Mastodon

Category: Library

Understanding the Question of Gender Diversity in Power Positions

   Historically, women have been born into an assigned gender role in the workplace. 

Dating back to the 20th century, most women stayed at home completing tasks such as cleaning, cooking, and taking care of children, and they did so primarily young and unmarried. In that era, 

just 20 percent of all women were considered “gainful workers” (Yellen 2020) while their men counterparts were fulfilling the roles of managers, CEO’s, and engaging in the act of physical labor. The visually unjust barrier during this time period could further be divided by race, where African American women were more likely to be forced into unwanted labor than white women largely because of segregation and lack of people that would hire them. Women abandoning their career prospects upon marriage reflected past cultural norms, the nature of work readily available to them based on race and/or sexual orientation , and legal barriers formed by men. Women in this time were told not to attend higher education as they were taught to consider their role as a ‘homemaker’ to be their ultimate goal in life. Since the establishment of the Equal Rights Amendment where women were now seen as equivalent to men, a modern day woman has achieved countless milestones  in the workforce and in society. According to Statistics Canada, women are more likely than men to earn their high school diploma, to have a greater enrollment presence in college and university programs, and to dominate various industries such as healthcare and teaching. Despite all the progress and success of a modern day women, discrimination in the form of authority, physical ability, and wage gap are still ever so prominent when competing for roles of power in the workplace. There are many leadership qualities that women frequently display in power positions that go unnoticed, and could benefit their male coworkers if followed. We have yet to see a woman president of the United States despite past candidates having the same, if not more willpower as their male counterparts, we have a progressive, yet underwhelming presence of women in STEM and innovation fields not because a majority of these individuals do not wish to pursue a career in that field, but because of stereotypes and degradation. Women continue to face hierarchical discrimination, limiting their employment prospects and societal advancements. 

History has  reinforced the idea that women are too kind and compassionate to be leaders, but when a woman who is not particularly bubbly, and instead chooses to focus on producing more sales, and being assertive, it is viewed as humorous and not taken seriously by male counterparts. It is important to recognize that the stereotypical definition of authoritative has been hijacked by validation, appreciation, and empathy– something a workplace needs to maintain a positive culture. It is human nature to crave validation after working a ten hour shift in which an employee has put all their willpower towards. We are no longer living in a world where masculinity contest culture creates a hostile work environment and undermines the efforts of employees covered up by the simple sentence “it’s your job”. Many of the men in positions of power tend to overlook the significance of establishing genuine relationships in a well structured workforce, and instead, think of their employees as another step to achieving their company goals. Center For Creative Leadership conducted a study where individuals were asked to compare and contrast the benefits of men versus women in positions of leadership. Results showed that when there are more women as authoritative figures in the workplace, there is an increased job satisfaction rate, increased productivity rate, and allows employees to be less susceptible to burnout (Creative Leadership 2019). This is because women take the time to learn about their employees’ personal morales , passions, and strengths. 

Women brainstorm ways to integrate employees strengths into their workplaces execution style which can go a long way towards success. Toxic masculinity has structured the way men react to a woman’s authoritative manner, and how they present themselves in the workplace because that type of initiative used to be the only way to success. Women were always ranked below men on an economical scale, and many of these men have not yet adjusted themselves to workplace diversification. 

Motherhood bias is the assumption that mothers should be fully responsible for their families’ social scene, and their children without reservation. When a woman is applying for a position that requires much time and effort, the misconception that her role as a mother will compromise her role in the workplace shadows her accomplishments and capabilities. Regardless of our increasingly progressive society, a woman’s availability to her child is still guarded as an indication of her competence as a mother and the success of her child. How about the father who may even work a position less time consuming than the mother? Maybe a longtime friend or caregiver can spend time with a child for a short period of time? Ultimately, it is still viewed as the mother’s responsibility no matter the circumstances. A study conducted by the American Journal of Sociology discovered that mothers were seventy nine percent less likely to be hired for a position of power, one hundred percent less likely to be promoted, offered $11,000 less in salary, and held to higher performance standards than women without children (Breaking Through Bias 2022). This bias may not even be presented in the form of direct discrimination. A woman may be  dismissed from meetings at hours critical to a child’s needs, and may not be considered for assignments where traveling is required. This may be beneficial to a child, and considerate under the circumstances that the woman asks for time off, but for a woman wanting to advance her career, these subtle forms of dismissal only alienate her from crucial aspects of her company’s proceedings. This form of discrimination may be even more determinental to a single mother that has to support herself and her kids without external sources. A single mother may be in contention for a job of higher power simply because she needs the extra income flow, and can not afford to remain in her current position with no chance of a raise or promotion. Alongside motherhood bias, motherhood guilt is extremely prominent in the workplace. To fulfill the position of a CEO, or manager, the individual will need to perform difficult tasks and work long hours. A mother may face backlash from her coworkers with comments such as “you should be spending more time with your child” , or “you are depriving your child of a mother’s attention”. These types of comments are practically unavoidable, and possibly derive from feelings of insecurity on behalf of the commenter. As a man, displaying your commitment to your position, as well as raising a kid, you are more likely to gain the respect of your coworkers simply because men have never been obliged to be the ‘homemaker’. As a woman, you are told your priorities are not in the right place, and are excluded from valuable workplace opportunities.

Self limiting biases leave women questioning their self worth based on how they have been perceived from a societal standpoint. A woman may assume she is not a good fit for a set position because society has told her it may not be an appropriate pursuit, or she would be uncomfortable, and incapable. Stereotypes of this descent cause uncertainty when faced with tasks that you have been told are best performed by men. 80% of social workers are women but only 15% of computer engineers are (Rueters 2021). It is more than realistic to assume this statistic is based heavily on self selection. Self limiting bias leads a woman to believe that she cannot be technical, but she is good at dealing with emotions because women are emotional beings. When a woman is pushy a man is recognized as persuasive , when a woman is rude a man is direct and knows his worth , and this often pushes a woman into believing that a more tame, and flexible position is better suited for her. Women have more than enough capability to thrive in these industries, but simply choose to avoid backlash and prejudice.

Moreover, women continue to face hierarchical discrimination, limiting their employement prospects and societal advancements. When stereotyping becomes apparent, we can unconsciously behave towards women untrue to their persona. We tend to categorize women and men in different physical, mental and emotional categories, and sometimes unconsciously think a woman should be communal, warm, pleasant, caregiving and men should be strong, forceful, and aggressive. These gender roles are rooted deep in history, a time period society has not yet outgrown.  We still have a long way to go in acknowledging  and respecting a woman’s role as a leader in the workplace. 

