The Personal Is Political

Women And Work

Our thoughts
Feminism 101
Sexual Health
Sex Education
Violence Against Women
What is Rape?
If You Are Raped
Rape Survivors Stories
Why Do Women Stay?
Domestic Abuse Checklist and Safety Planning
Restraining Orders and Injunctions
Stories of Those Who Survived
Society, Media, and Body Image
Television, Gender roles, and Motherhood
Women and Work
Women and Welfare
Pay Equality
Reads We Recommend
Links to More Information
Leave Feedback and Comments

     One significant contributing factor to the wage gap, is the fact that women are found in low-paying jobs at a higher rate than men. U.S. Census Bureau statistics continue to show that the average earnings for women are lower than the average earnings for men. When you think of a CEO of a large company, do you think of a man, or a woman? What about a secretary? How about doctors and nurses? Many of the extremely well-paying jobs are predominantly men, and many of the lower paying jobs are dominated by women. Due to the high costs of childcare, many single women are unable to break out of a cycle of poverty even with financial assistance. On this page we will examine this issue of women being caught in low-paying jobs. The following essay was written by Ellen Bravo and Gloria Santa Anna, in addition to this essay, I have posted links to two studies on this issue at the bottom.

     Any commentator reviewing progress in the United States during the twentieth century will list prominently the gains of working women. Swept away were laws and customs that prevailed for the centuries––allowing lower pay for women doing the same work as men, permitting women to be fired for being pregnant, considering women fair game for harassment on the job. From doctor to drill sergeant, carpenter to CEO, women changed the face of the nation’s workforce. The notion that women had been absent from certain jobs because they weren’t capable was dealt a significant blow.
     And yet, women in this country still earn less than men for equivalent jobs. Many women today lose their jobs when they give birth. Sexual harassment remains a persistent problem in the workplace. While women appear in almost every occupational category, they are woefully underrepresented in higher-paying positions.
     In fact, the picture for working women is decidedly mixed. Gains have been real and important, but many women have not been significantly affected by them. A close look at three areas––pay, work/family balance, and welfare––helps illustrate the problems and their impact on women and their families. If women as a whole are to benefit, concern for equality must be joined with fundamental change in the way this society does business.


     A quick look at the numbers shows how greatly the workforce has changed. By 1998 women accounted for 46.3% of the total U.S. labor force, compared with 37.7% in 1960. Nearly six out of every ten women––59.8%––age 16 and over were working or looking for work. Women are expected to make up 48% of the workforce by 2005.
While marriage and childbirth had never spelled the end of employment for certain groups of women, especially African Americans and immigrants, the majority of women in the past left the workforce to care for their families. That reality has changed drastically, as a result of shrinking real wages and growing expectations. Debate about whether women should work has become moot. Most women––including most married mothers––are in the labor force. More than 62% of mothers of children under 3 work outside the home, compared to 39.4% in 1978. Employment, however, has brought women neither equality nor an end to poverty.


     Despite dramatic increases in pay for some, earnings for women as a group remain not just lower than men’s but often very low indeed:

• Of women working full-time in 2000, 13.3% earned less than $ 15,000 for the year. For Latinas, the figure is 26.9%; for African- Americans, 17.3%
• 27% of employed mothers are in a household with income less than $25,000/year.

     Why do Women make so little money? Because their employers pay them so little. And why is that? Aside from the continuation of blatant discrimination the reasons include the following factors:

1) Although there have been huge changes in jobs formerly closed to women, most Women do the same jobs they’ve always done, and those jobs pay less than comparable jobs done by men.

• Nearly 60% of Women workers are employed in service, sales and clerical jobs.
• Even within certain occupations, women are Clustered in the lower-paying jobs. In retail trades, for instance, Women in 2000 constituted, 78% of employees in gift and novelty shops but only 20% of those employed in higher-paying car dealerships.
• More women are in professional and managerial Positions, but they’ve made little head-s way in skilled construction trades and other traditionally male, blue-collar occupations or at the top of the corporate ladder. Women account for only 2% of firefighters and electricians, 11.5% of police and 5% of senior managers.
• Women of color are concentrated in the lowest-paving jobs, including domestic workers, nurses’ aides and child-care workers.1

     Many people talk about the need to increase the number of women in science and math. While those efforts are needed, they ignore the underlying question: why does Society value accountants more than social workers? Embedded in the market value of jobs is the legacy of past discrimination, based on gender and on race.

2) Women disproportionately are employed in part- time and temporary jobs. No law says these jobs have to pay the same as full-time and permanent positions, or give any, much less equivalent benefits.

