Watch any episode of Mad Men and you’ll get the gist of what gender bias in the workplace may have been like back in the day. In 1963, women who were working full time earned just 59 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. That same year, in an effort to remedy the disparity, the Equal Pay Act, designed to “prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers,” was passed.
While it may seem like a snail’s pace – less than half a percent per year since the Act went into effect – the gap is closing. Women now earn 76 cents for every dollar a man earns in today’s market. OK, so I’m not exactly cheering “You’ve come a long way, baby!” with that statistic, but admittedly, we’re headed in the right direction.
Go ahead, make your arguments that the continued disparity is all because of women’s typical career choices, an under representation in the math and science fields, career pathways that allow for flexibility and a possible reluctance of women as a whole to go the entrepreneurial route. There may very well be some truth to all of them.
However, this piece by CBS News offers more insight into what working women have in store as time marches on:
- Within 22% of dual income male/female households, the women are the breadwinners
- It’s projected that women will start to earn 60% of Bachelor’s degrees – women currently make up 58% of all college students
- Women will soon hold more full time jobs than men
- Equal Ambition – high achieving, female millenials who are entering the marketplace are keenly aware of the wage gap and will settle for nothing less than equal pay
But it is not just the millenials who will never settle. There is currently a landmark law suit now set to go to trial that was filed by six female Walmart employees alleging “systemic sexism” by their former employer.
Walmart argues that they “foster female leadership among their associates and in the larger business world.” Those filing suit claim that they’re paid less than men in the same or comparable role, receive fewer promotions and wait longer for promotions. If you want more in-depth details, check out this report from ABC News.
As one of the nation’s largest private employers, this case could potentially be the largest class action lawsuit in American history – many also predict that this one will ultimately land in the Supreme Court. No company should be considered “too big to be held responsible” when it comes to discriminatory practices, but playing devil’s advocate: does the experience of six women who worked in 13 stores truly reflect the corporate culture of an organization that has 2.1 million workers in 8,000 stores worldwide? The courts will decide and the impact of this case will truly be far reaching.
Annette,
As an executive HR professional for most of my professional life, and having “participated” in several EEOC audits, I am following the Wal-Mart case closely. As you may know they had a serious case a few years ago regarding hiring illegal aliens through a thrird party for overnight clean-up, re-stocking etc. I thought to myself, they have an HR leadership problem. I find it hard to believe that they would have a systemic issue now with women’s pay practices. It makes no sense on many levels. Unfortunately for Wal-Mart the only side of the story that gets published at this point is the Plantiff’s side. They have nothing to lose. So, would love to chat with you more about it because it is possible that it is or may be a significant case. Wal-Mart has to know it’s in the spotlight with it’s union appeal etc. I find it hard to believe that they would allow themselves to be vunerable to this kind of an issue. I would be curious to hear more of your thoughts on this issue.
Thanks.
I think there’s another question missing here: Is it hard to believe that these women were discriminated against during their tenure at Walmart? Sadly, that I do not find hard to believe.
Now that we have a class action lawsuit moving forward, I hope that the heart of the case is not lost. As I noted, I do find it worth questioning whether their experiences (6 employees) can truly be representative of the entire company (2.1 million employees).
However, to your point, why wasn’t Walmart watching more closely for patterns at these stores? As you noted, they have been in a bad spotlight before for hiring practices. Walmart’s also had plenty of negative press and challenges posed to them about their business practices in general – for example Frontline’s “Is Walmart good for America?” piece: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/
I don’t think any company should be vilified, but again should any organization be too big to be held responsible?