References

Rueters, T. (2021, June 18). Gender stereotypes in the workplace: How 5 biases harm women. Andie & Al. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://andieandal.com/gender-stereotypes-biases-foster-women-workplace/ 

Burns, T. (2022, April 13). Women in the workplace 2021. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace#0 

Experteer Magazine. (2018, May 9). Why aren’t more women in power positions? Experteer Magazine. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://us.experteer.com/magazine/why-arent-more-women-in-power-positions/ 

Andie & Al. (2020, November 10). How to recognize bias against working mothers. Andie & Al. Retrieved August 12, 2022, from https://andieandal.com/gender-stereotypes-part-v-motherhood-biases-biases/ 

Helgesen S, Goldsmith M (2018) How Women Rise: Break the 12 Habits Holding You back From Your Next Raise, Promotion, or Job, ‎ Hachette Books (April 10, 2018)

This essay was written by summer student Bayden Summers and edited by Ilesha Prabhudesai. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

Understanding the Question of Gender Diversity in the Boardroom

The issue of boardroom diversity, and publicly traded companies’ failure to equitably represent members of minority groups on their boards, has been met with increasing concern over the past two decades. The lack of gender diversity in particular has been central to such discussions, leading to an international push to encourage the nomination of female board members through the introduction of diversity quotas and disclosure policies. Statistics show that the implementation of such policies has somewhat increased the number of women and other minorities appointed to company boards, but many insist that progress is still too slow and that the practices of a truly inclusive boardroom must be reflected in more ways than just numbers. Furthermore, many scholars have argued that research into this issue has thus far been unsatisfactory due to the ways in which it focuses upon the business benefits of appointing women to boards and relies upon gender essentialism in its arguments. Quotas may serve as a useful stepping stone to improve diversity, but the continued inequitable treatment of women who are appointed to boards, coupled with the narrow view of diversity that previous research into this issue has adopted, make it clear that more needs to be done towards establishing a gender inclusive boardroom culture. 

The first gender-based quota for board composition was established in Norway in 2003, setting a requirement for the boards of every public limited company to be composed of at least 40% female directors by 2008 (Mohsni & Shata, 2021, p. 2). Companies that did not comply with this policy risked facing legal action. Spain, France, Italy, and other countries soon followed with similar policies. In Canada, the Diversity Disclosure Requirement imposed in 2015 “enforces disclosure on whether the board has adopted a written policy concerning the employment of women directors” (Mohsni & Shata, 2021, p. 2). The number of women appointed to boards around the world has been climbing in recent years, and it would seem that diversity quotas have played a significant role in compelling companies to add women and other minorities to their boards. In the United States, for example, where many states have enforced policies that require companies to disclose their board-level diversity statistics or explain why they have failed to do so, the 2021 U.S. Spencer Stewart Board Index found that female representation on boards increased up to 30%. Those from underrepresented groups (including but not limited to women) comprised 72% of new directors at S&P 500 companies. This was a considerable improvement even from 2020, where 59% of new directors were minorities (Walsh et al., 2022). However, some agencies and policymakers argue that such quotas are not sufficient to solve the issue at hand. In Canada, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) put a similar “comply-or-explain” policy into effect in 2015, but soon found that many companies’ efforts to adhere to that rule failed to meet the desired targets. The OSC argued that some companies’ diversity reporting could be considered technical compliance at best. This led them to believe that companies were not truly treating the lack of boardroom gender diversity as an issue to take seriously (McFarland, 2015).

Indeed, as many studies have shown, an increase in the number of board seats appointed to women is not in itself a sufficient measure for how a company responds to demands for inclusivity. A study by the Harvard Business Review reported that even when women were appointed to company boards, 87% faced challenges and discriminatory treatment related to their gender (Groysberg & Bell, 2013). Chief among their complaints were that they were not listened to by their male colleagues, and that they were not being treated as equals in an exclusive “boys’ club”—trademarks of a toxic work culture that male directors are oblivious to having created. These findings led authors Groysberg and Bell to the conclusion that many boards simply do not know “how to leverage diversity” (2013). Although many boards claim to uphold the idea of inclusivity, the underlying issue of misogyny that has barred women from executive positions remains unresolved. The results of Groysberg and Bell’s study predate the widespread enforcement of disclosure requirements in the United States. However, when their findings are placed alongside policymakers’ current concerns that compliance policies are insufficient, it becomes clear that truly addressing the question of gender diversity is a complicated matter that requires more than just a numbers checklist. 

The size of a company may contribute to its ability to foster an inclusive boardroom culture. A recent study by Carleton University, which examined firms listed on the TSX index from 2010 to 2019, found that the boards of smaller firms tended to perform better and benefitted the most from gender diversity. Authors Mohsni and Shata suggest that the more complex and bureaucratic structure typical of larger firms “may lead to a wider distribution of power” and make it “more difficult for members to cooperate and reach consensus” (2021, p. 3). By contrast, smaller firms tend to have less bureaucratic structures, which facilitates communication among board members and strengthens the impact of individuals’ voices when group decisions are made. This means that at smaller companies, each director has more power at the table, offering a greater chance for women to really influence the decisions being made in the boardroom where they might otherwise be drowned out in a larger, all-male group. Larger boards must therefore commit to reassessing their communication methods and organisational structures when making group decisions and integrating female directors (Mohsni & Shata, 2021, p. 17) in order to truly make a difference in terms of gender diversity. 

The failure of companies to successfully implement gender diversity is certainly a topic that requires closer examination, but as some scholars have suggested, research into this issue has thus far been lacklustre. The bulk of existing research into boardroom gender diversity tends to be approached from what Brown and Kelan refer to as a utilitarian perspective. The utilitarian perspective makes a so-called “business case” for women to be appointed to boards on the merit that they present “an untapped pool of potential talent that can improve the way the board or company functions” (2020, p. 6). The problem is that investigations of this variety tend to draw upon “essentialist notions of gender” (Brown & Kelan, 2020, p. 9). They frame gender as a mere issue of comparison rather than addressing the structures and institutional misogyny that have historically barred women from the boardroom. As justification for why women should be appointed to boards, policymakers often draw attention to the supposedly unique qualities and intrinsic feminine traits that women can bring to the table. The notion that women have a higher emotional intelligence than men and can therefore offer a fresh, more empathetic perspective to a board (Groysberg & Bell, 2013) is just one example. Furthermore, when operating under quotas that describe women’s allegedly unique skills and characteristics, women striving for boardroom seats are still expected to possess traits associated with successful male board members in addition to conventionally female traits. They must occupy the role of the elite leader (a traditionally masculine role) while simultaneously facing pressure to meet “contradictory expectations related to notions of (respectable) femininity” (Brown & Kelan, 2020, p. 13). As Groysberg and Bell’s study showed, women are held to a much higher standard than men when board nominations are taking place because they are simply not thought of first as potential candidates. Their skills and experiences must somehow tie into their gender in order to be appointed over a male colleague with similar qualifications. This sheds light upon serious flaws in existing diversity quotas and the ways in which they are implemented. Addressing the issue of gender inequality in the boardroom will be far more challenging so long as diversity policies are themselves dependent on misogynistic assumptions. After all, if the board’s internal culture of misogyny does not change, then simply satisfying a quota is only useful in terms of external appearances.