     Tracy was a temp for more than 6 years because she could find permanent employment. She had to leave her house—and herschoo1-aged son––at 5 a.m. to ride a bus that took her to a van which transported her (for a fee) to jobs in the outlying areas. Her annual income was less than $13,000 and she had no benefits. Tracy could not afford a car and sometimes was without a home. “Even though I was always working,“ said Tracy, “I was living in poverty.”
     When Linda’s marriage fell apart, she tried to find full-time employment but had to make do with three part-time jobs None of her jobs provided health insurance, including one at a nursing home. At age 38, Linda had a serious heart attack. She eventually found a doctor and hospital Willing to do the Surgery and was able to have hospital bills waived. Still, she owed $20, 000 to 16 different health care professionals. After she recovered, Linda found a full-time job and a second, part-time position to pay something every month on those bills. She suffered another heart attack and died on that job the day before her 42nd birthday.

3) Moonlighting––working more than one job—has been one area where women have made great gains in recent years. Between 1978 and 1998, women Constituted 72% of the additional 3.4 million people in this category, accounting for nearly half (47.8%) of all multiple jobholders. Three out of ten of these women work two part-time jobs.2

     Part-time or temporary positions can be beneficial for women, as long as they are voluntary and equitable. Increasingly, these positions are neither. Regular part-time female workers are paid 20% less than regular full-time workers with similar characteristics. In 1997, median weekly earnings of temp workers were $329 a week, as compared to $5 10 a week for workers in traditional jobs.3 Being paid less than full-time or permanent workers often means poverty wages. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute 28.1% of women employed by temporary help agencies earn less than $5.95 an hour. So do 36.7% of female part-timers. Fewer than one of ten women temps and two in ten part-timers receive health insurance from their employers.4

4) Women are still largely responsible for family. The penalty for that is significant—and most women never make it up. One study of professional women who took an average of 8.8 months leave showed them earning 17% less than women who hadn’t taken leave.5 For lower-wage women, taking a leave may also mean losing a job and having to start over—often having to go on welfare. In a 1980 speech, Clarence Thomas spoke with disdain of his sister who had gone on welfare. He neglected to mention that she’d done so in order to care for an aunt who had a stroke.

5) The globalization of the economy has affected women’s pay in several ways. Large numbers of women from Asia, Central America and elsewhere find themselves in the United States, their native economies turned upside-down by transnational corporations. Here they fill jobs U.S.-born workers try to avoid, sewing garments and assembling products in old-fashioned sweatshops, picking crops, not uncommonly with their children by their side. The most basic employment protections often elude them. Globalization has costs for U.S. workers as well, as the same transnationals move jobs overseas in the quest for ever cheaper labor. Decent-paying manufacturing jobs disappear, replaced by lower- paying industries or low-wage service jobs.

6) Women are disproportionately represented among minimum-wage earners, accounting for more than 3/5 of all those in this category. Of these women in 2000, 15% were married, 10% were women maintaining families.

7) Unionized women earn 31% more than nonunion women. Despite talk of “supply and demand,” wage levels depend above all on bargaining power. Being able to bargain collectively for pay and benefits helps diminish the undervaluation of women’s work and to create more opportunities for women to move into higher-paying jobs. A contract also ensures greater protection against arbitrary firing and a greater likelihood of paid maternity leave—with the longer job tenure ensuring higher pay. However, only 11.4% of all women are unionized. Although women have increased their percentage of all union members, up to 40% in 1998 from 35% a decade earlier, that gain also reflects the loss of union jobs for men—only 16.2% are in unions, down from 20.4% in 1988.
Clearly, the solution to women’s low pay must be much more far-reaching than elevating greater numbers of women into jobs traditionally performed by men. To end poverty among women and their families will require fundamental restructuring of the economy.


     Today 55% of working women provide half or more of their families’ income. Only 1/5 of families with children fit the stereotype of Dad as breadwinner, Mom full-time at home. Yet the workplace has not kept pace with these changes in the workforce. Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993 was an important step forward. This law allows women and men to take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave to care for a new child, a seriously ill child, spouse or parent, or for a personal illness. But the impact of the bill remains unacceptably narrow. Consider these findings from an updated study originally done for the bipartisan Commission on Leave:6

• Only 62% of U.S. workers both work for covered employers (those with 50 or more employees) and meet the eligibility requirements (at least 12 months on the job, working for at least 1,250 hours).
• Only 11 % of private sector work sites are covered.
• Two-fifths of non-covered firms with 25- 49 employees do not provide leave for all FMLA reasons.
• 62% of employees at covered establishments do not know if the FMLA applies to them. 16% of those employers do not know if they are covered or mistakenly report that they are not when, in fact, they are.
• Women, younger workers, workers with low family incomes, and those not protected by collective bargaining are most likely to be ineligible or unable to afford leave. Of all ethnic groups, Latino workers are least likely to be protected.
• Of those who needed leave but didn’t take it, 78% said they couldn’t afford to lose their wages. Nearly one out of ten leave-takers used public assistance to deal with lost income during leave.

