Gender Inequality in the Workspace - Term Paper Example

CONTINUING GENDER INEQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE Introduction In public administration today, there is increasing recognition of the need for gender equality which is now a widely accepted goal to be achieved in workplaces. International law such as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women stresses on the principle of equal rights for women and men. Similarly workplace administrative practices such as appointment and promotion are based on equal opportunities procedures for both sexes. The principle and practices related to gender equality in the workplace are to be adopted to replace old patterns of inequality and injustice towards women (Connell, 2006: 837). However, in practice there is continuing gender inequality at the workplace, with discrimination against women in several areas: appointment, pay, type of job, harassment- and stress-free working conditions, opportunities for learning and skills-enhancement, and in promotions. This paper proposes to find the main sources of continuing inequality among men and women at the workplace, as identified by recent sociological studies. Further, the ways in which women are affected by the gendered division of labour in the household and wider social institutions, will be determined. Discussion The principle of equal treatment for men and women and discontinuation of gender segregation remains one of the most deep-rooted concepts of the labour force in the European Union (EU). This is in spite of equality legislation which reiterates the principle of equal treatment for men and women, providing them access to equal pay, employment, vocational training, promotion, and in working conditions (Rees, 1998: 69). In all labour markets, those occupations and professions in which the incidence of women is predominant, are considered to be less skilled, are paid less and valued less. Gender segregation is the cause of inequalities and also the force inhibiting the effectiveness of Equal Opportunities policies (p.70). Historical Trends: From the earliest times, women and men have undertaken division of labour on a day-to-day as well as long-term basis. Work varies considerably between different societies and also keeps changing and developing over time. Due to several reasons, most societies have allocated particular jobs to men and different ones to women; resulting in men and women performing different work. Crompton (1997: 6) states that this gender division of labour has been occurring concurrent with another historical fact: “which is that men have occupied the dominant positions in society”. The gender division of labour was considered as a natural reflection of biological differences between the sexes. From traditional societies where men were rulers based on inheritance by the eldest son (primogeniture), there have been successive social changes impacting the work of both men and women. The social change of greatest importance has been the transition from traditional to modern society with the advent of industrial capitalism. In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, agricultural work was the main occupation of most of the population of England, which is known as the “first industrial nation”. In these households, men, women and children worked together in the production of food and basic requirements. Division of labour was on gender lines. Women cared for farm animals and poultry, were responsible for dairying, and other supplementary work such as spinning and sewing. Men were responsible for heavy-duty farm work such as ploughing and sowing, larger animals such as horses and cattle; and in periods of intensive work such as during harvests, both genders may do the same type of work (Crompton, 1997: 7). In the mid-eighteenth century before the industrial revolution, most production for household use as well as for the market were carried out in the home. Shoes, metal work, cloth and other products were manufactured by household members of all ages and both sexes. Household-work strategy is the term for families cooperating by women taking in work to be done at home, or men taking up paid work outside in order to survive (Crompton, 1997: 7). Household-work strategies, and consequently the gender division of labour, were completely restructured with the coming of industrialism. Agriculture still remained a major employer of labour, and more women worked in domestic service than in any other occupation until after the First World War. With the development of factory production towns expanded, and increasingly drew the population from the rural areas; and wage work rather than household production became prevalent. Men became increasingly identified with paid or market work, and women with the household or non-market work. Paid work amongst women declined, and by 1911 only 9.6 per cent of married women were in paid employment (Halsey 1988:172). The exclusion of women from market work was because of the belief that women’s responsibilities in the domestic sphere should be given priority over market work. It was consi-dered that social problems such as infant mortality, ill-health of the working classes, moral issues such as illegitimacy and prostitution were aggravated by married women going out for paid employment. The basic concept for understanding women’s labour market positions is not their “naturally” acquired family responsibilities, but that men had systematically excluded women from better paid work, in their own interests. In the beginning of the twentieth century emerged the “male breadwinner” model, relegating women to the domestic sphere (Crompton, 1997: 8). The low participation of women in labour markets, as compared to men has been observed in