Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822319
label
Equal Pay [4]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822319
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Equal Pay [4]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822319
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-007-014-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
93f5b7d619166fbb
ocrText
PAGE
9
30TH STORY of Level 2 printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1999 Palm Beach Newspaper, Inc.
The Palm Beach Post
January 24, 1999, Sunday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: OPINION, Pg. 2E
LENGTH: 650 words
HEADLINE: WORKING WOMEN STILL AWAIT PAYOFF
BYLINE: Fran Hathaway
BODY:
One of the few surprising moments in Tuesday's State of the Union address
came when President Clinton called for equal pay for women and men - and
applause rang out from both sides of the chamber. Even Mr. Clinton seemed
pleasantly startled.
"Let's make sure women and men get equal pay for equal work by strengthening
enforcement of equal-pay laws, he had said. Why, of all the elements in that
goody-laden speech, should that plea rouse even Republicans determined to sit on
their hands? The better question might be:
Why, after all these years, did women in 1997 still earn on average just 74.1
percent of the wages earned by men? For black women, the figure was 63 percent,
according to Labor Department figures. For Hispanic women, it was 54 percent.
Poll after poll shows pay equity is a top concern of working women and,
increasingly, the men in their lives. A woman's earnings are the linchpin to her
family's standard of living, her children's access to higher education and her
own retirement security. Women were 46 percent of the work force in 1997 and
earned $ 1 trillion. Yet the average 25-year-old woman who works full-time
year-round and retires at 65 will earn $ 523,000 less than the average working
man. And women still live several years longer than men.
How many men would stand for picking up just three of every four paychecks?
Why aren't more women demanding fair treatment? Many don't know they aren't
getting it, says Evelyn Knolle, program coordinator for the National Committee
on Pay Equity, a Washington not-for-profit coalition of 180 organizations.
President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963. By 1997, the wage gap had
narrowed from 62 percent in 1982 to 74.1 percent. Last year, the Clinton
administration introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen enforcement.
Among other things, it would protect workers who share salary information with
co-workers from being punished. Some companies prohibit that. But how else are
women to know whether they are being treated fairly?
This month, in the largest case of its kind, Texaco agreed to pay $ 3.1
million to 186 female mid-level workers whom the Labor Department found were
systematically underpaid compared with their male counterparts. The department
audits the practices of companies that do business with the federal government.
Looking at the numbers of girls flooding into colleges and graduate schools,
one might assume that better-educated women are catching up faster. But a
PAGE
10
The Palm Beach Post, January 24, 1999
study last year by Catalyst, a New York women's research group, found that even
the nation's top executive women earn only 68 cents for every dollar earned by
men in comparable positions. Of the 2,267 top earners in the Fortune 500, 83 are
women whose median annual compensation is $ 518,596, compared with $ 765,000 for
men.
Among female physicians, too, average income trails those of male physicians
by tens of thousands of dollars, and in some specialties more than $ 100,000 a
year, according to the latest Physician Compensation survey.
Want to learn how much, over a lifetime, the pay gap will cost you or your
wife or daughter? Call up the Web site www.aflcio.org/women, tap in your
personal data and prepare for a jolt.
Equal Pay Day was begun several years ago by the NCPE to raise awareness.
Last year, more than 600 professional associations, unions and women's groups
sponsored activities in 50 states. This year, it comes on April 8.
The problem with banishing bias is that it's often systemic. Attitudes
ingrained over many generations are hard to root out in one or two. They also
are absorbed early. Ms. Knolle recalls a pay equity study done by a
fourth-grader who compared her classmates' allowances. Girls did more chores,
but boys got bigger allowances.
Fran Hathaway is an editorial writer for The Palm Beach Post. Her e-mail
address is [email protected]
TYPE: COLUMN
LOAD-DATE: January 25, 1999
PAGE
2
70TH STORY of Level 2 printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1998 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Congressional Press Releases
April 3, 1998, Friday
SECTION: PRESS RELEASE
LENGTH: 394 words
HEADLINE: STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON EQUAL PAY DAY
BYLINE: EDWARD M. KENNEDY / SENATOR / SENATE
BODY:
For Immediate Release: April 3, 1998 Contact: Kathleen McKiernan (202) 224-2633
STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON EQUAL PAY DAY Working women must have
a paycheck that works for them, Economic security cannot be achieved without
paycheck security, and paychecks should reflect the fair value of the job
performed. For women, this means equal pay for equal work. Without it, they are
less able to provide an economic safety net for themselves and their families,
less able to purchase a home, less able to go or send their children to college.
Thirty-five years ago, when President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law,
he called it the first step in addressing 'the unconscionable practice of paying
female employees less wages than male employees for the same job." A generation
later, even that first step is in doubt. Wage discrimination against women
continues to be a real and pervasive problem in workplaces across the country.
The average female secretary makes $ 2,400 less than her male co- worker
performing exactly the same job. The same trend is evident in almost every
sector of the job market. Over the course of a lifetime, the average American
woman loses approximately $ 420,000 in wages and benefits because of employers'
pay discrimination. Today, the average American woman will finally -- finally
earn what her male colleague had already earned by December 31, 1997. Why does
it takes a woman 15 months to earn what a man earns in 12 months? That is clear
gender bias and paycheck discrimination, and we cannot afford to ignore it any
longer. Ingrained economic prejudices die hard. By passing the Paycheck
Fairness Act, Congress, can do more to end the disparity between the earning
power of men and women who perform the same job. The Act will make it easier to
investigate charges of wage discrimination and provide compensation when
violations are found. The Act also provides funds to ensure that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the Women's Bureau at the Department of
Labor have the resources needed to enforce the law vigorously, and to assist
employers who are genuinely attempting to eliminate pay disparities. Every woman
in America has a stake in swift Congressional passage of this measure. The
sooner we strengthen the law, the sooner this unfair anti-woman bias in the
workplace will end.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: April 3, 1998
PAGE
2
41ST STORY of Level 2 printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1998 The Christian Science Publishing Society
The Christian Science Monitor
July 17, 1998, Friday
SECTION: UNITED STATES; Pg. 7
LENGTH: 1956 words
HEADLINE: Another Day, Another 75 Cents
SERIES: Where Women Stand - 150 Years After The Women's Rights Movement Began
BYLINE: Ann Scott Tyson, Special to The Christian Science Monitor
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
HIGHLIGHT:
More than day care or harassment, America's 63 million working women say
'equal pay for equal work' is their No. 1 concern.
BODY:
Most nights, single mother Dolores Jones checks on her sleeping son, locks
the door of her brick duplex, and drives down dark, pot-holed streets to a
graveyard shift as a custodian on Capitol Hill.
For the past 11-1/2 years, Ms. Jones has worked until dawn dusting paper-strewn
desktops, emptying trash, and pushing her husky Hoover sweeper through abandoned
congressional suites - alone but for a few dogged staffers or lawmakers asleep
behind "Do Not Disturb" signs.
But while she is resigned to the wearing job, Jones is no longer willing to
tolerate what she sees as a blatant injustice: Men who perform essentially the
same work as she does earn $ 1 more per hour.
"We are tired of the unfair treatment," says Jones, one of 52 women custodians
who last July brought a class-action pay-equity suit against their employer.
Many US women today share Jones's exasperation. Indeed, decades after women
began breaking into the labor force in record numbers, the No. 1 concern of
America's 63 million working women is the stubborn male-female wage gap.
"Equal pay for equal work" is the top workplace issue for the vast majority of
employed women (94 percent), according to a nationwide survey of 50,000 working
women by the AFL-CIO last year. It is cited more often than child care (33
percent), sexual harassment (78 percent), or downsizing (72 percent).
The emphasis on fairness is justified by facts:
*
Today, as a result of discrimination and other factors, women still earn only
about 75 cents for every $ 1 that men make, according to the US Labor
Department's median weekly wage figures for 1997.
*
On average, women earn $ 24,000 a year, compared with $ 32,000 for men.
PAGE
3
The Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 1998
*
If current wage patterns continue, the average 25-year-old woman who works
full time year-round for 40 years will earn $ 400,000 to $ 500,000 less than her
male peer, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) in
Washington.
Especially hard hit by the gap are the 2 of every 5 working women who, like
Jones, are the sole breadwinners in their homes. The toll is also heavy on
minority women, as well as the expanding number of older women, whose retirement
security is hurt by lower lifetime earnings. (See related story, Page 8.)
"It's been hard on me in terms of keeping up with the mortgage," says Jones, who
is divorced and supports her eight-year-old son and retired mother on $ 23,000 a
year. Most of her female co-workers are heads of household, she says.
Moreover, even as women's participation in the labor force continues to grow -
reaching nearly 60 percent last year - elimination of the wage gap is in no way
assured, economists say.
Although the gap has narrowed slowly since 1980, when women's earnings averaged
just 60 percent of men's, most of the change can be attributed to a backsliding
by men rather than progress by women, says Heidi Hartmann, director of the IWPR.
Falling wages for men account for about three-fifths of the shrinking of the
wage gap since 1980.
But when men gain, as they did in the mid-1990s, the gap widens again. From 1993
to 1997, for example, men's wages rebounded as women's earnings stalled, leading
to a wider gap.
Only very recently, in the first quarter of 1998, did the earnings ratio inch
back up to 76 cents per dollar. Economists are unsure the trend will hold,
attributing it to short-term phenomena such as the strong economy and a boost in
the minimum wage. (Women are two-thirds of minimum-wage workers, so they benefit
disproportionately from the increase.)
"There is a lot of reason for concern that we won't see the continued
narrowing," says Ms. Hartmann.
Experts point to three basic reasons why women still earn less, despite
progress in each area:
Experience and education. Women's relative shortfall in full-time work
experience remains a leading source of wage inequality, accounting for one-third
of the gender pay gap in the late 1980s, according to research published last
year in the Journal of Labor Economics.
Women make up 68 percent of part-time workers. They also more often take time
off to care for children or elderly relatives. "Children are associated with
lower wages for women but not for men," notes a report this month by the
president's Council of Economic Advisers.
Women do get penalized for time off. A 1994 study of nearly 200 women with MBA
degrees showed that those who took leave after childbirth - averaging eight
months - earned 17 percent less than did women who never took time off.
Today, however, the trend is toward greater continuity in the work force by
PAGE
4
The Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 1998
women, including mothers. Unlike in the 1970s, when women often left paid work
during mid- career years to care for children, women's pattern of labor
participation now much more closely resembles that of men. In 1996, for
instance, 54.3 percent of women were back on the job by their baby's first
birthday.
Meanwhile, women are entering the work force with greater education and skills.
Women now earn more bachelor's and master's degrees than men do. And last year,
many more female high-school graduates (70.3 percent) went to college than did
male (63.5 percent).
Gender segregation of occupations. Another nearly 30 percent of the pay gap
arises from the clustering of women in traditionally female job categories,
which pay less than blue-collar trades that are still dominated by men.
For example, most of the nation's 3 million secretaries and 3.6 million teachers
are women, as are the majority of nurses and cashiers.
"We still have a long way to go when you look at the occupational categories and
the participation rates of women,' says Labor Secretary Alexis Herman.
Much has changed since the 1960s, when newspapers ran "Help Wanted - Male" ads
offering higher pay for men than for women doing the same work. Back then, women
were discouraged from careers in medicine and law and were virtually barred from
skilled trades.
In the 1970s and '80s, the segregation of jobs by gender declined as women moved
into traditionally male jobs. From 1983 to 1997, the proportion of employed
women who worked in managerial and professional occupations increased from 23
percent to 32 percent. More than 25 percent of lawyers and physicians are now
female.
But even as women break into jobs that were formerly male bastions, they are
still paid less. "There is a pay gap in every job category," says Karen
Nussbaum, director of the working women's department at the AFL-CIO in
Washington.
Discrimination. "Discrimination is clearly still a factor in the labor market
today, and that is why enforcement efforts are very important," says Ms. Herman.
At least one-quarter of the wage gap is the result of differences in pay between
men and women "working in similar jobs and establishments, according to a study
published this year by economists of the National Bureau of Economic Research in
Cambridge, Mass.
For example, Jones and other female "custodians" who vacuum and dust inside
congressional suites contend that their work is the same as that of the male
"laborers" who wash the hallways and polish the brass banisters outside. "We do
just as much work as the men, and they get paid more," Jones says.
In addition to holding down women's pay, discrimination prevents women from
being hired and promoted into better-paying jobs.
Finally, gender biases long entrenched in wage structures continue to hamper
efforts to increase wages for what was once unpaid "women's work,' such as
PAGE
5
The Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 1998
child care, says Ellen Bravo, head of the 9 to 5 National Association of Working
Women in Milwaukee. "Women's work has been devalued,' she says.
