in their standard of living right now.
In fact, I understand from some of my Scandie friends that they're already starting to feel the pain . . .
redblack
Member Profile
what i mean is that no american - women or men - should have to sacrifice wages for "benefits" or "perks" like maternity leave. those things should be subsidized by employers; wages and benefits should not used as bargaining chips.
the way to "come to grips with it" is by forcing male-dominated management structures to change their behavior at a cost that distributes the "burden" of employee benefits equitably.
and if industry won't change voluntarily, then employees should consider collective bargaining and lawsuits to correct those wrongs.
flex time and maternity leave causes pain to you, the employer? not my problem. call your CPA.
A year of maternity/paternity leave AND the month of July is summer holiday for most in Scandinavia. Plus, guaranteed health care and shelter. Now, you can't buy more than 10 Advil over the counter or buy cold medicine without a Rx, but worth the taxes in my book when it comes to "working to live" vs. "living to work"!
I think the bigger threat to Scandinavian finances right now might be the fairly recent growth in availability of credit. Home ownership has typically been a big, big deal, based heavily on cash, but it's getting easier to get loans and *gulp* credit cards. Look how well it worked for us ;)
Sounds good in theory, redblack but:
1) "Distributing the 'burden' of employee benefits equitably" is not as easy as it sounds.
People in my last office* generally had good benefits already, but many of the childless ones really didn't like it that whenever one of our coworkers decided to have a kid, she could essentially demand to go part-time, take a year off, or work at home. Where was the equivalent benefit for the rest of us? How could we have addressed that in a collective bargaining agreement?
2) We are living in a different economic climate now.
It's not like the old days, where both America and labor unions were in the ascendancy. Competitiveness in the marketplace is a growing factor in determining wages and benefits. Workers who are too demanding of benefits will soon find themselves out of a job, benefits and all.
(Just look at what's happening to Boeing!)
You're lucky that you work in a relatively protected area, redblack. And I'm lucky that I had some money saved up . . . before I got the ax.
In this sense, however, I'm afraid we're both in the minority.
*My last 9-5 job (WA State DOH) was not in a male-dominated business. Three levels of management directly above me were occupied by women (all the way up to the Governor.)
redblack
Member Profile
the childless ones have the right to kvetch all they want; but i'm pretty sure that firing someone for getting pregnant - or needing time to take care of a sick kid - is illegal. as it should be.
thanks to the civil rights act and the ledbetter act, employees who are paid less than their counterparts because of gender, age, etc. are entitled to legal relief and compensation.
i know that times are tight, but let's not sell each other down the river out of desperation. because when the labor surplus shrinks again - any day now! - we'll wish we hadn't.
i like some of the stories of comeraderie in the work place that have surfaced in the past two years. employers insist they have to lay off one of their five employees. the five employees say, "no, let's each work one day less per week and no one gets laid off." it's that kind of thing that saves jobs more often than draconian cost-cutting.
redblack..
the teeth came out of the ledbetter act when the supreme court ruled that you had to file wage discrimination in a timely manner and specified the time.. i think 6 months.
where workers aren't unionized non-disclosure of wages is typical so many workers who suffer wage discrimination don't find out about it early enough to file.
once the initial discrimination exists... as long as raises show some parity.. ie percentage increase for similar performance reviews... the legal obligation of wage parity is considered to have been met :(
DP...
that argument has been used as the justification for female wage disparity for a long time...
but isn't using it against females who may or may not choose to procreate just a little self serving?
sydney
Member Profile
@DP: 'Male-dominated' doesn't go away just because locally there are more women in highly visible positions.
Anybody who thinks the feminist movement was wrong should read "Born Female" by Caroline Bird.
anyone who thinks the feminist movement was wrong should pay attention to what the "new" republicans are pushing in congress these days :(
yes, JoB, it's certainly not the "jobs, jobs, jobs" agenda that they said they were going to pursue. So far it's been anything but about jobs. As Rachel Maddow said last night, they are very intent on what goes on in yours and my uterus!
And by merely mentioning uteri this thread has now come full circle - you've come a long way, baby!
maude
Member Profile
I was hired at a mom and pop outfit because I was a woman. (Truth is, I still am a woman). Well, more likely it was because they thought I'd sue them for discrimination if they didn't. I wouldn't have, fwiw, and wish they never would have offered it to me. But, c'est la vie. I did make less than the guy who worked there doing the same job.
Then I went to work at an institute of higher learning. I left my initial post for a higher paying appointment only to be replaced by a fellow who received quite a bit more than what I had made doing the same thing. The only difference between us, besides me having more experience, was that he had a "family to feed".
maude...
a good woman doesn't have a family to feed..don't you know.. she has a husband
who if the republican model is any indication will likely cheat on her and replace her with a newer model once the kids are grown...
AARGH!
the irony is that the current bunch of first wives are in large part women who bought the idea that feminism was unfeminine and that they didn't need legal equal rights because they had already achieved equality.
That's not working so well for them now.
Zenguy
Member Profile
The truth is perceptions change slowly as the older generation (no insult meant) is replaced by the younger. My grandmother is 94 (depending on who you believe...she still lies about her age) and still feels like men are more qualified to do home repairs, even though my mother totally knows as much as I do.
Zenguy..
the perceptions of the older generation aren't the ones i am worried about...
it's the perceptions of a younger generation that are driving the current republican bus
and btw..
it's economic..
if women have no choice but to give birth when impregnated
then every woman is at risk for work interruption from pregnancy
and therefore can be paid less.
even in this enlightened age...
some men repeat that crap as though it had credibility.
"if women have no choice but to give birth when impregnated"
Really? This is something DONE to her? Unless a crime has been committed, last I checked women were capable of choosing to be impregnated. There should be no requirement whatsoever that I accommodate that choice or that anyone else subsidize that choice beyond a partner, spouse, or family. Pregnancy isn't a right or obligation. It is a decision. Prepare for it, prevent it, or don't have sex.
And don't start with all the what if and extreme scenarios where someone needs help. We all know those exist. I'm speaking of the conscious decision to have a child or knowingly participate in an activity that may result in that outcome.
I hate when women describe their gender as victims. This empowers no one.
You must log in to post.
All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^
westseattleblog
West Seattle Blog
West Seattle Blog