most industrialized societies. Slowly, their participation in the workforce increased during the span of the twentieth century. Women constituted 29 per cent of the labour force in Britain in 1911, and 29 per cent in 1951, and this rose to 34 per cent by 1966 and reached 43 per cent by 1991. Since the 1930s, married women have increasingly taken up paid employment. The 1961 pattern illustrates the characteristic “double-peaked” employment profile of British women, which had emerged by the 1950s. The rates of women participating in the workforce were relatively high, falling sharply from the beginning of their childbearing years and duration spent at home to rear their children. Participation in paid employment started to rise again from the thirties age group as women returned to paid employment, usually after the youngest child had started school. By 1991, 53 percent of married women were in paid work or seeking work. Participation in paid employment in the youngest age group was still around 65 percent, but increased until the 35 to 44 age group (Crompton, 1997: 25-27). Throughout the twentieth century, women’s work rates have been seen to increase especially in the post-war decades. It is also believed that women’s work has been continuously undervalued and unacknowleged, and women’s work rates have been consistently high throughout history. Women are believed to have always worked, often longer hours than men. The work includes domestic duties, childcare, caring for other family members, farm work and other non-paid work which was nevertheless crucial for the survival and progress of the family. Hence, Hakim (2004: 21) states that “due to the undervaluation of women’s work, national statistics provide an incomplete picture of women’s full contribution to the economy, and their role in society”. In the late nineteenth century, occupational segregation has been reconstituted to provide separate occupations and jobs for women who have to make time for domestic and child care duties also; hence they were most likely to work intermittently, “taking jobs which remain subordinate to, conditional and contingent on wives’ non-market activities” (Hakim, 2004 : 165). It has been found that self-selection of such working trends and job supply side-factors are more important reasons for occupational segregation, rather than employer prejudice. Contemporary Workplaces and The Glass Ceiling: Due to traditional stereotypes and prejudices against women in authority, access to the top positions in work environments has been restricted to women, proving discrimination towards them. This irrational discrimination is detrimental to organizations, as well as to women’s progress, and their utilization of their talents and skills. The barriers to women’s advancement need to be removed by organizational measures for “eliminating prejudice and enforcing equal employment opportunities rules in promotion” (Connell, 2006: 838). Rather than differences in personal characteristics of men and women, gender issues have more to do with patterns of interaction and relationship. Gender patterns impact relations not only between men and women but also among them (Alsop et al, 2002: 13). Research shows that there is much diversity and even internal contradictions in the gender patterns of public sector workplaces. Main Causes of Pay Gap Between Men and Women in Contemporary Society: The primary area of gender inequality in the workplace is in the case of pay. In the United Kingdom, women who work full-time earn only 82 % of men’s hourly pay, while those who work part-time earn only 61 %. Fringe benefits such as occupational pensions and jobs that have security are out of the reach of women; and access is permitted to only a restricted range of occupations. These are the results of “the gendering of the household, labour market, polity, and civil society (Gottfried & Reese, 2004: 57). The Equal Pay Task Force of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) identified three causes for the gender differences in pay: segregation, discrimination and caring responsibilities (Hakim, 2004: 146). 1) Occupational segregation: the gendered division of work, of employment opportunities, and the concentration of women in particular occupations. In the past, occupational segregation resulted from a combination of direct discrimination and indirect discrimination. For example, reservation of a limited number of seats for women candidates for medical school admissions before 1975, and exclusive reservation for men in certain religious occupations, which is still prevalent . Indirect discrimination is mostly voluntary gender segregation which occurs naturally in neighbourhoods, leisure activities, or the labour market (Hakim, 2004: 146). Vertical segregation occurs because social processes enable men to acquire jobs that have a higher status and are better paid than women are able to attain; and men receive promotions to higher levels in career ladders than women are. Horizontal segregation occurs when men and women work in different types of occupations, and women are confined to particular jobs which are less remunerative (Hakim, 2004: 149). 2) Discrimination in terms of pay levels, with women being relegated to jobs that are poorly paid. One common method of determining sex discrimination is to see whether occupations which are more extensively represented by women, have lower pay, while ensuring that the key determinants of earnings are control factors. The relationship between occupational segregation and differences in pay are sometimes considered to be a measure of discrimination. Also, it is often believed that when difference in earnings are not because of factors such as qualifications, work experience, and tenure, it must be due to discrimination (Hakim, 2004: 167). 