Given the long-term trends in women's work experience, education, and inroads
into male occupations, some experts anticipate that the wage gap will continue
to shrink, albeit slowly and unevenly. "It is clearly a work in progress, but
we've come a long way, says Herman.
Still, advocates of equal pay stress that without stronger and better-enforced
antidiscrimination laws, it will be difficult to close the gap.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963, which now covers women in most jobs, prohibits pay
disparities between men and women who are performing work under similar
conditions that is "substantially equal" in skill, effort, and responsibility.
The reach of the law is limited, however. Men and women must work in the same
establishment; hiring discrimination is not covered; exceptions are made for
seniority and merit systems; and the maximum compensation is double three years'
back pay.
As a result, plaintiffs in equal-pay lawsuits often also bring claims under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which more broadly prohibits sex
discrimination and allows damages of as much as $ 300,000.
Enforcement of the law is also lacking, partly because it is difficult for
people to learn how much others earn. "The key is having the data," says Jocelyn
Frye, director of legal and public policy for the National Partnership for Women
and Families, an advocacy group in Washington. "A lot of times people don't have
access to information that will allow them to know whether they are being paid
unfairly."
Over the past 12 years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
which holds enforcement authority for the Equal Pay Act, has filed only 164
cases, resolved 251 lawsuits, and recovered some $ 16 million. Hampered by
understaffing and underfunding, the EEOC often takes more than a year to resolve
a case.
Federal and state legislative initiatives aim to strengthen laws against pay
inequity in several ways.
The Paycheck Fairness Act, which has been introduced in the Senate, would combat
pay discrimination by bolstering EEOC resources, allowing higher penalties and
compensation for violations of the Equal Pay Act and lifting gag rules imposed
by employers who forbid employees to discuss wages with co-workers.
Meanwhile, equal-wage advocates are seeking federal legislation that would make
it illegal for employers to pay part-time workers - the majority of whom are
women - at a lower hourly rate than they pay full-time employees doing the same
job.
And more than half the states have taken action or passed legislation since the
1980s to create a principle of "comparable worth," eliminating wage disparities
between traditionally male and female occupations, such as janitor and clerical
worker. A Fair Pay Act bill with similar aims has been introduced in both houses
of Congress.
PAGE
6
The Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 1998
For Jones and her female co-workers, winning the right to unionize in 1996 gave
them a weapon for combatting alleged wage discrimination by the Architect of the
Capitol (AOC), a federal body that oversees all House and Senate buildings. The
AOC declined to comment on the case, which is expected to go to trial in 1999.
"I've known about the wage gap for years, but we didn't have the backing or
unity to do anything about it," says Jones, who this January was elected chief
shop steward in her union. "It was like whispers in the night," she says.
"Nobody heard."
Women in the Workplace
How women have fared in six professions:
Judges in states' highest courts
1985: 23 / 1997: 78 (actual number)
College professors
1975: 24.7% / 1995: 34.6%
Police forces
1972: 2.0% / 1997: 13.3%
Construction workers
1964: 4.9% / 1997: 11.1%
Pilots/navigators
1983: 2.1% / 1996: 1.4%
Bank CEOs
1986: 1.4% / 1997: 4.9%
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: 1) A CAPITOL OFFENSE? Dolores Jones, a custodian, says she
earns $1 an hour less than men do who perform basically the same work. BY ANDY
NELSON - STAFF 2) Women left to right: Ruth Abrams, justice, Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court, Boston; Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz professor of American
studies, Smith College, Northhampton, Mass.; Pamela Grace, police sergeant,
Boston; Jennie Anderson, construction worker, Boston; Linda Tobin, pilot,
Southwest Airlines, Oakland, Calif.; and Angela Hill, assistant vice president
of Community Development Group, NationsBank, Washington. ILLUSTRATION: Showing
Women in the Workplace. PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY ARI DENISON -STAFF/FROM STAFF
PHOTOS CHART: Showing US Wage Gap, 1960 - 1996 BY JEWEL BECKER SIMMONS - STAFF
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
Working Women: Equal Pay--Facts About Working Women
http://www.aflcio.org/women/wwfacts.htm
AFL-CIO
WORKING
WOMEN
EQUAL
This net Site was
mentioneD the na Jan 24, 1999 BlurB
Fact Sheet
wrateit, palm Beach - Fran Hathavay in
Facts About Working Women
More women are working than ever before. And they're looking for solutions to the
problems of juggling work and family, making ends meet and finding respect and
opportunity on the job.
More and More Women Are Working
Over the past century, women workers have grown steadily in number and as a
proportion of the workforce.
The number of working women has grown from 5.3 million in 1900 to 18.4
million in 1950 and to 63 million in 1997.
Women made up 18.3 percent of the labor force in 1900, 29.6 percent in 1950
and 46.2 percent in 1997. 1,2,3
In the United States, 99 out
of every 100 women will
Women's Share of the Labor Force, 1870-1997
work for pay at some point in
50%
their lives. 4 Regardless of
their marital status, the
40
majority of women (except
widows)--even those with
30
young children--work for
pay.
20
62.1 percent of married
10
women with spouses
present, 65.3 percent
0
of married women with
absent spouses, 66.8
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
1997
1870
1890
1910
1930
1950
1970
1990
percent of
never-married women
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, various
years; Bureau of the Census, The Statistical History of the United
and 74.5 percent of
States-From Coloniul Times to the Present. 1976: Bureau of Labor
divorced women were
Statistics. Handbook of Labor Statistics-Builetin 2340, August 1989.
in the labor force in
March 1997. 5
1 of 8
2/18/99 10:08 AM
Working Women: Equal Pay--Facts About Working Women
http://www.aflcio.org/women/wwfacts.htm
71.9 percent of women with children younger than 18, 77.9 percent of women
with 6- to 17-year-olds and 64.8 percent of women with children younger than
6 were in the labor force in 1997. 6
53.8 percent of women without children younger than 18 were in the labor
force in 1997. 7,8
More Families Are Maintained by Women
The number and proportion of families in which a woman is the householder and no
spouse is present are growing, too.
In 1997, 12.8 million families were maintained by women, representing 18.2
percent of all families, 9 compared with 5.6 million--10.8 percent of all
families--in 1970. 10
62 percent of women who maintained families were employed in 1997. 11
Nonstandard Work
Most "nonstandard" workers (workers who do not hold regular, full-time jobs) are
women. 12
55 percent of workers paid by temporary help agencies are female. 13
70 percent of part-time workers are female. 14
Holding Multiple Jobs
Women accounted for 85 percent of the total increase between 1989 and 1995
in the number of workers with more than one job. 15
47 percent of all multiple jobholders in 1995 were women, up from 20 percent
in 1973. 16
Wages and Income
2 of 8
2/18/99 10:09 AM
Working Women: Equal Pay--Facts About Working Women
http://www.aflcio.org/women/wwfacts.htm
In 1996, women who
Distribution of Total Money Earnings,
worked full time,
by Gender
year-round earned 74
40%
37%
cents for every dollar
33%
33%
Men
earned by men. 17
30
28
Over a lifetime of
Women
24%
work, the average
20%
20
25-year-old woman
12%
who works full time,
10
7%
year-round until she
4%
2%
retires at age 65 will
0
earn $523,000 less than
the average working
$10,000 to $24,999
$50,000 to $74,999
man. 18
Women who worked
Less than $10,000
$25,000 to $49,000
$75,000 &
full time, year-round
Source: Bureau of the Cersus, Money Income in the United States: 1996,
saw their
P 60-197.
inflation-adjusted
median annual earnings increase by 2.4 percent from 1995 to 1996--but 1996
earnings remained lower than those in 1989. 19
Median family income (adjusted for inflation) increased only by 1.9 percent
between 1979 and 1996--and fell by 2.3 percent between 1989 and 1996. 20
For the poorest two-fifths of families, average family income (adjusted for
inflation) fell between 1979 and 1996. 21
In 1996, 70 percent of working women earned less than $25,000, compared
with 48 percent of men. 22
58 percent of the workers who benefited from the last increase in the minimum
wage were women. 23
Benefits
3 of 8
2/18/99 10:09 AM
Working Women: Equal Pay--Facts About Working Women
http://www.aflcio.org/women/wwfacts.htm
In 1996, 41.4 million
people younger than
Percentage of Workers With Benefits
65--17.7 percent of
By Union Status, 1995
nonelderly
100%
85%
87%
Americans--were
80
78%
without health
74%
insurance. This is up
from 31.8 million
60
people, or 14.8
percent of the
40
nonelderly
population, in
20
1987
24
58 percent of
0
private-sector wage
Medical Care
Retirement
and salary workers
Union Workers
Nonunion Workers
were covered by
employer-sponsored
Source: Bureau of the Cersus, Money Income in the United States: 1996.
P60-197.
health insurance
plans in 1993--down
from 62 percent in 1988. That included 63 percent of male private-sector
wage and salary workers but only 51 percent of women.
25
43 percent of private-sector wage and salary workers in 1993 were covered
under an employment-based pension plan--up from 42 percent in 1988.
Forty-six percent of male but only 39 percent of female private-sector wage
and salary workers were covered. 26
In 1995, the median annual private pension income was $7,800 for men older
than 65, but only $4,200 for women, 27
14 percent of working women do not have sick leave, including 31 percent of
women earning less than $10,000 a year. 28
Unions Benefit Working Women
Pay for women in unions is higher than for their nonunion counterparts. In 1997,
women union members earned 40 percent more than nonunion women, according to
union wage data based upon the median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary
workers. 29
African American women who belonged to unions earned 44 percent more
than their nonunion counterparts. 30
Latina union members earned 42 percent more than nonunion Latina
workers.
31
Unions work to increase equality in wages between women and men.
Union women earned 84 percent of what union men earned in 1997, while
nonunion women earned only 76 percent of what nonunion men earned. 32
Union workers are more likely than nonunion workers to have health and pension
benefits.
4 of 8
2/18/99 10:09 AM
Working Women: Equal Pay--Facts About Working Women
http://www.aflcio.org/women/wwfacts.htm
85 percent of full-time union workers in medium-sized and large private
establishments had health benefits in 1995, compared with 74 percent of
full-time nonunion workers. 33
87 percent of full-time union workers in medium-sized and large private
establishments had retirement benefits, compared with 78 percent of full-time
nonunion workers. 34
Gender and Organizing
Women make up a growing percentage of union membership.
In 1962, women accounted for 19 percent of union membership. 35 By 1997,
39 percent of all union members were women. 36
When they have the opportunity, women consistently are more likely than men
to vote for unions. 37
Public opinion polls show that women favor collective action.
When asked if women should join together in groups to solve their workplace
problems, 79 percent of nonunion women workers said yes. 38
Among nonunion workers, 49 percent of women in 1997 said they would vote
for a union, while only 40 percent of men said they would vote for one.
Nonunion women consistently have been more supportive of unionizing the
workplace than nonunion men. 39
Organizing Women
The AFL-CIO, with 5.5 million women members, is a powerful voice for working
women. To make your voice heard, join in the Working Women Working Together
Network!
Call toll free 1-888-971-9797 for more information.
Endnotes:
1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, The Statistical History of the United States--From
Colonial Times to the Present, 1976.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics--Bulletin 2340, August
1989.
3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1998.
4. U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, Working Women Count! A Report
to the Nation, 1994.
5. U.S. Department of Labor, 20 Facts on Women Workers, May 1998.
5 of 8
2/18/99 10:09 AM
Working Women: Equal Pay--Facts About Working Women
http://www.aflcio.org/women/wwfacts.htm
6. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Characteristics of Families in 1997,
1998.
7. Women counted as having children are those women with birth children,
step-children and adopted children. Women who are raising nieces, nephews,
grandchildren, and other children are not counted in the BLS statistics.
8. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Characteristics of Families in 1997,
1998.
9. Ken Bryson and Lynne M. Casper, Household and Family Characteristics:
March 1997, P20-509, Bureau of the Census, April 1998; Bureau of the Census,
"Table F-7. Type of Family--Families (All Races) by Median and Mean Income:
1947 to 1996," www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f07.html.
10. Ken Bryson and Lynne M. Casper, Household and Family Characteristics:
March 1997, P20-509, Bureau of the Census, April 1998; Bureau of the Census,
"Table F-7. Type of Family--Families (All Races) by Median and Mean Income:
1947 to 1996," www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f07.html.
11. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Characteristics of Families in 1997,
1998.
12. AFL-CIO analysis of Current Population Survey, February 1997.
13. AFL-CIO analysis of CPS, February 1997.
14. AFL-CIO analysis of CPS, February 1997.
15. Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt, The State of Working
America 1996-97, Economic Policy Institute, 1996.
16. (Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt, The State of Working
America 1996-97, Economic Policy Institute, 1996.
17. Bureau of the Census, "Table P31. Year-Round, Full-Time Workers--Persons
(All Races) 15 Years Old and Over by Median Earnings and Sex: 1960 to 1996,"
www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p31.html.
