I never said being a stay at home mom was easy. That is certainly a difficult, time consuming, and all too often thankless job. It is also one of the most important jobs known to humanity.
I also never said there were equal numbers of men and women in the IT workforce. Not as many women find the IT lifestyle attractive. It's also a field that changes at such a rapid rate that it's hard for anyone to take a few years off then come back.
I never said women do not take work seriously. I said, and studies have proven, that men tend to make career decisions based on money, while women tend to make career decisons that will earn them a better life. Saying that it's just a 'cultural thing' that men get paid more doesn't change the fact that it's the decisions they make that get them to that point.
Loner - if you do everything the men in your office do, and you have the same (or better) qualifications, and you are being paid less, you need to do something about it. But that's a choice only you can make. I used to work at a university when I started in this field. The pay was horrible, and was the reason I earned less for 2 jobs after that compared to coworkers (some of whom were women!). But the benefits were amazing - full health, dental and vision; unlimited sick days; 24 paid holidays in addition to 2 weeks of vacation; Fridays off in the summer and if you worked any of those holidays you received overtime on top of your normal salary for the day (you got 2.5x your normal pay). My mother in law works at the same university. She complains about the low salary, but when I left and told her I could get her a job at the firm I went to, she didn't want it. She enjoyed all the benefits, and the fact that it was 10 minutes from her house. She made a lifestyle choice that had a negative affect on her financial situation. But it was more important for her to have the time off, etc.
As for doing chores after a long day at the office, I do those too. If I get home before my wife, I cook dinner. On weekends, while she's preparing for a class, I go do laundry. And when we have kids, I look forward to helping with them too. As far as taking time off to take them to the doctor, or pick them up, my wife and I will have to work that out. But I know in my office, when it's crunch time, and everyone is staying, we frown upon the people who leave early regardless of gender.
Yes Chris, that is the article. The whole paragraph from which you selectively quoted is:
What about the headlines saying that even when their jobs are the same, men get paid more than women? Isn't that especially true in corporate America? Yes. But according to Catalyst, a nonprofit that advocates for gender equality in the business world, men are nine times more likely to be responsible for bottom-line sales, marketing and finances, not human resources or public relations.
There's nothing confusing there. To give you an example from my workplace, the Director of IT (probably, and rightfully) makes more than the Director of PR or HR. Why? Because his job is more important to the day-to-day aspects of business. He's in charge of making the technology decisions that will allow everyone here to do their job better, faster, etc. He has to make sure his budget can accomodate our needs, as well as handle any emergencies that come up. The HR director has to decide which person will make a more reliable mailroom messenger.
Greg - thanks for being a voice of reason. For the record, I'm married, no kids, and the wife and I are looking at houses right now so we have someplace to raise a family.
Yes Frank, I selectively quoted a part of that paragraph to sort the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunatley, you still missed the point.
Let's look at the entire paragraph again:
"What about the headlines saying that even when their jobs are the same, men get paid more than women? Isn't that especially true in corporate America? Yes. But according to Catalyst, a nonprofit that advocates for gender equality in the business world, men are nine times more likely to be responsible for bottom-line sales, marketing and finances, not human resources or public relations."
In the first three sentences of the paragraph (the part that I selectively quoted), the author is talking about disparities between men and women with the same jobs. In the last sentence of this paragraph, he attempts to rationalize this disparity by comparing income in different jobs (sales, marketing and finance vs. human resources and public relations).
Again, when you're arguing about differences in pay between a Director of HR and a Director of Technology, you're arguing with yourself. The problem is over gender pay disparities when they occur in the same job.
Even if they have the same job it doesn't mean the do the same job. For a while I was stuck working on a help desk. We were all "help desk analysts", we all had the same job, but some people clocked in at 9, out at 5, and took their 1 hour lunch. Some of us worked harder, longer and more consistantly. We succeeded and moved on.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time men clock an average of 45 hours a week, while women put in 42 hours. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work at least 50 hours a week - that's why most CEOs are male. Only in a socialist economy do employees get paid the same, regardless of the number of hours worked.
And Chris, you never answered my question earlier - if a company can hire a woman to work for 75 cents as opposed to hiring a man for $1.00, why are there any men in the workforce? Wouldn't they hire all women to gain the financial advantage over the competition? It just doesn't make sense that for a quantifiable work product, companies (and not just a single company, because you believe this is a global anti-woman conspiracy) would deliberately pay more just to have a man do the work. How much would a company have to hate women in order to be willing to eat a 25% increase in costs just to have more men on the payroll?
Statistics show that women and men with equal experience and qualifications, doing the same job, for the same hours, under the same conditions get paid the same. And this is coming from Warren Farrell, who was elected three times to the NOW Board of Directors in NYC.
I can't change your mind. I can only present you with facts (real facts, not New York Times "facts"). You can continue to deny it all you want. But remember, denial is the first step to recovery.
The fact is woman get paid less than man in the same position. Yes even in IT, some programmers do database programming, some programmers do web programming. But if a man and a woman does same web programming job, the woman would get less pay and that is the fact, even the bureau of labor admitted it. The pay scale is so complicate for a lot of company, if you complain, they can say a lot of things.