When boardroom diversity is seen as little more than a checkbox to fill out in response to a quota, understood solely in terms of a numerical goal to be met, we fail to consider the fact that the question of inclusivity, and our understanding of gender itself, is constantly evolving and varies from culture to culture. Diversity in the boardroom is a matter far more complex than mere gender inequality, as the bulk of existing research presumes. A truly inclusive boardroom should adopt an intersectional perspective when tackling questions of inclusivity, one that examines diversity beyond the male-female binary. Some policymakers in different parts of the world have certainly pushed for the representation of other minorities, including BIPOC people, queer people, and Indigenous peoples. But there is a case to be made for the lack of representation of women of colour on company boards, not to mention those individuals who fall outside the gender binary and who remain largely neglected in existing studies about boardroom diversity. There is no clear, easy solution to the issue of boardroom diversity, and there is a pressing need for thorough, more expansive research before change can be implemented. That said, given the gradually increasing representation of women and other minorities on company boards, the impact of diversity quotas should not be dismissed outright. It is worthwhile to understand disclosure rules and similar policies not as a magic solution to the issue of gender diversity, but rather as a stepping stone to true inclusivity. As quotas are filled, and a wider range of voices are introduced to company boards, we can allow people from diverse, intersecting backgrounds to share their own perspectives about how a more inclusive boardroom can be made. That way, we can start to gain a stronger sense of the best way to move forward.

References

Brown, S., & Kelan, E. (2020). Gender and Corporate Boards. In Gender and Corporate Boards: The Route to a Seat at the Table (pp. 6–23). essay, Taylor & Francis.

Groysberg, B., & Bell, D. (2013, June). Dysfunction in the boardroom. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2013/06/dysfunction-in-the-boardroom

Johnson, G. R., & Ramchandani, R. (2019, July 10). New diversity disclosures under the CBCA effective for annual meetings in 2020. Torys LLP. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.torys.com/Our%20Latest%20Thinking/Publications//2019/07/new-diversity-disclosures-under-the-cbca-effective-for-annual-meetings-in-2020/

McFarland, J. (2015, June 10). OSC rebukes firms for lack of action on gender-diversity rules. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/osc-blasts-firms-for-lack-of-action-on-gender-diversity-rules/article24902736/

Mohsni, S., & Shata, A. (2021). Board Gender Diversity and Firm Performance: The Role of Firm Size. Carleton University, 1–35.

Sheker, M. (2019, September 3). Canada’s top firms now have to disclose figures on diversity in the boardroom, but is ‘sunlight the best disinfectant’? Rotman School of Management. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/ResearchCentres/JohnstonCentre/JohnstonCentre/2019/9/3/Canadas-top-firms-now-have-to-disclose-figures-on-diversity-in-the-boardroom-but-is-sunlight-the-bes

Walsh, D. G., Atkins, E. G., Rabin, R. J., Lander, E. G., Busching, D. E., England, E., & Leitch, A. (2022, March 3). Continued Focus on Diversifying the Boardroom. Akin Gump. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/practices/corporate/ag-deal-diary/continued-focus-on-diversifying-the-boardroom.html#:~:text=The%202021%20U.S.%20Spencer%20Stewart,of%20all%20S%26P%20500%20directors

This essay was written by summer student Cossette Penner-Olivera and edited by summer student Ilesha Prabhudesai.This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

What is Work Culture? Where does it come from and how do we change it?

There are few topics as broad, or fundamental as culture. Most of us only recognize the dimensions of our culture when we begin to compare our way of life to that of another. Workplace culture is built of all the customs, habits, traditions, values, skills, beliefs, and knowledge of the people included in the company. (Nelson, Quick, Armstrong, Roubecas, Condie, 2021) It affects everything that happens, every action taken, and is shaped by every person that is included. Culture regulates behavior through norms and values, and in so defines the character of a company. (Nelson, 2021)

To get culture right it is crucial to have an idea of what it should look like and a plan for its formation before the start of an enterprise. Defining what is desirable and undesirable behavior is necessary to guide staff toward business objectives in the best way. An inclusive and supportive culture leads to satisfied employees and can enforce those values into employee behavior. (Nelson, 2021) The same applies for a competitive or aggressive culture; its employees will work hard to achieve results but may focus less on their soft skills. (Nelson, 2021) When the values of the culture are the same as the values of its employees, it provides a sense of identity and motivates them to higher levels of achievement.

There are three different parts that compose the culture of an organization. There is the structural system consisting of policies, management processes, and plans. (Nelson, 2021) This structural culture of the organization is crafted by its leaders. It also includes objectives, the authority hierarchy, reward systems, recruitment, and training methods. (Nelson, 2021) As a result, the structural systems produce formal norms, traditions, values, and knowledge. Then there are expressive systems which are created by organizational history, the business environment, and society itself. (Nelson, 2021) These systems propagate the blueprint for how meanings, values, and beliefs are espoused within the organization. (Nelson, 2021) Finally, there are the individuals within the organization. Each person brings their own beliefs and personalities into the mix that shape the culture of the group.

Depending on the unique composition of a culture it can bring strengths or weaknesses that can make or break an organization. An outcome of the behavior controlling nature of culture, is that it can influence employees to be competitive, support creative thinking, demand punctuality, or signal how important it is to follow the policies of the organization. (Nelson, 2021) A culture that promotes open communication can reduce conflict or encourage relationship building, which in turn may increase productivity and improve employee satisfaction or stability within the workplace. (Nelson, 2021) In the inverse perspective, culture can lead to a variety of significant problems. A weak culture (which is one that can easily change from day to day) can result in instability that is stressful to some. (Nelson, 2021) A culture that is too strong may be resistant to change and prevent the development and adaptation that is critical for survival. (Nelson, 2021) It is also possible for a culture to walk astray from its founding values. If bad behavior is left unchecked, it can lead to its promotion as employees may interpret lack of punishment as a green light. (Nelson, 2021) Culture is a big attraction for the modern job seeker and having a misalignment between ideals and reality can lead to job dissatisfaction quite quickly.