18. Institute for Women's Policy Research, The Male-Female Wage Gap: Lifetime
Earnings Losses, 1998.
19. Bureau of the Census, "Table P31. Year-Round, Full-Time Workers--Persons
(All Races) 15 Years Old and Over by Median Earnings and Sex: 1960 to 1996,"
www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p31.html.
20. Bureau of the Census, "Table F-7. Type of Family--Families (All Races) by
Median and Mean Income: 1947 to 1996,"
www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f07.html.
6 of 8
2/18/99 10:09 AM
Working Women: Equal Pay--Facts About Working Women
http://www.aflcio.org/women/wwfacts.htm
21. Bureau of the Census, "Table F-7. Type of Family--Families (All Races) by
Median and Mean Income: 1947 to 1996,"
www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f07.html.
22. Bureau of the Census, Money Income in the United States: 1996, P60-197.
23. Jared Bernstein, America's Well-Targeted Raise--Data Shows Benefits of
Minimum Wage Increase Going to Workers Who Need It Most, Economic Policy
Institute, 1997.
24. Paul Fronstin, "Sources of Health Insurance and Characteristics of the
Uninsured: Analysis of the March 1997 Current Population Survey," EBRI Issue
Brief Number 192, December 1997.
25. U.S. Department of Labor, Social Security Administration, U.S. Small Business
Administration, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Pension and Health
Benefits of American Workers--New Findings from the April 1993 Current
Population Survey, May 1994.
26. U.S. Department of Labor, Social Security Administration, U.S. Small Business
Administration, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Pension and Health
Benefits of American Workers--New Findings from the April 1993 Current
Population Survey, May 1994.
27. Employee Benefit Research Institute, EBRI Databook on Employee Benefits,
1997.
28. U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, Working Women Count! A Report
to the Nation, 1994.
29. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1998.
30. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1998.
31. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1998.
32. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1998.
33. U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Survey, "Full-Time Workers in
Medium and Large Private Establishments," stats.bls.gov/ebs2/ebb10013.pdf.
"Health benefits" refers to medical coverage.
34. U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Survey, "Full-Time Workers in
Medium and Large Private Establishments," stats.bls.gov/ebs2/ebb10013.pdf.
35. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2070,
December 1980.
36. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1998.
7 of 8
2/18/99 10:09 AM
Working Women: Equal Pay--Facts About Working Women
http://www.aflcio.org/women/wwfacts.htm
37. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Director of Labor Education Research at Cornell
University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
38. Lake, Sosin, Snell, Perry & Associates, Inc., survey of working women
conducted for the AFL-CIO, July 30-August 3, 1997.
39. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., Working Women's View of the
Economy, Unions, and Public Policy, 1998.
TOP
APL-CIO © Copyright
[ AFL-CIO Home I
[
Working Women Working Together I
[
How Much Will the Pay Gap Cost YOU?
I
[
Join the Working Women Working Together Network
]
[
Ask a Working Woman Executive Summary
]
I Facts About Working Women I
[
Working Together for Kids ]
I
Other Issues That Matter
I
I
Order Materials
]
8 of 8
2/18/99 10:09 AM
Page 4
LEVEL 1 - 4 OF 29 STORIES
Copyright 1998 Associated Press
AP Online
April 03, 1998; Friday 02:50 Eastern Time
SECTION: Washington - general news
LENGTH: 371 words
HEADLINE: White House Backs Pay Equality
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
On this National Equal Pay Day, the Clinton administration is stepping up
support for congressional action to narrow the gap between what women and men
earn.
Vice President Gore on Thursday urged passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act,
which would toughen the Equal Pay Act by allowing compensatory and punitive
damages and easing the way for cases to proceed as class actions.
President Clinton released a proclamation urging employers to 'review their
wage practices and to ensure that all their employees, including women, are paid
equitably for their work. ,
Today's National Equal Pay Day is the day when a typical woman's earnings for
the year, coupled with her 1997 earnings, equal what the average man made in
1997 alone.
Women on average earn 74 cents for every dollar men earn, although that is up
from 59 cents in 1970, according to the Census Bureau. The gap is closing at a
rate of about a half a penny a year.
The disparity is even bigger for minority women. Black women earn 65 cents
and Hispanic women 57 cents for every dollar earned by white men.
The legislation's author, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., stressed that pay
inequality affects not only women but their families as well. Two out of five
working women provide the sole economic support for their family.
I
This is fundamentally a day about paychecks and reality checks, Labor
Secretary Alexis Herman said to a crowd wearing AFL-CIO stickers that read,
Where's my 26 cents?'
Gore outlined additional administration initiatives to provide better
analysis of data on the wage gap and help federal agencies enforce pay
discrimination and civil rights law.
He also announced Clinton's nomination of attorney Ida L. Castro as
commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Castro is acting
director of the Women's Bureau at the Labor Department and has been involved in
TM
TM
TM
LEXIS:NEXIS®
LEXIS:NEXIS®
LEXIS·NEXIS'
A member of the Reed Elsevier pk group
Q
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
Page 5
AP Online, April 03, 1998
employment and labor issues throughout her career.
, As a Hispanic woman, she has learned to face double discrimination by
ethnicity and gender to develop the toughness that she needs to take care of
herself and soon, as chair of EEOC, of so many others, 1 I Gore said.
Castro's nomination will be sent to the Senate for confirmation.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: April 03, 1998
TM
TM
TM
LEXIS·NEXIS'
LEXIS:NEXIS'
LEXIS·NEXIS'
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier ple group
Page 2
LEVEL 1 - 1 OF 29 STORIES
Copyright 1998 M2 Communications Ltd.
M2 PRESSWIRE
April 7, 1998
LENGTH: 487 words
HEADLINE: THE WHITE HOUSE
Vice President Gore announces support for legislation on equal pay
BODY:
Vice President Gore today announced the Administration's support for
legislation, introduced by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Congresswomen
DeLauro, to improve enforcement of wage discrimination against women and to
strengthen the remedy provisions in the Equal Pay Act to allow for compensatory
and punitive damages.
In a White House ceremony, the Vice President also announced new initiatives
that would enhance enforcement of wage discrimination both in the private sector
and the federal government.
The price of unequal pay is denying our children adequate health care,
keeping our kids from going to college and stopping thousands of women across
the country from paying their bills, Vice President Gore said. And that is why
President Clinton and I are committed to closing the wage gap between women and
men and giving women the pay they need and deserve.
The Vice President's announcements came a day before Equal Pay Day, the date
when women's earnings finally catch up to men's 1997 earnings. On average, women
are paid 74 cents for every dollar men earn - forcing women to work for 15
months to earn what men earn in 12 months. To address this inequality, more than
650 Equal Pay Day activities will be held across the country.
The Administration's new initiatives will provide increased analysis of data
on the wage gap; help federal agencies enforce wage discrimination law; provide
technical assistance by highlighting best practices and offering a voluntary
self-audit on the Internet; and strengthen the federal role in hiring and
retaining qualified women.
Specifically, the Vice President announced two Memoranda of Understanding
between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of
Labor to cross-train their staffs to be sensitive to potential violations of the
laws they enforce, including the Equal Pay Act, and to help the Department of
Labor to collect damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Also, the Vice President announced a ten-step voluntary self-audit for both
private businesses and the federal agencies in order to help them monitor their
efforts on equal pay. Finally, the Vice President will announce the Guide to
Recruitment and Retention of Women in the federal government, a manual designed
to assist agency managers hire and retain talented women.
The Vice President was joined by Labor Secretary Alexis Herman, AFL-CIO Vice
TM
TM
TM
LEXIS:NEXIS'
LEXIS:NEXIS'
LEXIS:NEXIS'
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
Page 3
M2 PRESSWIRE April 7, 1998
President Linda Chavez Thompson, National Committee Pay Equity Chair Susan
Bianchi Sands, Senator John Breaux (D-LA), Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), Senator
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Senator Ted Kennedy
(D-MA), Senator Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator
Chuck Robb (D-VA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC),
Rep. Jim Maloney (D-CT), Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Rep. Robert Underwood (D-GUAM).
LANGUAGE: English
LOAD-DATE: April 8, 1998
TM
TM
TM
LEXIS·NEXIS'
LEXIS:NEXIS
LEXIS:NEXIS'
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
Page 6
LEVEL 1 - 17 OF 29 STORIES
Copyright 1998 Bergen Record Corp.
The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
April 3, 1998; FRIDAY; ALL EDITIONS
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A18
LENGTH: 287 words
HEADLINE: GORE LOBBIES FOR BILL TO SPEED PAY EQUALITY
SOURCE: Wire services
BYLINE: SARAH WYATT, The Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
The Clinton administration supports legislation that aims to close
the gap between what women and men earn, Vice President Al Gore said
Thursday.
Today is National Equal Pay Day, when a typical woman's pay for the
year, coupled with her 1997 earnings, equal what the average man made in
1997 alone. Women on average are paid 74 cents for every dollar men
receive, up from 59 cents in 1970, according to the Census Bureau. The
gap is closing at a rate of about a half a penny a year.
The disparity is even bigger for minority women. Black women get 65
cents and Hispanic women 57 cents for every dollar received by white
men.
In recognition of National Equal Pay Day, President Clinton released
a proclamation urging employers to "review their wage practices and to
ensure that all their employees, including women, are paid equitably for
their work. "
Gore said Thursday that there is no simple reason for this
discrepancy and that women's work no longer can go undervalued.
"We insist that women receive full and fair reward for their work
and that the nature of that work reflect a full and fair recognition of
women's accomplishments, "Gore said. "For me, it's a simple matter of
wanting my daughters to have the same opportunities in life that my son
will have. II
Gore urged passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would toughen
the Equal Pay Act by allowing compensatory and punitive damages and
easing the way for cases to proceed as class actions.
TM
TM
TM
LEXIS:NEXIS'
LEXIS:NEXIS'
LEXIS:NEXIS'
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
Page 7
The Record (Bergen County, NJ), April 3, 1998
The bill's author, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., stressed that pay
inequality affects not only women but also their families. Two out of
five working women provide the sole economic support in the home.
GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC - AP - GENDER WAGE GAP (text not available)
LANGUAGE: English
LOAD-DATE: April 3, 1998
TM
TM
TM
LEXIS:NEXIS®
LEXIS:NEXIS®
LEXIS:NEXIS'
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
EQUAL PAY
WORKING
FAMILIES
NATIONAL AND STATE DATA
ON THE PAY GAP AND ITS COSTS
A Joint Research Project of the
AFL-CIO and the
Institute for Women's Policy Research
file equal pay
Rebuttal to George Will's article in Newsweek, March 29, 1999 p. 84.
While it would be going too far to say that the entire gender pay gap is due to employer
discrimination, George Will surely goes too far in the other direction when he dismisses
discrimination as a "negligible cause" of the income disparities between men and women, which
he says are "largely the result of rational personal choices by women." According to Will,"
Earnings differentials often reflect different professional paths that are cheerfully chosen because
of different preferences, motivations, and expectations."
Will is correct that women's wages and educational attainment have been rising in recent years,
but there is still a sizeable gender wage gap that cannot be explained by observable
characteristics. Among all full-time wage and salary workers age 16 or older in 1998, the
median woman earned $456 per week, 76.3% as much as the median man. In 1979 she had
earned only 62.5% as much as he had. The best analysis we have of the gender gap in pay (based
on 1988 data, unfortunately) controls for differences in actual years of work experience as well as
in education, occupation, industry, and unionization. These variables already incorporate many
of a woman's "preferences, motivations, and expectations"; yet they accounted for only 61% of
the gender pay gap in 1988. Applied to 1998 data, that leaves a gap of 9.3% still unexplained.
We do not know how much of this remaining gender gap is due to unobserved characteristics that
are legitimately related to pay, such as specialty within an occupational category (e.g., social
work vs engineering within the professions), and how much is due to discrimination. But even
within narrow occupations, women of the same experience and education earn less than men.
Will argues that women happily choose to take low-paid jobs because they prefer to devote
themselves to child rearing. If this is the general case, why are women acquiring "almost 40% of
the MBAs, [and] more than 40% of law and medical degrees"? Will ignores an alternative
explanation that is more consistent with these facts that after getting their degrees and starting
their careers, women experience gender-based barriers to acquiring the training, mentoring,
connections, and other resources that they need to rise in their chosen occupations. They may
also encounter discrimination (often the result of unconscious bias) in promotions. In the face of
these barriers, they find the expected return on an investment in "60-hour weeks on the fast
track" too low and uncertain to be worthwhile. For married couples, it may then make sense for
the husband to remain on the "fast track" and the wife to shift to the "mommy track." But this is
not their original preference; rather, it is the result of "rational choice" in the face of gender
discrimination.