3) Difficulties faced by women in combining work with caring responsibilities. Non-standard work or part-time work is taken up by married women, who are also responsible for caring for their children and domestic duties. This results in occupational down-grading and lower wages, and this feature continues even when women resume full-time employment. Part-time work is also associated with fewer work related benefits, training and promotion prospects. Joshi et al (2007: 37) found from their research that gender pay differences were prevalent not only for women returning to work after a time gap, or taking up part-time employment, but also for women in full-time employment. However, the wage gap was found to decrease from the year 1978 to 2000, for women in full-time employment. This is a result of women’s education and experience rather than action towards equal treatment. It was also found that gender inequality increased from age thirty-three to forty-two, due to differences in qualifications and experience as compared to men of the same age group. However, it was also revealed that women in the same age group, who were in full time employment were subjected to pay discrimination. This indicates that women may be penalized or at least not rewarded for being in a particular stage of the life-cycle with concurring household commitments (Joshi et al, 2007: 52). Theories Explaining Women’s Occupational Patterns and Occupational Segregation: The two main types include: Structural Explanations and Individualist Explanations. 1. Structural Constraints: 1) Socio-cultural explanations: Conventional gender roles or feminine stereotypes such as child rearing and caring work extend into particular occupations, leading to gender typing of those occupations, such as nursing, teaching, etc. “One of the ways in which jobs and occupations become gendered is as a result of their sex composition” (Wharton, 2005: 182). That is, jobs take on the characteristics of those who normally perform them. An example is: nursing being disproportionately represented by women, it is considered to be an occupation which requires feminine qualities such as empathy. This concept helps to perpetuate the traditional composition of the nursing profession by women almost entirely. The association between a particular gender and a type of job results from a complex process of social construction. There is a mutually reinforcing relationship between the gender type of an occupation and its sex composition (p.183). 2) Economic explanations: Capitalist development and class conflict such as “consolidation of family wage and male breadwinner model, as partly a response to male working class defence against market relations”, relegated women to their responsibilities of caring and domesting work. With women joining the workforce, their preference for part-time work over full-time is to a large extent due to lack of adequate child care facilities available in Britain. Also, part-time work cannot be simply seen as women’s preference, because employers also increasinly seek flexible, part-time workers (Crompton, 1997: 32). 3) Patriarchal processes: General attempt by men to secure male power and advantage over women by means of deliberate, exclusionary practices. Recent history shows that women have been kept out of prestigious universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, from occupations such as medicine and craft engineering. Further, the glass ceiling approach of preventing women from attaining high positions in their career, while men occupy the coveted top positions is also part of the patriarchal processes (Crompton, 1997: 125). 2. Individualist Explanations: Hakim (2004: 205, 214) emphasizes the crucial significance of choice. The pattern of womens employment reflects the fact that there are two different types of women, the committed and the uncommitted, and it is the uncommitted women who are in part-time and low-level jobs. The polarization which began in the 1980s has produced a sharp divide between the work-centred women, home-centred women, women who seek a balance between family life and paid jobs. In contemporary industrial society, conditions are created for women to make genuine choices between two or more completely different life-styles, resulting in their preference becoming a completely new social factor. The social, economic, institutional and historical factors which have so far been important will be replaced by the factor of women’s individual choice or preference for part-time work, subordinate position or unequal opportunities as against standard employment with an independent wage on par with equally qualified and experienced men. Differences and diversity among women is expected to be the trend in this 21st century. Crompton (1997: 126-127) reiterates that both structural constraints and individual choices have to be taken into account in the patterning of men and women’s paid employment. The gender structuring of paid employment should be acknowledged as the result of context, constraint and choice. The attitude of trade unions towards women’s paid employment has undergone changes in Britain. Earlier trade unions supported the idea of the “family wage” for men, excluding women from the workforce. They are now increasingly promoting women’s employment and equal opportunity policies. Other Theories on Women’s Choices Towards Paid Employment or Domestic Work: Expectancy Theory is based on the fact that all individuals make decisions to maximise their rewards, and minimize their losses. How women categorize and value various aspects of their lives will determine the result of this process. Rational Choice Theory states that individuals must anticipate the outcomes of alternative courses of action, and