It all starts with an idea. When an entrepreneur or founding party chooses their business, the environment that it operates within defines the first set of rules with its historical expectations. From there the values and beliefs of the founders are poured into the organization’s structure giving the second layer of culture. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, once said “Our culture is friendly and intense, but if push comes to shove we’ll settle for intense”. (Nelson, 2021) The third layer comes as the structural systems of policy and plans are laid out by the founders. By now the expressive systems of beliefs and behaviors will have formed naturally in the process of the founders working together and will evolve as others are added to the organization. (Nelson, 2021) The culture will follow the personality of the CEO in a smaller organization but as it grows it will dilute to include the influences of other directors and members.

There are five points of attention that communicate the desired culture lying in the behavior of leadership. These include what leadership pays attention to, how they react to crises, how they behave, how they give out rewards and how they hire and fire. (Nelson, 2021)
What leaders pay attention to is one of the most obvious clues to what is most important within the organization. They will have a certain set of behaviors, metrics, or objectives they need to monitor. Employees will be aware of what their boss cares about and take direction from observations. (Nelson, 2021)

How leaders react to crises can reveal a mismatch between proposed values and real values within the organizational culture. (Nelson, 2021) Imagine a company that says that it cares about its employees but doesn’t hesitate to introduce layoffs in a touch of hard times. Employees will pick up on this and share the story of what happened revealing the true nature of the organization for a long time. How leaders behave is often replicated by employees and will reveal what is acceptable behavior. (Nelson, 2021) If a manager tends to swear or complain about certain customers, it sends a signal about perceptions and beliefs within the organization. (Nelson, 2021) Bosses are often tasked with being role-models and coaches, so it is no wonder that their actions can be interpreted as accepted norms.

How leaders distribute rewards must be on message with the intended values of the organization to ensure that employees’ perceptions of company values are the same. (Nelson, 2021) Rewarding staff for performance when espousing the value of tenure shows the true values of directors and CEOs.

How leaders hire and fire employees defines the culture in some of the starkest terms. The decision to fire or not to fire an individual for failure to perform or for unethical behavior communicates values of the company and will reinforce that culture by the impression formed by employees. (Nelson, 2021) Notably, when hiring, leaders often look for those who share similar beliefs to promote the desired culture in the organization. (Nelson, 2021)

Workplace culture is constantly changing. Through the shifting of society to the changing of the work team, it is always stepping forwards and back and side to side. Controlling the change is another matter entirely, as the myriad of factors that compose a culture are often invisible except in certain situations. Part of what makes up a culture is often unconscious as we can be unaware of our attitudes and beliefs, and this can make grappling with it a challenge. (Nelson, 2021)

Cultural intervention is a strategy wherein the leadership will review all communications, past and present, to make changes that reflect the new values they are trying to promote. (Nelson, 2021) After a period to allow staff to adopt the new values they will remove employees who do not keep up and hire new ones, with the hopes they will take to the proposed values. (Nelson, 2021) Changing culture takes time and requires constant effort on the behalf of management.

Citations

Organizational Behavior (2021). Nelson, Quick, Roubecas, Condie, Armstrong

This essay was written by summer student Adam Best and edited by summer student Hannah Mastin. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

Vaccination etiquette in the workplace

In these unprecedented times, the Covid-19 pandemic has brought to light many questions. As the world is moving towards reopening, employees and employers are concerned about what the etiquette surrounding vaccination status will be. Whether or not the question of vaccination status can be posed, not only by customers, but also by employers as a condition for the job. Should employers be allowed to require the disclosure of their employees vaccination status as a condition of employment?

There are two sides to every argument. In this instance, the two opposing sides are those that are in favour of mandatory vaccinations for employees and those that are on the side of personal freedoms. Each side comes with pros and cons. Mandating vaccinations for those who wish to work is not only protecting the safety of the workers, but also encouraging public health. Those who take a stand for personal freedoms also argue that they have a right to their own privacy. When all is considered however, in the midst of a global pandemic the largest factor should be public health and safety.

Taking a look at the current situation and the laws and regulations that the Canadian government has in place, there are many reasons why employers would not be able to require this information. Individuals’ health care information is protected under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, which grants individuals the right to consent to or refuse the disclosure of their personal health information (Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004). Under this act, it is not within the rights of one’s employer to access any part of their personal medical history without consent (Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004). This includes vaccination status. However, there is a clause in this act which states that there can be exceptions made in certain circumstances, possibly allowing this act to be overlooked for the sake of public health and safety (Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004). Looking beyond, it may also come across as unethical to require vaccinations as a requirement for a job, as it could be considered a form of discrimination against those who choose not to or are unable to get it. Workers are protected from discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act ensuring that there is equal opportunity (Canadian Human Rights Act, 1985). As there are currently no laws or policies in place that override this act, it remains unethical for employers to require vaccinations as a requirement to work.

This however, brings the question of whether or not there needs to be an amendment to these rules in light of the current situation the world is going through. Given the need for public health and safety, it would be ideal to mandate vaccinations to those that are able to safely receive them, especially if they work in high-risk areas. Taking a look at the medical field, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) have been advocating to have employers require Covid-19 vaccinations for those working in healthcare (Canadian Medical Association, 2021). Their reasoning for wanting this mandate is to maintain and protect the patient’s and healthcare worker’s health (Canadian Medical Association, 2021). The benefits of the vaccine not only directly affects these individuals, but also impacts the capacity of hospitals . Less Covid-19 cases means less patients, clearing up space and staff for other individuals (Canadian Medical Association, 2021). This is just one example of a professional field that benefits greatly from mandatory vaccinations.

Aside from the legality, there has been concern about the etiquette in the workplace in regards to asking individuals what their vaccination status is. Some workplaces have asked their staff and guests to limit their discussions about Covid-19, in particular the vaccination status of employees and patrons. One local spa in Cobourg, Ontario took to their instagram to ask their guests to “keep [their] personal thoughts and questions to [themselves]” (Nourish, July 12, 2021) in relation to “the exhausting conversation” (Nourish, July 12, 2021) that is Covid-19. They went on to suggest acceptable conversation topics such as family, pets, and future vacation plans (Nourish, 2021) . This kind of censorship is something that may become common within the workplace, but limits one’s freedom of expression which is protected in the Canadian Charter of Freedom (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982).