Moreover, the impacts of family and children on women's careers and earnings are not
unalterable consequences of biology, as Will seems to believe. Rather, they are due to current
social arrangements and workplace practices that make it difficult to combine career and family,
but that could be changed and indeed, are changing. Fathers spending more time in household
and child-rearing tasks, employers providing family leave, and government efforts to increase the
availability of affordable, convenient, and flexible child care are steps in the right direction.
MIT has just issued "A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT" that reveals
some ways gender bias can operate in the professional workplace. The report documents a
pattern in the MIT School of Science of "sometimes subtle -- but substantive and demoralizing --
[gender] discrimination in areas from hiring, awards, promotions and inclusion on important
committees to allocation of valuable resources like laboratory space and research money." The
report defines discrimination as consisting of "a pattern of powerful but unrecognized
assumptions and attitudes that work systematically against women faculty even in the light of
obvious good will." According to the dean of the School of Science, "I believe that in no case
was this discrimination conscious or deliberate. Indeed, it was usually totally unconscious and
unknowing. Nevertheless, the effects were real."
Particularly revealing is the MIT report's finding that "junior female faculty tended to feel well
taken care of and untouched by discrimination; it was only as they became senior faculty that
they felt themselves increasingly marginalized and overlooked by male-dominated networks."
Such subtleties are overlooked by Will when he uses the near-equality of earnings of men and
childless women at ages 27 to 33 as evidence that gender discrimination is not a problem in the
labor market.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Nicole,
Here is the report & told
you about
Highlights
1) america's families lose
$ 200 bellion per year
because of the wage
gap
2) Each family loses
$4000 arondially
Many
EQUAL PAY
WORKING
FAMILIES
NATIONAL AND STATE DATA
ON THE PAY GAP AND ITS COSTS
A Joint Research Project of the
AFL-CIO and the
Institute for Women's Policy Research
EQUAL PAY
FOR
WORKING
FAMILIES
NATIONAL AND STATE DATA
ON THE PAY GAP AND ITS COSTS
A Joint Research Project of the
AFL-CIO and the
Institute for Women's Policy Research
HEIDI HARTMANN, Ph.D., President and Director
INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH
KATHERINE ALLEN, Study Director
INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH
AFL-CIO CHRISTINE OWENS, Assistant Director of Public Policy
Copyright © 1999 AFL-CIO and IWPR. All Rights Reserved.
AFL-CIO
Institute for Women's Policy Research
Working Women's Department
1400 20th St., N.W.
815 16th St., N.W.
Suite 104
Washington, D.C. 20006
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-637-5064
202-785-5100
www.aflcio.org/women
www.iwpr.org
For additional copies, contact AFL-CIO Support Services at 202-637-5042.
Table of Contents
page
Executive Summary
1
Working Families Pay a Steep Price for Unequal Pay
1
The Size of the Pay Gap Varies by State
2
Unequal Pay Hurts Men, Too
2
Unions Mean Big Pay Gains, Smaller Pay Gaps
3
Introduction
5
What Do Wage Gaps Tell Us?
6
Section I.
Large Wage Gaps Persist for Women and Minority Workers
9
Section II.
Unequal Pay for Women Lowers Family Incomes and Increases Poverty
13
Section III.
Men and Women in Female-Dominated Jobs Suffer Wage Penalties
15
Section IV.
Union Membership Means Big Pay Gains, Smaller Pay Gaps
17
Conclusion
21
National Summary Table
22
Technical Appendix
26
Tables and Figures
Table 1. The Gender Wage Gap
9
Table 2. The Minority Wage Gap
9
Table 3. Mean Annual Earnings, Mean Family Income
and Poverty Rates if Working Women Earned the Same as Men
13
Table 4. Mean Annual Earnings of Women and Men
Aged 18 and Older in Female-Dominated Occupations
15
Table 5. The Union Wage Advantage
17
Table 6. The Gender Gap for Union and Nonunion Workers
18
Table 7. The Minority Wage Gap for Union and Nonunion Workers
19
National Summary Table
22
Figure 1. Median Weekly Earnings for Full-Time Workers, 1997
12
Executive Summar
qual pay is a bread-and-butter issue
techniques to explore the dimensions, and
E
for working families. More than
the full cost, of unequal pay.
two-thirds of all mothers in the
United States work for pay. Two-earner
Working Families Pay a Steep Price for
families are today's norm among married
Unequal Pay
couples, and a growing number of single
women provide most or all of their families'
America's working families lose a stagger-
support. Altogether, almost two-thirds of
ing $200 billion of income annually to the
all working women and slightly more than
wage gap-an average loss of more than
half of married women responding to the
$4,000 each for working women's families
AFL-CIO's 1997 Ask A Working Woman
every year because of unequal pay, even
survey said they provide half or more of
after accounting for differences in educa-
their families' incomes.
tion, age, location and the number of hours
Little wonder, then, that 94 percent
worked.
of working women in the Ask A Working
Woman survey-almost every one-
If married women were paid the same as
described equal pay as "very important;"
comparable men, their family incomes
that two of every five cited pay as the
would rise by nearly 6 percent, and their
"biggest" problem women face at work;
families' poverty rates would fall from
and that one-third of all women and half of
2.1 percent to 0.8 percent.
African American women said that, despite
If single working mothers earned as
its importance, they do not have equal pay
much as comparable men, their family
in their jobs.
incomes would increase by nearly 17
To better understand the wage gap for
percent, and their poverty rates would be
women and people of color in the United
cut in half, from 25.3 percent to 12.6
States and to better measure the price that
percent
wage inequality exacts from families and
If single women earned as much as com-
individual workers, the AFL-CIO and the
parable men, their incomes would rise
Institute for Women's Policy Research
by 13.4 percent, and their poverty rates
(IWPR) jointly undertook a national study,
would be reduced from 6.3 percent to 1
including state-by-state breakouts, to ana-
percent.
lyze recent data from the Census Bureau
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Working families in Ohio, Michigan,
The study confirms many recent analy-
Vermont, Indiana, Illinois, Montana,
ses, finding that women who work full-
Wisconsin and Alabama pay the heaviest
time are paid only 74 cents for every dollar
price for unequal pay to working
men earn-or $148 less each week.
women, losing an average of roughly
Women of color who work full-time are
$5,000 in family income each year.
paid only 64 cents for every dollar men
overall earn-or $210 less each week.
Family income losses due to unequal pay
Going further, the study uses more refined
for women range from $326 million in
Alaska to $21.8 billion in California.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
1
The Size of the Pay Gap Varies by State
For women of color, the gender pay gap
is smallest in the District of Columbia,
While the wage gap is much smaller than
Hawaii, Florida, New York and
the national average in some states, the
Tennessee, where they earn more than 70
numbers do not automatically signal
percent of what men overall in those
improved economic status for women. The
states earn.
primary reason for women's relatively
improved status in many states is that the
Unequal Pay Hurts Men, Too
wages of minority men are so low. This is
particularly true for the District of
As the percentage of women in an occupa-
Columbia, Arizona, California, New York,
tion rises, wages tend to fall. Workers who
North Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
do what traditionally has been viewed as
"women's work"-clerical workers,
Women who work full-time are paid the
cashiers, librarians, child care workers and
least, compared with men, in Indiana,
others in jobs in which 70 percent or more
Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, North
of the workers are women-typically earn
Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming,
less than workers in jobs that are predomi-
where women earn less than 70 percent
nately male or are integrated by gender.
of men's weekly earnings.
Both women and men pay a steep price
Women of color fare especially poorly in
for unequal pay when they do "women's
Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon,
work": The 25.6 million women who
Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin and
work in these jobs lose an average of
Wyoming, earning less than 60 percent
$3,446 each per year; the 4 million men
of what men earn.
who work in predominately female occu-
pations lose an average of $6,259 each
Even where women fare best compared
per year-for a whopping $114 billion
with men-in Arizona, California,
loss for men and women in predomi-
Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New
nately female jobs.
York and Rhode Island-women earn
little more than 80 percent as much as
At the state level, women who work in
men.
female-dominated jobs could increase
their salaries from $2,112 per year in
Women earn the most in comparison to
Missouri to a high of $4,707 in Delaware
men-97 percent-in Washington, D.C.,
if they had equal pay. Annual wage gains
but the primary reason women appear to
for women in these jobs would exceed
fare so well is the very low wages of
$3,000 on average in 36 states. In 34
minority men.
states, wages would increase by at least
$2,500 for women of color in female-
dominated jobs.
2
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
For men in female-dominated jobs, state
Minority men who belong to unions
average increases would range from
bring home 44 percent more-$177-
$3,533 annually in the District of
each week than nonunion men of color.
Columbia to $8,958 in Delaware if pay
inequality was eliminated. Minority men
Unions also help close the wage gaps
would see increases ranging from $1,918
based on gender and minority status for
in Colorado to $7,996 in Alaska.
their members. Women represented by
unions earn almost 84 percent as much
Unions Mean Big Pay Gains,
as union men, while unionized workers
Smaller Pay Gaps
of color make about 81 percent as much
as unionized white workers.
Union representation is a proven and pow-
erful tool for raising workers' wages, partic-
In the 35 years since the equal employment
ularly for those most subject to labor mar-
laws passed, women and people of color
ket discrimination: women and minorities.
have made significant strides into the
mainstream of the American workplace.
The typical female union member earns
But lingering unequal pay robs women and
38 percent more per week-$157-than
their families of economic security, dou-
a woman who does not belong to a
bling poverty rates for today's workers and
union.
threatening reduced retirement income
and greater poverty tomorrow.
Unionized women of color earn almost
39 percent more-$135-than nonunion
There are three clear routes to ensuring
women of color. In fact, minority union
that women receive equal pay: vigorous
women earn $45 a week more than
enforcement of current equal pay laws,
nonunion white women.
passage of stronger and better equal pay
laws and greater protections for workers'
right to organize together into unions.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
3
Introduction
n the 1960s, Congress passed two land-
sional and executive positions less than
I
mark laws designed to remove discrim-
their male counterparts.
ination from employment relations.
The first, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, out-
In 1998, major corporations, including
lawed the long-established and standard
US Airways, the pharmaceutical division
business practice of paying women less
of Bayer Corp., publishing giant R.R.
than men even when they were doing
Donnelly, Pepsi-Cola, desktop computer
exactly the same work. Its mandate was
manufacturer Gateway 2000, insurer
straightforward: equal pay for equal work.
Highmark, Inc. (formerly Blue Cross/
The next year, Congress enacted the Civil
Blue Shield of Western Pennsylvania),
Rights Act of 1964, which included, among
Allison Engine Company of Indianapolis
other things, a comprehensive fair employ-
and CoreStates Financial Institution,
ment section (Title VII) that banned dis-
agreed to payments totaling about $3.5
crimination against women and minorities
million altogether to resolve Labor
in all terms and conditions of employment
Department findings of pay bias and
(hiring, promotions, terminations and the
other discrimination against women and
like), including pay. Read together, the
minorities.
Equal Pay Act and Title VII establish the
principle that employers may not pay
In 1997, two major national chains—
women and people of color less for the
Home Depot and Publix Supermarkets-
work they do because of their race, gender
agreed to pay out more than $80 million
or ethnicity. Simply put, employers may
each to settle lawsuits charging them
not deny women and minorities equal pay
with sex discrimination, including dis-
because of sex or race discrimination.
crimination in pay, against thousands of
In the 35 years since the equal employ-
women workers.
ment laws passed, women and people of
color have made significant strides into the
In recent months, Boeing, Pennzoil
mainstream of the American workplace.
Company and United Parcel Service
Nevertheless, despite undeniable gains, pay
have agreed to employment discrimina-
bias and other discriminatory practices
tion settlements totaling more than $30
continue to impede progress, all too often
million altogether and potentially bene-
placing glass ceilings in the way of workers
fiting thousands of African American
moving up and relegating too many others
workers and former employees.
to second-class workplace status on the
sticky floor. Consider, for example:
According to the 1998 Catalyst Census of
Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners,
In January 1999, the Department of
less than 3 percent (or only 63 of 2,320
Labor announced that Texaco had
individuals) of the top-earning corporate
agreed to give 186 women more than $3
officers in Fortune 500 companies are
million in back wages and pay adjust-
women, and their earnings (salaries and
ments to settle findings that the company
bonuses) are only two-thirds those of
consistently had paid women in profes-
top-earning men.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
5
African American and Hispanic workers
labor market discrimination or other
are more than twice as likely as white
considerations such as "human capital"
workers to be "working poor"-that is,
differences among workers (that is, differ-
to be employed but, nevertheless, to live
ences in education, training and experi-
¹Quan, Samantha. "A Profile of
in poverty. Minority women workers,
ence). Higher earnings for white men, for
who confront the dual problems of gen-
example, do not necessarily reflect discrim-
the Working Poor, 1996." U.S.
der and race bias, have especially high
ination against women and minorities if
Department of Labor: Bureau of
poverty rates: One in seven African
white men, on average, have more human
Labor Statistics. Report No. 918.