identify which would be best for them and give them the greatest satisfaction. Dissonance Theory: states that the greatest dissonance occurs when the incompatible alternatives are both equally desirable for the person who has to make the choice. This is often the case when women desire a traditional family as well as a full time professional career (Gottfried & Reese, 2004: 135). Attitudes and Orientations Towards Work: Changing attitudes and behaviour mutually impact each other. Evidence from research shows gradual change, which is mostly generational with younger women in research samples showing greater favour towards women working out of the home. Among women in full-time employment, it was found that attitudes and job commitment were the same as those of men in similar work positions (Gottfried & Reese, 2004: 144). Research evidence also reveals the importance of unpaid work in the form of domestic commitments in shaping work decisions. Primary responsibility for child care and domestic work continues to be that of women, irrespective of whether they are also working for remuneration. Gradual changes are happening especially among professional and managerial career women: better education, increased employment opportunities, more post-entry qualifications, fewer children and earlier return to work after childbirth. Also, the women’s social situation: if they have primary financial responsibility for family, they have more of a “male” work profile; and men who have heavy domestic commitments have “female” work profiles. In general, rather than a single theory being operational, a combination of approaches are seen to be present in most cases (Crompton, 1997: 29). The Committee on Equal Opportunities for Men and Women expresses a view of mainstreaming in which, rather than simply integrating women into the system, a transformation of the system is required, which would respond to the needs and abilities of both men and women (Rees, 1998: 69). Conclusion This paper has highlighted the main sources of continuing inequality between men and women at the workplace. It is also worth noting that in spite of gendered division of labour, persistent segregation and discrimination, women are increasingly taking up paid employment, and are establishing themselves in institutions of higher learning, in high level positions in their careers, and are also attempting to meet their domestic responsibilities as primary carers. Further, social changes and women’s full-time employment are impacting the concept of gendered divisions of labour in the household, with increasing occurrence of all members of the family sharing the domestic work. Quality affordable child care is advocated by Walby (2007: 59), who states that “current policy development for gender equity in the British workplace are the national child care strategy” for the assistance of poor working women, provision of equal opportunities, regulation of working time, and the minimum wage. It has also been identified that women who opt for domestic work and child care, do so out of their own choice. Similarly, those women who join low-paid part-time employment in order to concurrently manage their house work, or resume working for lower renumeration after a long gap, choose these actions of their own volition, as most suitable for them. Gender inequality with all its implications are not taken into account, when these choices are preferred. For a successful and sustainable environment of gender equity in the workplace, it is considered essential that the top level executives, managers, and immediate supervisors should together promote gender equality. They should endorse and support the issue by specific actions such as creating child care centres and promoting women to responsible positions. All other employees should be also be made responsible for enhancing gender equality in the workplace, following the example set by senior officials (Connell, 2006: 847). Future research studies on the effects of division of labour among all members in the household: unrelated to gender, and interventions at workplaces to help women work full-time in standard employment, need to be carried out. These will help to determine whether supportive action both on the home front as well as at the workplace, implementation of equity policies, along with education and training of women can reduce gender inequality in the workplace. References Alsop, R., Fitzsimons, A. & Lennon, K. 2002. Theorizing gender. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. Connell, R. 2006. Glass ceilings or gendered institutions? Mapping the gender regimes of public sector worksites. Public Administration Review. November/ December 2006: 837-851. Crompton, R. 1997. Women and work in modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gottfried, H. & Reese, L.A. 2004. Equity in the workplace: gendering workplace policy analysis. United Kingdom: Lexington Books. Hakim, C. 2004. Key issues in women’s work: female heterogeneity and the polarisation of women’s employment. Great Britain: Routledge Cavendish. Halsey, A.H. 1988. British social trends since 1900. London: Macmillan. Joshi, H., Makepeace, G. & Dolton, P. 2007. More or less unequal? Evidence on the pay of men and women from the British birth cohort studies. Gender, Work and Organization, 14 (1): 37-56. Rees, T.L. 1998. Mainstreaming equality in the European Union: education, training and labour market policies. United Kingdom: Routledge. Walby, S. 2007. Policy developments for workplace gender equity in a global era: the importance of the E.U. in the U.K. Paper published by Leeds University: 45-65. Wharton, A.S. 2005. The sociology of gender: an introduction to theory and research. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. Read More