BTW staying at work for 45 hours does not mean you work 45 hours. Some people spends time smoking, talking, and do other things. Working 42 hours does not mean the woman does less work. Maybe she is more efficient. One of my co-worker spends a lot time at work because his programming skills suck, he cannot figure out how to do the job.
You said why companies did not hire women if they got paid less, it depended on the job. As I said only 28% of women in IT business, how can a company hire all woman when no woman resume comes in. On the other hand, women are the majority in nursing and teaching.
I worked in 10 ten companies so far, at least 3 of them I was the only woman on the team. (A team of 10 to 15 people).
You continue to argue with yourself. Again, pay disparities because of hours worked are not at issue.
You're also arguing with the author of the article that you referenced when you claim that women are paid the same as men for the same job, same hours, etcetera. ("What about the headlines saying that even when their jobs are the same, men get paid more than women? Isn't that especially true in corporate America? Yes.") In addition, you're contradicting the results of the Dice survey which was original topic of Steve's post, and you're contradicting U.S. Department of Labor statistics:
After reading the informative summary in this pdf, you might want to navigate to page 8 to see how, occupation after occupation, women are paid substantially less than men.
As for the answer to your question, you'll have to ask the people who make such decisions. I, for one, provide equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender. I can't speak for those who don't.
Frank is actually correct according to the BLS article that was linked.
"Women and men tend to work in different managerial and professional occupations. In 2005, among professional and related occupations, for example, women were much less likely than men to be employed in some of the highest paying fields, such as engineering and computer and mathematical occupations. Instead, women were more likely to work in lower paying professional occupations, such as education, training, and library occupations."
It does appear that there is an element of choice that contributes to lower pay. As was mentioned, total compensation may actually be equal because of benefits provided by the employers may account for a greater portion of the total compensation. This is true for myself. When I worked in the private sector about 95% of my compensation was salary. Now that I work for government over 25% of my compensation is from benefits, but I do work fewer hours and spend more time with my family.
"Women are more likely than men to work part time — that is, fewer than 35 hours per week. Women who worked part time made up one-fourth of all female wage and salary workers in 2005. In contrast, just 11 percent of men in wage and salary jobs worked part time. These proportions have not changed much over time."
It also appears that women as a group do work fewer hours. Typically those who work part-time receive less compensation than those who work full-time regardless of any other factor.
On a couple of issues you address, Frank is entirely correct. That's the reason I accused him of arguing with himself. Nobody is arguing that persons in different professions should be paid the same. Nobody is arguing that part-time workers should be paid the same as full-time workers.
However, to your point about benefits -- I will say that I haven't seen any data that women, as a group, receive higher benefits than men to account for the disparities in earnings within the same occupation. If you're suggesting that's the case, as far as I can tell, that would be pure speculation.
The issue that Frank seemed unable to grasp had to do with gender pay disparities when the occupation is the same, same experience, same responsibilites, same hours, same level of performance. In other words, all else being equal, women are compensated less than men.
The statistics that begin on the page 8 of the link I provided compare the earnings of male and female full-time workers, occupation by occupation. This chart shows that, one occupation after another, the disparity is consistent with the summary of disparities on page 7 (with some exceptions). For example, Frank kept bringing up Human Resources as an area that women gravitate to. The median weekly salary for full-time female Human Resource Managers in 2005 was $998. The median for male Human Resource Managers? $1,357. So, full-time male HR Managers earned 36 percent more than their female colleagues.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that this happened in my own family. We learned from my wife's employer's bookkeeper (who happened to be a close friend) that my wife (an architect) was paid significantly less than every man in the same position, including the ones with less experience, less education, less hours billed and, in my biased opinion, less skilled (the same was true for the other women in her position). You should know that she had received excellent performance reviews from this employer. As you might imagine, my wife was suddenly demoralized, and changed employers as soon as possible. We have no way of knowng if such disparities exist with her current employer. Unfortunately, my wife's experience is the rule, not the exception.
Loner - if you do everything the men in your office do, and you have the same (or better) qualifications, and you are being paid less, you need to do something about it. But that's a choice only you can make.
Salary is a very touchy subject. As I said before a lot of company the pay scale of the same position can vary, they can use any reason to argue why you don't get paid as much as the other guy. Unless it is very clear that it is the "gender" issue that I get paid less, I have no case to argue.
I got paid less from my first job, my second job gave me a 10% increase and so on...., so in this job they gave me a 10% increase more than my last job. They thought it was a very good offer, so did I. But most men got paid more in their first job so everytime they changed job, they got more and more, so my company offered a job to this guy, his previous salary was higher than mine already, so they had to pay him more even he had less experience. It is a cycle. Unless the government or my company suddenly gives woman a big raise, woman will never catch up.
Chris, I understand how your wife feels. I found out the other guys in my department had a higher salary by accident even they had less experiences. Even my boss gave me an exceptional performance review you still feel very unfair.