American and Hispanic women workers
capital.³ Analyses attempting to tease out
December 1997.
lives below the poverty line compared
the reasons for wage differences between
2Wage ratio and corresponding
with one in 20 white working women
women and men typically separate the gen-
wage gap calculations compare
and men.¹
der wage gap into a portion explained by
average (mean) wages of one
human capital differences and a portion
group with those of another or
Not surprisingly-considering these
that remains unexplained even after taking
wages of the typical worker (the
examples-wage gaps persist between
such differences into account. Recent stud-
worker at the median) in each
women and men and between minority
ies indicate that between one-quarter and
group. The median worker is the
and nonminority workers as enduring
one-half of the gender wage gap remains
worker in the middle of the earn-
reminders of gender and racial inequality
unexplained, and some economists attrib-
ings range; there are just as many
in the workplace.
ute some or all of this unexplained portion
workers earning more than the
to discrimination.
median worker as are earning
What Do Wage Gaps Tell Us?
Economists also differ as to whether
less. Median earnings (or earn-
and how to consider additional factors in
ings of the median worker) are
"Wage gaps" are commonly cited measures
explaining wage gaps. For example, pay
often considered more accurate
of earnings inequality between different
differences associated with work in specific
than mean earnings because the
groups of workers. A "wage gap" is derived
occupations and industries may simply
mean (or average) is often
from a "wage ratio," the figure expressing
reflect legitimate consumer and worker
skewed upward by a few very
the percentage of one group's earnings (for
preferences or supply and demand for
high earners at the top of the
example, women or minorities) compared
goods and services; or they may suggest
earnings range. Wage gaps or
with another group's (men or nonminori-
something far more sinister-discriminatory
ratios are usually calculated for
ties). As used in this study, "gender wage
barriers locking workers in some jobs and
full-time workers, all of whom by
gaps" are percentage or actual dollar differ-
out of others, or bias in setting wages for
definition work 35 hours or more
ences between the earnings of men and
jobs with heavy concentrations of women
each week. The gender wage gap
women, and "minority wage gaps" are dif-
and minority workers. Marriage and the
is even greater when total earn-
ferences between earnings of people of
presence of children typically affect
ings for women and men are
color and white workers.²
women's and men's wages differently: Is
compared, because women aver-
Since earnings are the main source of
that because employers tend to discrimi-
age fewer hours than men.
income for most American families, wage
nate against child-bearing women (and in
gaps are important indicators of differences
favor of fathers)? Because women prefer to
³Of course, even differences in
in economic status among groups of work-
spend more time caring for children, hence
human capital may be affected by
ing families. Economists disagree, however,
accumulating less human capital? Or
discrimination in the labor mar-
about the extent to which wage gaps reflect
because the nation lacks infrastructure,
ket or elsewhere, as well as by
conditions, such as poverty, that
disproportionately affect women
and people of color. Discrimina-
tory exclusion of women and
people of color from training
6
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
such as universally accessible and afford-
honed test that controls for multiple indi-
programs, for example, will limit
able child care, to make meeting both work
vidual and job characteristics to measure
their acquisition of human capital
and family needs easier?
the wage penalty workers-men as well as
and affect their ability to earn
Recognizing these differences among
women-suffer when they work in
higher wages. In general, the
economists, this study employs three sepa-
"female-dominated" jobs (those in which
opportunities and obstacles that
rate and increasingly refined approaches to
at least 70 percent of the workers are
individuals face (or believe they
measure and report on wage gaps: Section I
women). Section IV reviews the consider-
face) and forces such as culture,
describes results of the simplest and most
able advantage unionized workers enjoy,
tradition, discrimination and
straightforward analysis, a comparison of
both in the form of higher wages and small-
poverty condition most choic-
median weekly earnings of men and
er wage gaps.
es-how much schooling to get,
women and of minorities and nonminori-
This research project was undertaken
what fields to study, whether and
ties; Section II reports on an assessment
jointly by the AFL-CIO and the Institute
when to have children. As a con-
that considers several factors, including
for Women's Policy Research to better
sequence, even though human
workers' ages and education levels, to
understand the wage gap in the United
capital is often thought to result
determine the effect that paying women as
States, as well as each of the 50 states and
from individuals' "choices" or
much as comparable men would have on
the District of Columbia, and to better
"preferences," it is important to
women's earnings and their families'
measure the costs of wage inequality for
remember that not every "choice"
incomes and poverty rates; and Section III
families and individuals.
is freely made, nor every "prefer-
presents findings from an even more finely
ence" truly preferred.
Altonji, Joseph G., and Rebecca
M. Blank. "Race and Gender in
the Labor Market." Prepublication
manuscript. Institute for Policy
Research and Department of
Economics, Northwestern Univer-
sity. June 1998; Blau, Francine
D., and Lawrence M. Kahn.
"Swimming Upstream: Trends in
the Gender Wage Differential in
the 1980s." Journal of Labor
Economics. Vol. 15:1, part 1,
pp. 1-42. 1997; MacPherson, David
A., and Barry T. Hirsch. "Wages
and Gender Composition: Why
Do Women's Jobs Pay Less?"
Journal of Labor Economics. Vol.
13:3, pp. 426-71. Economists
also attribute at least some of the
unexplained portion to unob-
served differences in productivity
or other factors that are, nonethe-
less, legitimate considerations.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
7
SECTION I.
Large Wage Gaps Persist
for Women and Minority Workers
his section evaluates the overall
of any race, with racial minorities, which
T
wage gap and the wage ratio
include African Americans, Asian Americans,
between women and men of all
Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Aleut
races and between minorities and whites,
Eskimos and others. Tables 1 and 2 detail
as reflected by differences in median weekly
the relevant earnings for each group.6 As
earnings of full-time workers in each group.5
shown in these tables, gender-based earn-
The analysis groups Hispanics, who may be
ings differences and corresponding gender
TABLE 1. THE GENDER WAGE GAP
Median Weekly Earnings by Gender and Minority Status for Full-Time Workers, 1997
WOMEN
MEN
GENDER
FEMALE/MALE
⁵Wage gaps also can be expressed
WAGE GAP
WAGE RATIO
as differences in hourly earnings,
All Races
$431
$579
$148
74.4%
in which case part-time workers
would also be included in com-
Whites
$462
$631
$169
73.2%
(Non-Hispanic)b
puting gender and minority dif-
ferences. Federal data sources
Minorities*b
$369
$415
$ 46
88.9%
generally do not provide hourly
earnings data, though hourly fig-
* Minority workers include those who are African American, Asian American, Pacific Islander,
ures can be calculated either from
Native American, Aleut Eskimo or other race and Hispanics who may be of any race.
data on hours worked per week
Source: "U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January
and weekly earnings or from
1998, Table 39; bInstitute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Current Population
Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group File, 1997.
hours worked per year and annu-
al earnings. This report uses both
weekly and annual earnings data.
TABLE 2. THE MINORITY WAGE GAP
⁶These calculations use two
Median Weekly Earnings by Minority Status for Full-Time Workers, 1997
sources. Where possible, they rely
on 1997 year-end Current
MINORITIES*
WHITES
MINORITY
MINORITY/WHITE
(NON-HISPANICS)
WAGE GAP
WAGE RATIO
Population Survey data reported
in the Department of Labor's
Both Sexes
$400
$554
$154
72.2%
January 1998 edition of
Women
$369
$462
$93
79.9%
Employment and Earnings. For
figures not officially reported in
Men
$415
$631
$216
65.8%
Employment and Earnings, IWPR
calculations from the raw
* Minority workers include those who are African American, Asian American, Pacific Islander,
Native American, Aleut Eskimo or other race and Hispanics who may be of any race.
Outgoing Rotation Group files of
the 1997 Current Population
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Current Population Survey,
Survey (CPS) are used.
Outgoing Rotation Group File, 1997.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
9
wage gaps are large for all women com-
those of men. At the other end of the
pared with all men and especially large for
spectrum, women fare best in Arizona,
minority women compared with all men.
California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachu-
setts, New York, Rhode Island and the
Overall, women earn just $431 per week
District of Columbia, where they earn at
compared with men's $579 weekly earn-
least 80 percent as much as men.
ings, for a wage gap of $148. White
women do better than women overall,
More favorable gender wage gaps at the
earning $462 per week-but since white
state level, however, do not automatical-
men's weekly earnings of $631 are also
ly signal improved economic status for
greater than those for men overall, the
women. To the contrary, in the District of
$169 wage gap between white women
Columbia and six states where the gen-
and white men is larger than for all
der wage gap is less than the national
women and all men.
rate-Arizona, California, New York,
North Carolina, Texas and Virginia-a
Minority women have lower earnings-
primary reason for women's relatively
just $369 a week-but because minority
improved status is that the wages of
men's $415 weekly earnings are also
minority men are so low. (See the
lower than men's overall, the $46 dis-
National Summary Table for state-by-
tance between minority women and men
state breakdowns.)
is the smallest gender gap. The low
wages of both minority women and men
Wage gaps between men and women
and their smaller gender gap reflect sys-
have declined steadily in recent decades,
tematic disadvantages that minorities
though progress has slowed in the 1990s,
face in and out of the workplace. When
and gender-based wage differentials in the
compared with all men rather than only
United States remain large relative to those
with minority men, the wage gap for
in many other industrialized countries.
minority women-$210-is almost five
Today's 26 percent gender wage gap is 11
times greater.
percentage points lower than it was in
1979, when women earned only 63 cents
For all race groups, full-time women
for every dollar men earned, and the gen-
workers earn just 74.4 percent of what
der wage gap was 37 percent.⁷ Several fac-
men earn on a weekly basis. White
tors contribute to the rise in women's
women earn 73.2 percent of what white
wages, including increased educational
men earn, while minority women earn
attainment (today, women's college gradua-
7 The wage gap is actually the dif-
88.9 percent of what minority men earn.
tion rates are actually higher than men's,
However, minority women earn just 63.7
although they lagged behind for several
ference between 100 percent
percent of what all men earn.
decades), greater labor force attachment
(what the wage ratio would be
and work experience (more women are
if there were equality between
The ratio of women's wages to men's is
women and men) and the wage
working, and women are working more),
lower, and hence the wage gap is greater
fairer treatment in the labor market (in
ratio. The current wage gap is
than corresponding national rates, in
large part because of laws such as Title VII)
about 26 percent.
half of the states. Overall gender gaps are
and movement into traditional men's jobs
worst in Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan,
(for example, telecommunications special-
Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin and
ists, mail carriers and professions such as
Wyoming, where women's median
lawyers and doctors).
weekly wages are less than 70 percent
10
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
Nevertheless, the narrowing of the gen-
white men earn. At earnings of $415 per
der wage gap since 1979 connotes less
week, minority men also earn $47 less
progress than might appear. Over the past
than white women.
two decades, most of the reduction in the
gender wage gap was because men's real
Minority women's median weekly earn-
wages were falling-not because women's
ings are greatest in relation to white
were rising.8 An earlier IWPR study esti-
women's in Alaska (95 percent), Tennessee
mated that the growth in women's wages
(94 percent), Indiana (93 percent),
explained only about two-fifths of the
Pennsylvania (89 percent) and South
decrease in the wage gap between 1979 and
Dakota (89 percent). Women of color
1997; three-fifths of the narrowing of the
fare least well in relation to white women
⁸The concept of "real wages"
gap resulted from the decline in men's real
in Rhode Island (62 percent), the District
reflects the actual value of wages
wages.9 Falling men's wages accounted for
of Columbia (65 percent), Texas (67 per-
once inflation is taken into
roughly half of the decline in the gender
cent), California (69 percent) and New
account. Between 1979 and 1997,
wage gap between 1979 and 1989 and for a
Mexico (70 percent). Minority men's
men's "real" hourly wages fell
stunning four-fifths of the decline between
earnings are highest in relation to white
from $14.39 to $12.19, while
1989 and 1997. Had men's real wages not
men's in Kentucky (90 percent),
women's rose slightly, from $9.03
fallen-in other words, had they remained
Montana (86 percent), Hawaii (84 per-
to $9.63. Mishel, Lawrence, Jared
at their 1979 inflation-adjusted level—
cent) and Missouri and Ohio (83 percent
Bernstein and John Schmitt. The
women's earnings today would be only
for each); and lowest in relation to white
State of Working America, 1998-
about 66 percent of men's, representing a
men's in the District of Columbia (51
99. Economic Policy Institute and
remarkably small overall decline in the
percent), California (52 percent), Rhode
Cornell University Press, January
gender wage gap.
Island (57 percent) and Arizona, Idaho,
1999.