Having mandated vaccines is nothing new, as there is a myriad of vaccinations one must have to attend public school. To attend public primary and secondary school in Ontario, unless exempt, children must be vaccinated against polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and several other illnesses and diseases (Gov. of Canada, 2015). The attitude surrounding the Covid-19 vaccination is vastly different than that of these vaccines.

Regardless of the etiquette surrounding this topic, it is imprudent to ignore the facts brought forth by scientific experts. The World Health Organization (WHO) made a statement on mandatory vaccinations stating that “[w]hile interfering with individual liberty does not in itself make a policy intervention unjustified, such policies raise a number of ethical considerations and concerns and should be justified by advancing another valuable social goal, like protecting public health” (World Health Organization, 2021, p. 1)
They go on to state several criteria that help define the circumstances in which human rights can be overridden to mandate vaccinations to mass populations(World Health Organization, 2021) . These criteria include necessity and proportionality, sufficient evidence of vaccine safety, sufficient evidence of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, sufficient supply, and public trust (World Health Organization, 2021). All of these different factors seem to be met in regards to Covid-19, which would make it ethical to require vaccinations for the good of the public.

Looking at the United States as an example, New York City was recently the first major city in the U.S. to require proof of vaccination in several public amenities. These include restaurants, gyms and other businesses. The mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, was quoted stating that “if you want to participate in our society fully, you’ve got to get vaccinated” (Benveniste, A, 2021). New York has seen a decline in cases as they work towards creating a safer city (Benveniste, A, 2021). On the other side, the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has been seeking to remove the mask mandate from the state saying that “There will be no restrictions and no mandates in the state of Florida” (Reimann, 2021), even as case numbers have begun to rise to a dangerous level and continue to rise.

Overall, the ‘are you vaccinated’ question is a sensitive topic that has very strong and entrenched ideologies on either side. But scientific research and the cost- benefit analysis makes vaccinations- at the very least in some sectors- a requirement for work in order for the economy to open up and the public to be safe.

Citations

Benveniste, A. (2021, August 3) New York City will require vaccines for entry to restaurants and gyms. CNN: Business. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/03/business/new-york-city-vaccine-requirements/index.html

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). Retrieved from the Government of Canada website: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html#a2a

Canadian Human Rights Act (1985, c. H-6). Retrieved from the Canadian Department of Justice website: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html#h-256819

Canadian Medical Association. (2021, August 3) CMA and CNA call for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for health care workers. Retrieved from the Canadian Medical Association website: https://www.cma.ca/news-releases-and-statements/cma-and-cna-call-mandatory-covid-19-vaccinations-health-care-workers

Caspani, M. & Whitcomb, D. (2021, August 3) New York becomes first U.S. city to order COVID vaccines for restaurants, gyms. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nyc-require-proof-vaccination-indoor-activities-mayor-2021-08-03/

Government of Ontario. (2015) Vaccines for children at school. Retrieved from the Government of Canada website: https://www.ontario.ca/page/vaccines-children-school

Nourish [@nourishboutiquespa]. (2021, July 12). Privacy Policy: We all have strong opinions about the choices we make. Let’s also choose to be mindful and respectful of our right to personal privacy… [Instagram photo]. Retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/CRPVUVQLyVS/

Personal Health Information Protection Act (2004, c. 3, Sched. A). Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/04p03

Reimann, N. (2021, July 30) Florida’s DeSantis Signing Order To Block Mask Mandates In Schools. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/07/30/floridas-desantis-signing-order-to-block-mask-mandates-in-schools/?sh=24433d1d3d87

This essay was written by summer student Hannah Mastin and edited by summer student Adam Best. This article was funded by the Government of Canada.

National Do Not Call List (Canada)

To limit the number of telemarketing calls you receive, you (or a person you authorize to act on your behalf) can register your phone, mobile and fax numbers on the National Do Not Call List.

Ways to register:

    Online at www.LNNTE-DNCL.gc.ca
    By phone at 1 866 580- DNCL (3625)
    Via TTY device at 1 888 362-5889
    By faxing your fax number to 1 888 362-5329
    There is no charge to register your number(s) on the National Do Not Call List.

Your number(s) will remain on the National Do Not Call List indefinitely.

A Canadian federal employee’s guide to PIPEDA

A Canadian federal employee’s guide to PIPEDA

First, let’s quickly overview PIPEA: What is it?

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, also known as PIPEDA, is a law passed by the Parliament of Canada respecting privacy for the private sector and applies to personal information collected during the course of commercial activities. (Wikipedia contributors, 2018)

What employers have to work within PIPEDA??

Any employer who falls under federal jurisdiction in the Constitution of Canada.

Those areas being:

  • banks (but not provincial credit unions).
  • marine shipping, ferry and port services.
  • air transportation, including airports, aerodromes and airlines.
  • railway and road transportation that involves crossing provincial or international borders.
  • canals, pipelines, tunnels and bridges (crossing provincial borders).
  • telephone, telegraph, and cable systems.
  • radio and television broadcasting.
  • grain elevators, feed and seed mills.
  • uranium mining and processing.
  • businesses dealing with the protection of fisheries as a natural resource.
  • many First Nation activities.
  • most federal Crown corporations.
  • private businesses necessary to the operation of a federal act. (Government of Canada, 2018)

Specific employers include but are not limited to:

Government of Canada and most federal Crown corporations such as Canada Post, Banks (Bank of Montreal, RBC, Scotiabank, Tangerine), Airlines (Air Canada, Porter, Westjet), and Phone and cable companies (Bell Canada, Rogers, Telus), for examples.

What are federal employers’ obligations under PIPEDA?

  • obtain consent when they collect, use, or disclose their personal information;
  • supply an individual with a product or a service even if they refuse consent for the collection, use or disclosure of your personal information unless that information is essential to the transaction;
  • collect information by fair and lawful means; and
  • have personal information policies that are clear, understandable and readily available. (Wikipedia contributors, 2018)

What are federal employees’ rights under PIPEDA?

PIPEDA gives employees the right to:

  • know why an organization collects, uses or discloses their personal information;
  • expect an organization to collect, use or disclose their personal information reasonably and appropriately, and not use the information for any purpose other than that to which they have consented;
  • know who in the organization is responsible for protecting their personal information;
  • expect an organization to protect their personal information by taking appropriate security measures;
  • expect the personal information an organization holds about them to be accurate, complete and up-to-date;
  • obtain access to their personal information and ask for corrections if necessary; and
  • complain about how an organization handles their personal information if they feel their privacy rights have not been respected. (Wikipedia contributors, 2018)

As a federal employee, how can I access my private human resources file?