     Not all workers in the U.S. have access to paid sick leave or even vacation. According to a study reported in Pediatrics magazine, 60% of the working poor do not have sick leave they can use to care for sick family members.7 Nearly three out of four of the working poor did not consistently have paid sick leave between 1994 and 1998.8 Adding to the problem has been the view in U.S. culture that care of family members is a private problem to be solved by individual employees.


     In 1996 we saw the passage of national welfare reform legislation—the stunning reversal of U.S. policy that for decades had guaranteed assistance to poor women and children. Unfortunately, the new policy is based on faulty assumptions and an unrealistic view of where women will work.

     Many architects of welfare reform start with the premise that the majority of women are on welfare because they won’t work. Their strategy is to force them to work—any job will do. They design extensive punishments for those who don’t comply. Since women can’t work without some assistance, they provide some help with insurance and child care. The measure of success is reduction in the welfare rolls.

     In fact, 70% of women on welfare during a two- year period were working or looking for work.9 They’re cyclers (on and off welfare) or combiners (combine work and welfare). According to a study of six midwest states by Northern Illinois University, only 6.3% of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients never worked; only 3.4% of adults were under 18.10

     The most serious problem with the program implemented in 1996 is that it’s missing the key component: jobs. There aren’t enough jobs, the ones that are available don’t pay enough, and there’s a mismatch between the job seekers and where good jobs are located and the skills they require.

     We need to understand that most women are on welfare because of problems with work or with some other system in their lives, such as marriage or education. The strategy must be to find solutions for those problems—job training, creation of living wage jobs with affordable leave, adequate quality child care, health insurance, along with efforts to eliminate domestic violence, reach equity and quality in all schools, and so forth. Since the problems affect more people than those on welfare, the solutions need to be universal. The measure of success must be reduction in poverty, not in caseloads, and rise in self-sufficiency for families.


     Often policy makers and advocates for women’s rights speak of “women” as if one size fits all. But women exist in splendid diversity. Only a thorough understanding of specific conditions of various groups, an understanding that looks through the lens of class, race and ethnicity, and sexual orientation, can lead us to the range of solutions that women need. Progress for women cannot be measured only by what happens to women in professional and managerial jobs. In order for women as a whole to benefit, the fight for gender equality must go hand in hand with the struggle against all forms
of oppression. [2002]

1. See Karen Rosenblum, “The Wage Gap: Myths and Facts,” for occupational concentrations by race, ethnicity and gender. In Kesselman et al. Women: Images and Realities, a Multicultural Anthology. (California: Mayfield Publishing Company. 1999).
2. Cynthia Costello, and Anne J. Stone. eds., The American Woman 2001-2002. (New York: Norton, 2001).
3. National Alliance For Fair Employment, Contingent Workers Fight for Fairness. (Boston: National Alliance for Fair Employment, 2000).
4. Anne Kalleberg, et al., Nonstandard Work, Substandard Jobs. (Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute,
5. This 1 994 study by business professors Joy Schneer and Frieda Reiton compared 128 women MBAs who had never taken a break with 63 who had taken some leave and gone back full time by 1987.
6. Balancing the Needs of Families and Employers: Family and Medical Leave Surveys 2000 Update, conducted by Westat for the U.S. Department of Labor. (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 2000).
7. Jody Heymann, “Parental Availability for the Care of Sick Children,” Pediatrics magazine, 98, No. 2 (August 1996).
8. Jody Heymann, et al., Work-Family Issues and Low Income Families. (New York: Ford Foundation, 2002).
9. Roberta Spalter-Roth, et al., Welfare Thai Works: The Working Lives of AFDC Recipients. (Washington, D.C.:
Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 1995.)
10. Paul Kleppner and Nikolas Theodore, Work After Welfare: Is the Midwest’s Booming Economy Creating Enough Jobs? (Chicago: Northern Illinois University: 1997.)

"Rosie the Riveter" narrated and performed by Keith & Dusty McNeil