Like gender-based wage differentials,
Mississippi and Oregon (58 percent for
minority-based wage gaps are substantial.
each).
9Hartmann, Heidi, and Julie
Minority men fare less well than minority
Whittaker. "Stall in Women's Real
women relative to their white counterparts,
Unlike the gender wage gap, which has
Wage Growth Slows Progress in
though this result, in part, reflects white
shown slight but steady improvement, the
Closing the Wage Gap." Briefing
women's low wages compared with those
pattern of change in minority wage gaps
paper. Institute for Women's
of white men.
has been uneven and generally negative.
Policy Research, February 1998.
The wage gap between African American
See also Mishel, Bernstein and
The minority wage gap for both sexes
and white men narrowed until 1978 but
Scmitt at 134.
considered together is quite large ($154)
then widened during the 1980s and has not
and especially large for minority men
moved in a clear direction in the 1990s.
10 Council of Economic Advisors
compared with white men ($216).
African American and white women
for the President's Initiative on
Indeed, the overall minority wage gap of
achieved near-parity in wages by the mid-
Race. Changing America: Indicators
$154 is larger than the overall gender-
1970s, but since then the race-based wage
of Social and Economic Well-Being
based wage gap of $148.
gap between them has widened.
by Race and Hispanic Origin.
Differences based on race in the earnings of
September 1998.
Taking women and men together, mino-
college-educated workers have grown
rities earn only 72.2 percent of what
since 1978 for both women and men. 10
whites earn for full-time weekly work.
Earnings data for Hispanic men and
Minority women earn 79.9 percent of
women also show growing earnings
what white women earn, while minority
inequality between non-Hispanic whites
men earn only 65.8 percent of what
and Hispanics for both genders.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
11
Figure 1 depicts in graphic form the
dwindle or disappear if everyone had tru
weekly wages of full-time workers for vari-
equal opportunity from birth. Averag
ous demographic groups. Earnings dispari-
differences among groups in health, educa
ties are large, with white men earning the
tion and time spent on family care would
most per week at $631, while minority
not exist, since it is unlikely that prefer
women earn the least at $369. These gross
ences regarding these activities would
wage differences, of course, in part reflect
differ substantially among groups if eco
differences among demographic groups in
nomic, discriminatory and other barrier
average qualifications and tendencies to
fell and the forces of tradition dissolved
work in certain occupations and industries.
Workers from all demographic group
But they also are meaningful indicators
would have access to the same types of job.
of inequality attributable, at least in part, to
and, having few differences among then
discrimination in the labor market or
(on average), would tend to earn equa
elsewhere, since wage gaps likely would
wages.
FIGURE 1. MEDIAN WEEKLY EARNINGS
FOR FULL-TIME WORKERS, 1997
700
$631
600
$579
$554
500
$462
$431
$415
400
$400
$369
300
200
100
$0
All
All
White
White
Menᵃ
Menᵇ
Minority Men Women Minority
All
All
Women
Womenb
Whites Minorities*b
Minority workers include those who are African American, Asian American, Pacific Islander,
Native American, Aleut Eskimo or other race and Hispanics who may be of any race.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January
1998, Table 39; Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Current Population
Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group File, 1997.
12
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
SECTION II.
Unequal Pay for Women Lowers Family
Incomes and Increases Poverty
ecause existing differences among
Table 3 shows women's annual earnings,
B
groups of workers due to legitimate
hours worked and annual family incomes
factors such as education and family
in three different types of families with
status contribute to wage gaps, this study
women workers: married working women,
¹¹WPR researchers used annual
also makes use of two additional, more
working single mothers and self-support-
refined measures better able to isolate the
ing single women. The table reflects gains
earnings and employment infor-
effects of labor market discrimination on
to family incomes and reductions in pover-
mation reported in the CPS for
gender wage gaps. The first, described in
ty levels that would result from boosting
the years 1995-1997 to estimate
this section, controls for certain human
women's pay." Estimated added income for
women's and men's earnings.
capital differences between male and
the average family of each type is calculat-
Refer to the Data Description sec-
female workers and for selected differences
ed from the earnings gains working women
tion of the Technical Appendix
for more detailed information
in labor markets. The objective is to esti-
would enjoy if they earned as much as men
mate how much women and their families
who work the same number of hours, are
about the data set.
lose because women earn less than similar-
the same age, have the same educational
ly qualified men or, correspondingly, how
attainment and urban/rural status and live
much women's earnings
and family incomes
TABLE 3. MEAN ANNUAL EARNINGS, MEAN FAMILY INCOME
would rise with equal pay.
AND POVERTY RATES IF WORKING WOMEN EARNED THE
Lower earnings for
SAME AS MEN, 1994-1996 AVERAGE, IN 1997 DOLLARS
women are of no small
SINGLE MOTHERS
OTHER SINGLE
MARRIED WOMEN
consequence to working
AGED 18+
WOMEN AGED 25+
AGED 18+
families. More than two-
thirds of all mothers in the
Population Size
5,400,000
9,200,000
32,800,000
United States work for
Women's Annual
$19,573
$27,703
$23,144
pay. Of these, about three-
Earnings
fourths are married and
Annual Hours Worked
1,775
1,975
1,761
have access to men's
incomes, but their earn-
Annual Family Income
ings are nevertheless cru-
Current
$26,372
$30,849
$69,676
cial to family support.
After Pay Adjustment
$30,831
$35,000
$73,881
One-fourth are single and
Increase per Family
+$4,459
+$4,151
+$4,205
often the sole support of
Percent Increase
16.9%
13.4%
6.0%
their families. And many
Total Family Income Gains
$24.1 billion
$38.2 billion
$137.9 billion
women without children,
both single and married,
Poverty Rate
work to support them-
Current
25.3%
6.3%
2.1%
selves and other family
After Pay Adjustment
12.6%
1.0%
0.8%
members.
Note: Refers to families with employed women.
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Current Population Survey
March Demographic Supplements, 1995-1997, for calendar years 1994-1996; all in 1997 dollars.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
13
in the same region of the country.12 As
The 9.2 million working single women
shown in the table, raising women's pay
who live alone,¹³ including divorced,
would have a dramatic impact on their
widowed, separated and never-married
families:
women, would earn a total of $38.2 bil-
lion more if they were paid the same as
Paying the 32.8 million married women
comparable men. These single working
the same as comparable men would
women each would earn an average of
boost their earnings by about one-fifth
$4,151 more per year. Single working
and raise family incomes for married
women also would experience a signifi-
couples by 6 percent. This translates into
cant drop in poverty-in fact, the steepest
an average of $4,205 more income per
drop-from 6.3 percent to 1.0 percent.
year for each married-couple family, or
¹²For a more detailed discussion
a total of $137.9 billion nationwide.
Working women in every state would
of the methodology used for this
Poverty rates for married working
receive wage hikes if they earned as
analysis, please see the Technical
women's families would fall by more
much as comparable men in their states.
Appendix.
than half, from 2.1 percent to 0.8 percent.
The potential wage hikes range from a
low of $2,815, on average, in Alaska to a
¹³The analysis of earnings gains is
If the 5.4 million working single mothers
high of $5,160 in Ohio. Family income
limited to single women older
earned as much as comparable men,
would grow, on average, by about $326
than 25 who live alone in order to
their annual family incomes would
million in Alaska up to roughly $21.8
include only those who are likely
increase $4,459 on average, or nearly 17
billion in California. Family income in
to be supporting themselves on
percent. Total income gains for this
half of the states would grow by more
their own and whose family
group of families would be $24.1 billion,
than $2.5 billion. Poverty rates would
income is relatively easy to iden-
and the very high poverty rates for work-
fall dramatically in all states, and pover-
tify. Many younger single women
ing single mothers would fall by half,
ty rates for families headed by single
and single women living in other
from 25.3 percent to 12.6 percent.
mothers would drop to less than 10
family configurations also are
percent in 14 states.
earning less because of discrimi-
nation, but the impact on their
family earnings would be more
difficult to identify. See the
Technical Appendix for addition-
al details.
SECTION III.
Men and Women in Female-Dominated Jobs
Suffer Wage Penalties
O
ne phenomenon contributing to
reports on findings of an analysis designed
¹⁴Defining a female-dominated
the gender wage gap is the tenden-
to capture the "pay inequity" effect of
occupation as one in which
cy of wages to fall as the percentage
working in female-dominated jobs-that
women make up 70 percent or
of women in an occupation rises. In partic-
is, the wage penalty women and men incur
more of the workers is standard
ular, workers in "female-dominated" or
for working in predominately female jobs.
practice in this field. The 70 per-
"predominately female" jobs-jobs such as
To develop an estimate of the earnings
cent figure represents women's
clerical workers, cashiers, librarians and
costs for workers in female-dominated
share of the labor force plus 25
child care workers, for example, in which
jobs, the analysis compares earnings of
percent. A male-dominated occu-
70 percent or more of the workers are
workers in these occupations with those of
pation is generally held to be one
women't-typically earn less than workers
comparable workers who are not in pre-
in which 80 percent or more of
in jobs that are predominately male or that
dominately female jobs.¹⁶ In other words,
the workers are men, since 80
are integrated by gender.¹⁵ This section
workers (women and men) in female-
percent represents men's share of
the labor force (55 percent) plus
TABLE 4. MEAN ANNUAL EARNINGS OF WOMEN AND MEN
25 percent.
AGED 18 AND OLDER IN FEMALE-DOMINATED OCCUPATIONS
¹⁵Treiman, Donald and Heidi I.
If Pay Equity Prevailed, 1994-1996 Average, 1997 Dollars
Hartmann (eds.). Women, Work
WOMEN
MEN
and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of
WHITE (NON-
MINORITY
*ALL RACES
WHITE (NON-
MINORITY*
ALL RACES
Equal Value. National Research
HISPANIC)
HISPANIC)
Council: Committee on Occupa-
Population
18,690,000
6,910,000
25,600,000
2,667,000
1,346,000
4,013,000
tional Classification and Analysis,
Size
Assembly of Behavioral and
Social Sciences. Washington, D.C.:
Mean Annual
Earnings
National Academy Press, 1981.
Current
$19,482
$18,363
$19,211
$26,926
$20,632
$25,028
¹⁶Occupations that are not
After Pay
$22,938
$21,775
$22,657
$33,826
$25,410
$31,287
female-dominated are those in
Adjustment
Increase
+$3,456
+$3,412
+$3,446
+$6,900
+$6,259
which fewer than 70 percent of
+$4,778
per Worker
the workers are women. These
include integrated occupations in
Average
which female and male workers
Annual Hours
1,670
1,730
1,685
1,845
1,834
1,841
are present in relatively equal
Labor Force-
$65
$24
$89
$18
$6
$25
proportions, as well as occupa-
Wide Pay
billion
billion
billion
billion
billion
billion
tions that are disproportionately
Increase
male.
Female dominated occupations are those in which 70 percent or more of the incumbents are women.
*Minority workers include those who are African American, Asian American, Pacific Islander, Native
American, Aleut Eskimo or other race and Hispanics who may be of any race.
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Current Population Survey
March Demographic Supplements, 1995-1997, for calendar years 1994-1996; all in 1997 dollars.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
15
dominated jobs are compared with workers
would receive 17.7 percent more in earn-
in nonfemale-dominated jobs who are
ings per year, or an average of $3,456
otherwise of the same gender, age, race,
each, for total earnings gains of $65
educational level, marital and parental sta-
billion per year.
tus, urban/rural status, who live in the
same region of the country and who work
At the state level, increases for women of
17 Please see the Technical
the same number of hours per year in a
all races would range from a low of
firm of the same size in the same industry.¹⁷
$2,112 per year in Missouri to a high of
Appendix for more detailed infor-
This strategy, comparing women in female-
$4,707 in Delaware. Annual wage gains
mation about the methodology
dominated jobs with women in all other
used for the statistical model.
for women in predominately female jobs
occupations and men in female-dominated
Since no data on the content of
would exceed $3,000, on average, in 36
occupations with men in all other occupa-
of the states. In 34 states, wages would
jobs (the skill, effort and respon-
tions, has the effect of isolating pay differ-
increase by at least $2,500 for women of
sibility required by workers who
entials due to job class from all other gen-
color in female-dominated jobs.
hold them nor the working con-
der-based discrimination. As a result, this
ditions in which they work) are
approach may actually understate the
available in the CPS, "jobs of
Men working in female-dominated
extent to which pay equity would boost
occupations also would earn more if they
equal value" to the female-domi-
wages for women workers in female-domi-
did not suffer inequities based on job class.
nated jobs being studied are
nated jobs. 18 Yet even so, as reported in
However, only 8.5 percent of men work in
approximated by investigating
Table 4, the analysis finds very large earn-
what these same workers would
female-dominated occupations compared
ings losses due to the lower pay associated
with more than 55 percent of women. Men
earn in jobs that are not female-
with working in female-dominated jobs:
in female-dominated jobs earn about 20
dominated.
percent more per hour than women in
¹⁸This strategy also has the effect
Nearly 26 million women of all races
these same jobs. Because they work more
of reducing some of the weak-
who work in female-dominated occupa-
hours and have higher rates of pay than
nesses in the data available. For
tions would earn about 18 percent more
women in both the female-dominated
example, the gender differences
per year if they earned as much as com-
occupations and nonfemale-dominated
in the value of age as a proxy for
parable women in nonfemale-dominated
jobs, pay equity adjustments for men in
work experience matter less if
jobs. For the number of hours these
female-dominated jobs would actually pro-
women are being compared to
women worked, each would have earned
duce even larger individual gains than for
women and men are being com-
an average of $3,446 more per year,
women. Each of the 4 million men of all
pared to men. Other models
translating into $89 billion in income
races working in predominately female
were tested, but all resulted in the
gains for women in predominately
occupations would receive an average of
same magnitude and relative
female jobs throughout the United States.