Ask! Or send a written letter to your organization’s Chief Privacy Officer or whichever officer is in charge of the company’s privacy policy. Details on who that person is will be available from your employer.

“Ordinarily, it should cost you little or nothing to gain access to your personal information. The law requires an organization to respond to your request at minimal or no cost to you.” (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2016)

References

Government of Canada. (2018, November 9). Federally Regulated Businesses and Industries. Retrieved 29 March 2019, from https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/employment-equity/regulated-industries.html.

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2016, September 12). Accessing your personal information. Retrieved 29 March 2019, from https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/access-to-personal-information/accessing-your-personal-information/.

Wikipedia contributors. (2018, November 13). Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 29 March 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personal_Information_Protection_and_Electronic_Documents_Act&oldid=868668286.

This article was written by J2DW CEO Peter V. Tretter

Women in the Workplace: The Hidden Battle

Introduction

Throughout our history, women have adopted new roles from working as a housewife to entering the workplace and providing for their family or oneself. As women entered the workplace, we saw issues of sexual harassment, unequal pay and opportunity starting to emerge. These issues are still seen and frequently voiced today as women are continuously taking a stand for their rights. Unfortunately, there are many issues that go unnoticed that need to be addressed. Every day women have to prove that they are just as good or better than their counterparts and when they fail to do so they are labeled as weak, incompetent or just plain lazy.

In the recent years, the discrepancy between men and women has hardly narrowed down. As per statistics, even though roughly the same number of men and women enter the corporate world, it is not odd to see that the percentage of men who climb up the managerial positions are double that of women (Fuhrmans, 2017). A Woman generally has three different stages in her career and with every stage comes a different challenge. Take note that even though there is no particular challenge that emerges within a certain stage, we do see common denominators that go hand in hand with certain stages.

Stage one

Typically women in this stage are young and just starting out in their career and are very ambitious, wanting to climb the corporate ladder. It is in this stage that women are most likely to be subjected to sexual harassment. Being at an entry level position and trying to move up is difficult and some men may try and use that to their advantage. Many women are seen as objects rather than a human being and are preyed against by males. We see sexual harassment being conducted in a number of ways. Such as men in authoritative positions trying to use their title and power to attract and control women. Men who conduct such acts tend to pick on women whom they think are easy targets, would have no one to turn to and who would not be able to stand up for their own rights (Reddy 2017). Sexual harassment is a common issue that all women want to eradicate. This is one of the most shameful and grave challenges that women face at the workplace.

Another challenge women face during this stage is finding a role model, someone they can look up to. Nowadays there are a lot of both men and women leaders in the workplace but very few female role models that other women can look up to. Men leaders tend to train those that look up to them to be like them and when women turn to males as role models, they receive a different result than what a male would see. Since men and women think and communicate differently, it therefore causes women who seek help from men to feel detached and disoriented (Reddy, 2017). We do see some women turning to other female coworkers that are on the same level as them for guidance or learning to make their own path.

Stage two

Stage two typically emerges for women who want start a family and become mothers. Naturally, we see the family becoming a dominant priority and the career coming second. The work-life balance is always a hidden battle for women as throughout centuries women were seen as the sole homemakers and as somebody who would take care of the family at home. Nowadays it is not always set and stone for which parent will take time of to stay at home with the child when it’s born. When women are the ones to take time off and go on maternity leave, we do not see less challenges emerging for them. Maternity leave is not so much of a hidden challenge, but it is one that should be made aware of. Most women who go on maternity leave tend to do so near the newborn’s delivery date and after the baby is born. What needs to be made aware is the stress and discomfort women feel as they work during the nine-month pregnancy. Women not only have to carry and care for another human being inside of them but they also have to deliver the same amount of work productivity and expectations. It is hard for soon-to-be mothers to keep stress levels low and be in a healthy state of mind when they still have to prepare and give presentations at office meetings and ensure to hit tight deadlines all while their bodies are changing (Reddy, 2017).

It sometimes doesn’t get any easier for women once they come back after maternity leave as they have more obstacles to face. Some women are thrown back into the heavy workload they had before leaving while others have to prove their worth to the company all over again. Thankfully we are starting to see changes occurring to help women bridge the gap of returning to work from maternity leave, as corporate firms are now introducing flexible policies for women (Reddy, 2017).

Third stage

The third stage directly correlates with stage two as children are now grown up and house responsibilities for the mother have subsided. We see women shifting their focus to their careers again but are faced with an enormous challenge. It is easier for women who choose to work part time or flexible hours when they were raising their children to transfer back into full time work. Those who took a leave of absence from work for an extended period of time have great trouble reentering the job market. They are seeing that large changes have occurred as technology advances and women are finding it more difficult to get their foot in the door again than when they first entered the job market. Not having recent work experience or keeping updated with where their specific industry is going are all factors that hinder the likelihood of women who took time off taking care of their children to find work in their field again.

Another major issue that arises in stage three is ego clashing. As women climb the corporate ladder and reach management and senior positions, it may cause ego clashing as some men consider themselves superior to women. Some men try to surpass their female manager, look for faults or they may simply not cooperate with orders given to them. It is challenging for women to have to deal with and it is sometimes beneficial to find alternative approaches in communicating and handling difficult people.

Power play politics in the workplace have been in place for a while now and men were seen as the only players. We are now starting to see power struggles occur, as women are starting to fight back and not surrender power to men. Women have to work vigorously to survive these power play politics and for some it is a crucial part for them to get hired in upper management (Reddy, 2017). Meanwhile, a lot of men are automatic contenders and go through far less scrutiny and obstacles to be considered for certain roles. Power play politics takes a lot of hardship out on a women and it sometimes can disturb ones emotional and mental peace. Power play is one such challenge that all women have to deal with no matter what sector they work in (Reddy, 2017). It is an unfortunate part of our society but women are starting to make real head way in the issue.

Conclusion

Challenges are found at every stage of life and not just in the workforce. It is important to move out of comfort zones and explore different avenues and for a lot of women, the more challenges they face, the more satisfaction they get from their achievements. While all these things are imminent for a well-rounded personality, some of the workplace battles which women face every day hinder their overall well being. There is a lot of energy and effort that women put into overcoming these challenges and issues in hopes that one day, women won’t have to go through the same obstacles and challenges that they did.

References

Fuhrmans, V. (2017). The Hidden Battle fo the Sexes at work. Retrieved 12 11, 2017, from The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com

Reddy, K. (2017). Women in the Workplace: Top 10 Issues and Challenges. Retrieved 12 08, 2017, from Wise Step.com: https://content.wisestep.com

The facts about incentive pay

In the following essay, I am going to analyze incentives for workers to perform tasks, and thus come up with a conclusion as to what makes the most sense for employers to incentivize their employees with. I will back up my analysis with the mention of two research papers.