$6,259 more per year. This represents $25
findings among women and men.
billion in additional income for male work-
Among the nearly 7 million minority
ers throughout the United States. The 1.3
19Minority men would especially
women working in female-dominated
million minority men who work in female-
benefit from pay equity adjust-
jobs, earnings would rise 18.6 percent,
dominated occupations would receive an
ments, since they are more likely
for average individual increases of
average of $4,778 more per year, bringing
to work in female-dominated
$3,412 per year. Altogether, pay equity
their annual earnings up from $20,632 to
occupations than white men are;
adjustments based on job class would
$25,410.19 For all men in female-dominat-
minority men are 34 percent of
yield a total of $24 billion in annual
ed jobs, state-level increases would range
the male workers in female-dom-
earnings for minority women.
from $3,533 annually in the District of
inated jobs compared with 26
Columbia to $8,958 in Delaware; and for
percent of male workers overall.
Likewise, the 18.7 million white women
minority men, from $1,918 in Colorado to
working in female-dominated occupations
$7,996 in Alaska.
16
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
SECTION IV.
Union Membership Means
Big Pay Gains, Smaller Pay Gaps
A
S the preceding sections reflect,
Unionization also tends to compress
equal pay would boost workers' pay
wage differentials between jobs at the top
and working families' incomes.
and the bottom of pay scales, further
Union representation is another proven
mitigating the effects of race- or sex-
and powerful tool for raising workers'
based bias.
wages, particularly for those most subject
to labor market discrimination: women
Table 5 reports median weekly earn-
and minorities. Unions spell higher pay
ings for workers represented by unions²⁰
and more equitable wages for women and
and nonunion workers by gender and
workers of color for several reasons:
minority status. For every group represent-
ed, median weekly earnings are substan-
²⁰Union workers are defined as
Unions routinely bargain for wage
tially higher for union workers than for
those who are members of a
increases and related benefits for work-
their nonunion counterparts:
union or whose job is covered by
ers they represent.
a union or employee association
Union women earn $157 more per week
collective bargaining agreement.
Unions have played a central role in
than nonunion women ($568, compared
fighting for equal opportunity and com-
with $411).
bating discrimination. A number of pub-
lic- and private-sector
unions have led the
TABLE 5. THE UNION WAGE ADVANTAGE
campaign to bring pay
equity to the workplace,
Median Weekly Earnings for Union and Nonunion Workers by Gender and
combining organizing,
Minority Status for Full-Time Workers, 1997
bargaining, lobbying and
UNION
NONUNION
UNION WAGE
UNION/NON-
UNION
lawsuits to win pay
ADVANTAGE
UNION WAGE
PERCENT
RATIO
equity adjustments total-
INCREASE
ing hundreds of mil-
Women
$568
$411
$157
138.2%
38.2%
lions of dollars.
White (Non-
$596
$440
$156
135.5%
35.5%
Hispanic)b
Unions bring wage set-
Minority**
$485
$350
$135
138.6%
38.6%
ting into the open, mak-
ing it more difficult for
Men
$679
$539
$140
126.0%
26.0%
employers to discrimi-
White (Non-
$715
$600
$115
119.2%
19.2%
nate and helping ensure
Hispanic)b
a stronger voice for all
Minority**
$577
$400
$177
144.3%
44.3%
workers.
* Minority workers include those who are African American, Asian American, Pacific Islander,
Native American, Aleut Eskimo or other race and Hispanics who may be of any race.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January
1998, Table 41; Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Current Population
Survey, Outgoing Rotation Group File, 1997.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
Likewise, minority women represented
Minority women who are represented by
by unions earn $135 more than minority
unions earn 38.6 percent more than minor-
women who are not in unions ($485
ity women who are not represented by
compared with $350). Indeed, minority
unions. Likewise, minority union men earn
union women out-earn nonunion white
44.3 percent more than those who are not
women ($485 compared with $440).
in unions. White women also benefit sub-
stantially from union representation, earn-
The union wage advantage is largest for
ing 35.5 percent more than those who are
minority men, at $177, and smallest for
not represented by a union. The gain for
white men, at $115.
white men, 19.2 percent, is less, but still a
substantial increase.
Table 5 also shows the percentage
Union workers enjoy a wage advantage
increase in the weekly wages for each
over nonunion workers in every state.
group, comparing union workers with
Union women receive a wage premium of
nonunion workers. These percentage
30 percent or more relative to nonunion
increases are largest for minority workers,
women in 34 states, and the union wage
larger for women than for men overall and
advantage for women is at least 20 percent
smallest but still substantial for white men.
in all but four states. Because of sample
TABLE 6. THE GENDER GAP FOR UNION AND
NONUNION WORKERS
Median Weekly Earnings for Women and Men by Union Status for
Full-Time Workers, 1997
WOMEN
MEN
GENDER
FEMALE/MALE
WAGE GAP
WAGE RATIO
All Races
Nonunion
$411
$539
$128
76.3%
Union
$568
$679
$111
83.7%
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January
1998, Table 41.
18
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
constraints, union wage advantages can be
female/male wage ratio of 83.7 percent
computed for women of color in only 27
among union members compared with
states (including the District of Columbia);
76.3 percent among nonunion workers). In
the union wage advantage for minority
other words, the gender-based wage gap is
women is 25 percent or more in 19 of
one-third smaller among union workers
these. Minority men represented by unions
than among nonunion workers. Table 7
enjoy a union wage advantage of 35 per-
shows that the minority wage gap is also
cent or more in 25 of the 31 states for
smaller among union workers than their
which computations are possible. Among
nonunion counterparts and especially so
men of all races, men represented by
among men. The minority/white wage
unions have a union wage advantage of 35
ratio for women is about 2 percentage
percent or more in eight states.
points larger among union workers than
Wage gaps are also smaller among
among nonunion workers. Among men,
workers represented by unions than among
the minority/white wage ratio is 14 per-
their nonunion counterparts. As Table 6
centage points larger. In other words, the
shows, among workers represented by
minority/white wage gap for men is about
unions, women's wages relative to men's
two-fifths smaller among union workers
are more than 7 percentage points higher
relative to nonunion employees.
than among nonunion women and men (a
TABLE 7. THE MINORITY WAGE GAP FOR UNION/
NONUNION WORKERS
Median Weekly Earnings for Minorities and Whites by Gender and Union Status for
Full-Time Workers, 1997
MINORITIES*
WHITES
MINORITY
MINORITY/WHITE
WAGE GAP
WAGE RATIO
Women
Nonunion
$350
$440
$ 90
79.5%
Union
$485
$596
$111
81.4%
Men
Nonunion
$400
$600
$200
66.7%
Union
$577
$715
$138
80.7%
Minority workers include those who are African American, Asian American, Pacific Islander,
Native American, Aleut Eskimo or other race and Hispanics who may be of any race,
Source: Institute for Women's Policy Research calculations based on the Current Population Survey,
Outgoing Rotation Group File, 1997.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
19
Conclusion
ersistent wage gaps for working
race- and gender-based wage discrimina-
P
women and people of color and the
tion-women and minorities-as well as for
earnings inequality these gaps con-
men who work in female-dominated jobs.
note translate into lower pay, less family
Wages are higher for union-represented
income and more poverty for working fam-
workers, and the gender- and minority-
ilies. The solution, long overdue, is equal
based wage gaps are smaller. Hence,
pay for women and minority workers.
strengthening labor laws and boosting
As the analyses reported above show,
support for workers' rights to organize and
paying working women the wages of com-
bargain would raise wages for women and
parable men would increase family
people of color, helping to reduce inequality.
incomes substantially and cut family
Equally important, steps to ensure
poverty rates markedly-at least by half for
greater compliance with existing equal pay
all family types in the study. Moreover, pay-
and employment discrimination require-
ing women and men in female-dominated
ments, coupled with passage and enforce-
jobs wages equal to those of comparable
ment of new and tougher laws, also would
workers in other jobs would significantly
boost wages for women and minorities sig-
boost these workers' incomes.
nificantly. In short, tough enforcement of
Unions are crucial weapons in the
strong equal pay laws would go a long way
equal pay fight. Unions play an especially
toward erasing inequality and closing wage
important role for workers most affected by
gaps that imperil economic security for
millions of working families.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
National Summary Table
MEDIAN WEEKLY
SHARE OF WEEKLY
EARNING AS MUCH AS COMPARABLE MEN WOULD
EARNINGS
EARNINGS OF ALL MEN
STATE
ALL
ALL
PERCENT
PERCENT
RAISE WOMEN'S
REDUCE POVERTY IN
RAISE TOTAL
MEN
WOMEN
ALL WOMEN
MINORITY
ANNUAL
SINGLE-MOTHER
FAMILY EARNINGS
WOMEN
WAGES ON
HOUSEHOLDS
IN EACH STATE
AVERAGE
(IN MILLIONS)
FROM
TO
U.S.
$579
$431
74.4%
63.7%
$4,229
25.3%
12.6%
$200,592
Alabama
493
362
73.4%
60.9%
$4,829
33.0
16.3
$3,718
Alaska
762
557
73.1%
69.8%
$2,815
9.7
3.5
$326
Arizona
487
399
81.9%
65.7%
$4,437
37.9
24.7
$3,256
Arkansas
439
329
74.9%
63.3%
$3,602
35.8
17.5
$1,585
California
589
497
84.4%
67.9%
$4,129
19.2
9.2
$21,829
Colorado
617
460
74.6%
64.8%
$4,650
24.7
11.1
$3,480
Connecticut
692
513
74.1%
61.1%
$3,316
22.2
11.8
$2,090
Delaware
598
443
74.1%
65.9%
$4,415
19.7
8.4
$616
Dist. of Col.
584
567
97.1%
82.4%
$3,933
25.8
14.2
$349
Florida
492
407
82.7%
70.3%
$4,490
23.6
11.5
$11,201
Georgia
567
427
75.3%
65.3%
$3,665
24.4
12.5
$5,121
Hawaii
562
463
82.4%
79.9%
$4,692
21.1
4.1
$969
Idaho
509
382
75.0%
66.8%
$4,313
34.4
15.7
$949
Illinois
639
460
72.0%
62.6%
$4,913
25.4
9.9
$10,306
Indiana
590
389
65.9%
62.7%
$5,011
21.0
12.7
$5,563
lowa
538
398
74.0%
64.3%
$3,647
16.7
11.5
$2,127
Kansas
553
410
74.1%
60.8%
$3,973
31.5
17.8
$1,982
Kentucky
539
386
71.6%
61.2%
$3,565
31.8
16.8
$2,489
Louisiana
509
339
66.6%
55.0%
$3,814
34.2
19.1
$2,626
Maine
521
397
76.2%
N/A
$4,616
23.3
16.0
$1,128
Maryland
676
503
74.4%
63.9%
$4,398
22.4
6.1
$4,410
Mass.