The exchange of money for the completion of tasks, the labour market, is arguably one of the most important transactions for the ongoing of our economy. If it did not exist, we would not be able to progress further into developing our world into a better home for the generations to come. And with this importance, comes a concept just as important, keeping employees just as motivated to continue working.

Human nature is such that motivation within us does not last forever, and thus refilling ourselves on a constant dose of motivational fuel is pivotal in the success of our tasks.

There are in general, two types of incentive pay, which are merit pay and bonus pay. Merit pay can be defined as the permanent increase related to performance against a standard that reflection evidence of permanently increased productivity. The term bonus can also be defined similarly as a single period additional pay related to performance that may not be reproducible in the next period without sufficient additional effort. We will examine the advantages and disadvantages of both these pay structures.

Under the umbrella of merit pay is the piece rate, where workers are paid on the basis of the output they produce. Piece rates hold the benefits of workers are motivated to produce more output because of the fact that their wages are directly proportional to their pay, it is a system that attracts good workers due to the fact that more skilled labour will want to join the company because of such a pay structure, and there exist savings of monitoring workers and keeping track of their productivity.

Seeing how effective such a piece rate method of payment is, I am going to support my argument with supporting research. Edward Lazear wrote a paper titled “Performance Pay and Productivity” where he examined how effective the incentive pay of piece rate was in inducing workers to produce more output. His examination of personnel economics uses data from a company called Safelite Glass Corporation, which is an auto glass company. His use of this data derives from the fact that in 1994 and 1995, management in the company changed the compensation from hourly wages to piece rates. This provided the necessary data to analyze how effective the new piece rate was in inducing more output.

His findings can be summarized into the following points:

1. A switch to piece-rate pay has a significant effect on average levels of output per worker. This is in the range of a 44-percent gain.

2. The gain can be attributed to two components. Approximately half of the gain in productivity resulted from the ability of the company to hire a more able workforce.

3. The change to piece rate resulted in both gains in productivity for the firm and benefits for the employees. Employees on average earned 10% higher due to the change.

4. Switching to a piece rate increases the variance in output. More ambitious workers have less incentive to differentiate themselves when hourly wages are paid than when piece-rate pay is used.

Even though these findings are specific to one firm, they provide useful insights into how piece rates can affect employees and firms.

In a different research paper titled “Pay Enough or Don’t Pay At All” by Gneezy and Rustichini, the researchers find that some employees react negatively to the piece rate offered if the wages are not substantial enough.

The researchers set out to figure out whether the default economic theory that incentives should induce performance is realistic in the complex world we live in. The researchers conducted an experiment in a lab where students were asked to answer a few IQ test questions and were told that they would be paid a piece rate related to the number of answers they got correct. They got a base pay for showing up for the test and then the subjects were divided into three groups that were randomly assigned a piece rate.

What the researchers found is that the test subjects perceived the piece rate as follows. The test subjects just offered the base pay and nothing more did the job more effectively than subjects that were offered a small piece rate plus base pay. This is because offering a small piece rate changes the perception of the contract as explained below.

If a zero piece rate is offered, subjects tend to perceive the ‘contract’ as follows: “The experimenter has offered me 60 cents to do a job. Now I know what that job is –answering questions—and it is my job to do it satisfactorily.” Putting this in a different way—subjects interpret this as a gift exchange contract.

If a positive piece rate is offered, subjects tend to perceive the contract more as follows: “The experimenter has offered me 60 cents to show up. I’ve done that. Now he is offering me 10 cents per question to answer questions.

The question of incentive pay is an important question labour economists have been trying to answer for years and we need to strive as a society in figuring out what the most effective way of motivating our employees is. In the above analysis, I briefly touched upon piece rate with some evidence from research, but there are a variety of incentive pay schemes the labour market can take advantage of.

Piece rates can be effectively put to use to induce productivity if used correctly. In the case of the first research paper, the nature of the work determined the success of the piece rate. In the second research case, a high piece rate was effective in inducing higher productivity. The piece rate, if implemented wisely, can be a very important determinant in a company’s labour output.

References
1. Gneezy, Uri, and Aldo Rustichini. “Pay Enough or Don’t Pay at All*.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 115, no. 3, 2000, pp. 791–810., doi:10.1162/003355300554917.
2. Lazear, Edward. “Performance Pay and Productivity.” 1996, doi:10.3386/w5672.

Are the costs of University worth it?

In this essay, I will present data from a research that Douglas. A. Webber finds to analyze whether college costs are worth the financial costs they implicate on the individual. In today’s competitive labour market, it is pivotal to know whether college costs are worth the effort. There are varying forms of education, and some occupations are better learned from on-the-job training.

Douglas A. Webber, in his paper, addresses through in an analytical approach whether it is a sound financial investment to go to college after high school. His approach takes the form of comparing the monetary costs associated with the 4 years of attending college with the monetary wage benefits that people who have attended college enjoy. He controls for settings such as major, student loan debt and ability in his analysis.

Motivation:

“The most recent graduating college cohort is burdened by an average of roughly $30,000 in student loan debt, while the national total has surpassed $1.2 trillion, a figure that some claim represents an economic bubble which could have substantial negative effects for future generations.”

Weber conducts this research due to the fact that college debt and people graduating college has been on the increase for a while now, with a number of students reporting a sense of non-fulfillment from their educations. This paper discards the opinions and conducts a quantitative analysis.

Data:

Weber makes use of 6 data sets in his analysis: NLSY79, NLSY97, 2014 ACS, CPS, 1993 NSCG and 2003 NSCG. He makes use of such varying data sets to control for different characteristics such as cognitive ability and age. This is important to make sure the analysis is done in a fair and accurate manner.

Methodology:

Weber formulates a methodology that aims to calculate the age at which the costs of a college education are surpassed by the benefits attained from attending college. The costs of a college degree include both implicit and explicit costs, implicit costs related to the forgone earnings from the time taken up when attending college. The model created caters for selection into college and specific majors based on cognitive and non-cognitive factors.
Weber uses regression models to calculate the age at which an individual would find a college education worthwhile.

Results:

Weber presents 6 tables in his results section, including summary statistics, simulated expected lifetime earnings, break even ages, and the discounted value of degrees. He presents a variation of some data at the 25th percentile of ability and for the discounted value of a degree, he presents a version that allows for major switching.

The most important of the tables that lead to the main conclusion is shown here.

The expected earnings include the possibility supported by statistics that college graduates are likely to not graduate in 6 years’ time. The college costs included in the analysis are $30,000 of debt at graduation at a 4.3% interest rate and $7000 per year not financed by debt.
Weber then discusses the time it takes for the expected value of a college degree to exceed that of a high school diploma. Results presented in the table below.

The notable results from the above table are that there is only one case where the expected value of a college degree will not surpass just a high school education when college expenses are high and the individual majors in Arts/Humanities. Most majors for different variations exceed their costs at some point during an individual’s life.

Conclusion and remarks:

Weber finds that attending college is a sound financial decision for most people and supports this claim by analyzing and controlling for rate of dropout, an ability of individuals, majors etc.

Weber admits that there needs to be added transparency to high school graduates about what exactly they are getting themselves into. High school graduates are at a young age when making the decision to go to college and finance this experience with debt; a lot of students might not fully understand the nature and payoffs of their decisions. Society plays a role in this too, in the way that society has created the notion that the best step forward after high school is college.

Another point to discuss for the Weber analysis is the lack of attention towards other implicit costs of college such as stress and mental health. Full credit is given to Weber for his thorough analysis and control of ability, and I assume the reason he did not include other implicit costs was the subjectivity of assigning a monetary value to a concept like stress, but I do believe it could have been incorporated somewhere into his model. An effort to estimate average yearly spending towards counseling by universities and distributing this to each individual is an example of a method that may have been used.

To wrap up, Weber takes the question of “Are college costs worth it?” and gives a thorough analysis in answering the question for the purposes of making it easier for high school students easier to choose or avoid college. My personal thoughts on reading the paper were quite ‘bittersweet’. It was insightful to see why most people choose to go to college, but there is a feeling of unease that I am reading this just as I am about to graduate college.

REFRENCES

Webber, D. A. (2016). Are college costs worth it? How ability, major, and debt affect the returns to schooling. Economics of Education Review, 53, 296-310. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.04.007

This article was written by volunteer & co-op student Mohammadali Saleh.

The Gender Wage Gap Explained

Many famous individuals have used the quote “Women earn 79 cents for every dollar a man makes”, and although this fact is statistically true, there is a lot that is unexplained in it. The above fact only compares the two median wages of men and women and does not factor into account how the wage gap plays out in individuals with different education levels, different occupations or different ages. These factors are very important to take into account if we want to ever close the gender wage gap.

To explain much of the argument on the gender wage gap, I must first state that economists have modeled wages through the Mincer Wage Equation, which can be stated as:

The equation above can be interpreted as log wages is a function of the years of schooling, plus the amount of career experience, and career experience squared, and an error term and a constant term for other unaccounted for factors. In simpler words, employers reward employees for the amount of schooling and experience they hold.

Child-bearing responsibilities

June O’Neill wrote a paper in 2003 studying the gender wage gap in the US economy by looking at two population surveys. In his conclusion, he writes, “As I have shown in this paper, the unadjusted gender gap can be explained to a large extent by nondiscriminatory factors. Those factors are unlikely to change radically in the near future unless the roles of women and men in the home become more nearly identical.”

What June O’Neill meant to convey in her conclusive remarks is that much of the gender wage gap can be attributed to the fact that females are the only sex that is biologically able to produce offspring. It is not a discriminatory attribute that women have the ability to give birth, and this ability has continuously led to the difference in the amount men and women earn.

What usually tends to happen after college graduation in today’s labour market is after holding a stable job for a few years, when women are in their mid-twenties and thirties, they usually take some time off to give birth and nurture the child after birth. In a study conducted by Bertrand, Goldin and Katz to examine the gender wage gap in MBA graduates, they state that one of the principal reasons why there exists a big gender wage gap between men and women is that in the first fifteen years post-graduation, women take on more career interruptions and work shorter weeks because of household responsibilities. The study also finds that even though some women took modest breaks from work for parental leave, the labour market penalized these breaks greatly. The discontinuity in a professional career during this age is also the prime time to build one’s career.

Such discontinuity is penalized by a lower wage, and this is quite fair because the said individual took time off during a time where they could be obtaining prime experience in their careers. June O’Neill finds that 34% of women with children under the age of six were out of the work force between the ages of 25-44 compared to only 16% of women who were out of the workforce who did not have children. Making the choice to have a child is a quite strong indication of work discontinuity which will directly lead to a loss in experience gain and a lower wage.

Career choice

The science behind the labour market is centralized around human capital theory, where employees are rewarded with wages for their ability to demonstrate their knowledge and do so efficiently.

Again, it is no secret that some careers are better paid in today’s world than others. This is a harsh reality in some underpaid occupations, but in other cases, it is quite justifiable. Rewarding an occupation like a surgeon to perform life-saving operations is very fair in my opinion.

“The expectation of withdrawals from the labour force and the need to work fewer hours during the week are likely to influence the type of occupations that women train for and ultimately pursue” – O’Neill, 2003. This statement in his paper is given by examining the career choices that women have chosen and how they came to the decisions that they did through population surveys. Women tend to lean towards occupations where there is more leniency towards career discontinuity and careers where part-time worked is more readily available. A direct example of this is the nursing versus doctor industry, where most nurses are women. Nurses hold set shifts and know exact times when they will be working and so is more favourable to a mother who has to care for a child. As an emergency doctor that can be called in at any time during the day, your shifts can vary a lot and it would make life difficult to care for a child and be on-call at a hospital.

Conclusion

Much of the gender wage gap can be explained by the two factors that are outlined above. The fact that women take breaks during their working life to nurture children and build their households, and that women choose careers that are more flexible in the hours that employees are required to work, which is a result of the time off women need to take to have children.

Although this explains a lot of the gender wage gap, there is evidence to support that some of the wage gap is purely discriminatory. But there is some good news to accompany this, Pew Research Centre conducted a study that found that “The gender gap in pay has narrowed since 1980, particularly among younger workers…” and so there is some hope that someday we will be able to eliminate the gender wage gap completely.

References

Brown, A., & Patten, E. (2017, April 03). The narrowing, but persistent, gender gap in pay. Retrieved August 11, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/

O’Neill, J. (2003). The Gender Gap in Wages. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 309-314. Retrieved August 7, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3132245

Bertand, M., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2010). Dynamics of the Gender Gap for Young Professionals in the Financial and Corporate Sectors. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 228-255. Retrieved August 04, 2017, from http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.2.3.228

This article was written by volunteer Mohammadali Saleh.

Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Journey to Diversity Workplaces.