640
512
80.0%
62.8%
$4,097
20.3
8.6
$4,851
Michigan
654
457
69.9%
61.2%
$5,130
31.1
12.9
$9,016
22
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
PAY EQUITY FOR FEMALE-DOMINATED JOBS
UNION WAGE ADVANTAGE
WOULD RAISE ANNUAL WAGES, ON AVERAGE:
ALL
MINORITY
ALL MEN
MINORITY
ALL WOMEN
MINORITY
ALL MEN
MINORITY
WOMEN
WOMEN
MEN
WOMEN
MEN
$3,446
$3,412
$6,259
$4,778
138.2%
138.6%
126.0%
144.3%
$3,177
$2,459
$5,323
$5,139
148.9%
149.0%
137.5%
137.0%
$3,320
$1,872
$8,318
$7,996
136.8%
135.1%
135.9%
163.5%
$3,169
$3,309
$5,655
$4,033
123.0%
N/A
132.6%
153.8%
$2,830
$2,358
$7,426
N/A
143.4%
N/A
115.4%
N/A
$4,280
$4,125
$6,519
$5,462
139.4%
160.3%
136.9%
159.7%
$3,260
$2,915
$6,188
$1,918
128.2%
153.1%
125.7%
136.4%
$2,839
$2,751
$5,349
$6,456
139.8%
150.0%
112.6%
145.9%
$4,707
$6,796
$8,958
N/A
130.6%
120.0%
128.7%
166.7%
$3,637
$3,299
$3,533
$3,329
112.2%
122.5%
112.3%
140.8%
$4,135
$2,899
$5,815
$3,936
144.3%
141.5%
135.4%
150.0%
$3,850
$3,891
$4,616
$4,171
145.4%
138.9%
116.4%
133.5%
$3,888
$4,059
$5,748
$6,477
122.8%
128.0%
135.9%
144.2%
$2,734
$1,771
$7,229
N/A
153.9%
N/A
129.6%
N/A
$3,459
$3,472
$6,454
$4,841
117.6%
120.0%
114.6%
151.8%
$3,116
$2,771
$6,705
N/A
147.3%
N/A
120.2%
153.0%
$2,318
N/A
$5,940
N/A
129.5%
N/A
118.3%
N/A
$3,242
$2,417
$5,731
$4,057
146.7%
N/A
130.3%
N/A
$2,716
$2,673
$4,116
N/A
128.0%
N/A
126.4%
N/A
$2,707
$2,820
$6,459
$4,103
125.1%
127.4%
121.2%
160.0%
$2,957
N/A
$7,695
N/A
140.8%
N/A
141.3%
N/A
$3,743
$2,993
$7,790
$6,450
146.3%
160.5%
*
120.0%
$3,536
$4,132
$6,950
$3,521
121.6%
104.0%
106.0%
125.0%
$3,113
$3,382
$6,420
$3,644
137.4%
146.6%
125.2%
146.7%
*No significant difference.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
23
MEDIAN WEEKLY
SHARE OF WEEKLY
EARNING AS MUCH AS COMPARABLE MEN WOULD
EARNINGS
EARNINGS OF ALL MEN
STATE
ALL
ALL
PERCENT
PERCENT
RAISE WOMEN'S
REDUCE POVERTY IN
RAISE TOTAL
MEN
WOMEN
ALL WOMEN
MINORITY
ANNUAL
SINGLE-MOTHER
FAMILY EARNINGS
WOMEN
WAGES ON
HOUSEHOLDS
IN EACH STATE
AVERAGE
(IN MILLIONS)
FROM
TO
Minnesota
634
477
75.2%
65.9%
$3,332
23.0
7.9
$3,203
Mississippi
464
343
73.9%
64.7%
$4,690
37.9
15.6
$2,092
Missouri
568
419
73.8%
64.3%
$2,977
21.8
10.9
$3,148
Montana
497
344
69.2%
57.9%
$4,955
31.5
16.5
$834
Nebraska
533
386
72.4%
58.5%
$4,436
30.1
19.1
$1,465
Nevada
555
410
73.9%
62.0%
$3,726
9.9
5.4
$1,157
New Hamp.
603
459
76.1%
60.5%
$4,803
12.5
6.4
$1,167
New Jersey
667
503
75.4%
60.0%
$3,770
18.6
6.5
$5,277
New Mexico
508
391
77.0%
63.6%
$4,760
28.0
16.1
$1,353
New York
603
485
80.4%
70.1%
$4,080
21.2
10.5
$11,792
N. Carolina
507
394
77.7%
68.2%
$3,618
35.3
22.3
$5,063
N. Dakota
509
347
68.2%
N/A
$4,217
27.5
16.1
$546
Ohio
595
427
71.8%
64.7%
$5,160
23.1
11.0
$10,279
Oklahoma
493
362
73.4%
64.9%
$4,481
28.9
17.3
$2,599
Oregon
553
416
75.2%
57.9%
$3,886
30.0
16.3
$2,259
Penn.
609
437
71.8%
65.7%
$4,623
19.4
9.1
$9,559
Rhode Island
575
465
80.9%
51.5%
$3,917
19.7
10.4
$707
S. Carolina
499
379
76.0%
64.1%
$3,998
35.2
16.4
$2,713
S. Dakota
479
358
74.7%
66.8%
$3,849
30.3
14.6
$571
Tennessee
512
374
73.0%
70.3%
$4,234
26.1
14.5
$4,169
Texas
512
402
78.5%
62.5%
$3,789
31.3
18.4
$12,528
Utah
552
408
73.9%
58.0%
$4,051
21.5
9.3
$1,456
Vermont
531
419
78.9%
N/A
$5,051
30.2
16.2
$642
Virginia
586
461
78.7%
64.8%
$4,212
22.6
12.5
$5,218
Washington
643
491
76.4%
67.2%
$3,821
25.7
6.7
$3,950
W. Virginia
516
370
71.7%
N/A
$4,033
34.1
16.3
$1,122
Wisconsin
613
420
68.5%
55.8%
$4,938
24.2
11.2
$5,324
Wyoming
579
364
62.9%
51.8%
$4,497
29.6
19.2
$408
24
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
PAY EQUITY FOR FEMALE-DOMINATED JOBS
UNION WAGE ADVANTAGE
WOULD RAISE ANNUAL WAGES, ON AVERAGE:
ALL
MINORITY
ALL MEN
MINORITY
ALL WOMEN
MINORITY
ALL MEN
MINORITY
WOMEN
WOMEN
MEN
WOMEN
MEN
$2,161
$1,685
$4,050
N/A
126.1%
N/A
115.3%
N/A
$3,625
$4,179
$6,671
$4,643
137.2%
142.9%
127.8%
150.0%
$2,112
$3,351
$5,190
N/A
139.0%
0.0%
125.1%
150.0%
$2,595
$3,380
$5,794
N/A
162.5%
N/A
130.9%
N/A
$3,564
$3,528
$5,376
N/A
139.0%
N/A
128.0%
N/A
$2,522
$2,565
$4,920
$4,133
120.3%
N/A
124.5%
133.3%
$4,252
N/A
$5,397
N/A
130.7%
N/A
121.3%
N/A
$2,754
$3,387
$5,539
$4,403
119.8%
105.0%
101.0%
N/A
$3,557
$3,368
$7,414
$6,281
135.7%
146.2%
122.0%
144.3%
$3,506
$3,930
$6,457
$5,590
113.9%
118.5%
115.1%
137.5%
$3,366
$3,384
$5,788
$3,205
122.8%
135.9%
123.4%
166.7%
$3,157
$2,205
$4,360
N/A
151.5%
N/A
134.3%
N/A
$3,169
$3,421
$7,408
$3,671
128.5%
137.1%
115.8%
139.1%
$3,094
$3,210
$5,757
$5,401
152.3%
142.4%
127.5%
172.2%
$3,844
$2,421
$6,764
N/A
136.2%
N/A
134.6%
183.0%
$4,284
$3,488
$6,988
$4,603
139.7%
118.7%
107.7%
101.9%
$3,195
$1,535
$6,954
$4,683
132.6%
N/A
115.4%
N/A
$3,827
$4,169
$6,178
N/A
126.4%
N/A
136.0%
N/A
$2,892
$745
$3,608
N/A
166.8%
N/A
115.3%
N/A
$2,415
$2,492
$6,063
$2,806
147.0%
115.6%
119.0%
107.1%
$3,109
$2,741
$5,921
$4,016
146.1%
138.1%
123.0%
138.4%
$3,376
$2,334
$5,921
N/A
137.5%
N/A
133.3%
N/A
$4,468
N/A
$7,518
N/A
153.8%
N/A
124.5%
N/A
$3,530
$3,826
$8,207
$5,292
136.7%
137.0%
116.8%
136.4%
$4,247
$2,669
$6,553
N/A
127.4%
N/A
128.2%
N/A
$3,884
N/A
$4,767
N/A
145.7%
N/A
136.0%
N/A
$3,615
$2,814
$7,967
N/A
138.8%
130.7%
116.6%
176.5%
$2,326
$3,459
$5,305
N/A
158.0%
N/A
132.9%
N/A
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
Technical Appendix
Data Description
1995-1997 are combined to construct a
sample size of approximately 175,000
The data used in the analysis are taken
households, a sample large enough to pro-
from the Current Population Survey (CPS),
vide state-level estimates. This is the pri-
a nationally representative data set that
mary data set used in this study for the
provides current estimates of the economic
analysis of earnings losses due to lack of
status and employment activities of the
equal pay and earnings gains if equal pay
population of the United States. The CPS is
existed. All employment and earnings data
a monthly survey of about 60,000 house-
gathered in March refer to the previous cal-
holds conducted by the Bureau of the
endar year. The means reported are, there-
Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
fore, estimates over the combined three-
Respondents are interviewed for four con-
year period and refer to the experience of
secutive months in one year and reinter-
respondents in years 1994-1996. All dollar
viewed for another four months at the
values of income and earnings variables are
same time the following year. The CPS is
converted to 1997 real dollars using the
an ongoing survey that provides the most
Consumer Price Index. The sample is
extensive and reliable information about
weighted by the March supplement weight
the U.S. labor market.
standardized for each year. To obtain popu-
The Outgoing Rotation Group file con-
lation weights to make the data set repre-
sists of respondents who are in their last
sentative of one annual national sample, we
interview month in both interview years.
take the inverse of the normalized weights
The Outgoing Rotation Group respondents
and divide by the average of the sample
are asked more detailed earnings and
sizes of the three survey years.
employment questions than are asked in
the monthly core survey. Since one-quarter
The Wage Gap Analysis
of the sample of approximately 60,000
households is rotated out each month, a
The Outgoing Rotation Group file of the
full 12 months of data are needed to pro-
1997 CPS is used to calculate the gender
duce reliable state-level estimates. In 1997,
wage gap, the minority wage gap and the
this sample consisted of approximately
union wage advantage. The wage gaps are
230,000 households. The Outgoing
calculated using the median weekly wages
Rotation Group file is chosen for the calcu-
of full-time workers. Full-time workers are
lation of the gender wage gap, minority
defined as those who usually work 35 hours
wage gap and union wage advantage since
or more per week. Union status is defined
detailed questions about the union status
as those who are members of a union or
of workers are asked only in these months.
whose job is covered by a union or employ-
The March Supplement of the Current
ee association collective bargaining agree-
Population Survey, also known as the
ment. The wage gap, as reported, is a gross
Annual Demographic File, provides addi-
wage gap that is not corrected for differ-
tional information about annual earnings
ences between women's and men's educa-
and income data that are not available from
tional attainment, work experience or hours
the monthly core survey. Three years of the
of work (while all work more than 35 hours
March CPS Supplements for the years
per week, some work more than others).
26
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
Family Earnings Gains
to discrimination, the sample of men is
restricted to those who earn at or below the
The analysis of family earnings gains is
90th percentile of men's annual earnings,
based on a model that predicts women's
or $65,412 in 1997 dollars. This selection
earnings as if they were not subject to wage
assures that the predicted earnings for
inequality. In this model, we control for
those at middle and lower income levels
many of the factors that contribute to wage
are not upwardly biased by the few high
differences and account for a portion of the
earners in the sample. Poverty rates are cal-
wage gap and then correct women's earn-
culated using the preliminary poverty
ings as if the unexplained portion of the
thresholds for 1997 adjusted for family size
wage gap in this analysis did not exist.
provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
To! An ordinary least squares (OLS) model
Women's earnings are predicted using
is employed that controls for the differ-
the coefficients from the men's earnings
ences between men and women in age,
equation (this method assumes that
education, annual hours of work, metro-
women retain their own human capital but
politan residence and region of the country.
are rewarded at the same rates men would
The dependent variable is the natural log of
be) and calculated only for the actual hours
annual earnings. The variables for age and
that women worked during the year. The
age squared are included as proxies for
average earnings estimates include only
work experience, since specific informa-
those predicted to have positive earnings
tion about work experience is not available
adjustments. Those with reduced predicted
in the CPS. This is a more realistic assump-
earnings are assigned their actual earnings
tion for men than for women because at
during the year.
any given age men typically have spent
The model is used to estimate women's
more years in the workforce and fewer
earnings in the absence of gender-based
years out of the workforce. Use of this
wage inequality. The control variables for
experience variable (for lack of a better one
marital status and the presence of children
in this data set) tends to overstate women's
younger than 18 are explicitly excluded
experience and overstate their earnings
since these characteristics are often linked
losses relative to comparable men (they
to gender-based discrimination. For
may be less comparable than the data indi-
instance, higher earnings are predicted for
cate). On the other hand, including vari-
men who are married, but the opposite is
ables such as education and hours of work,
true for women. Likewise, the presence of
which may themselves be affected by labor
children often predicts lower earnings for
market discrimination against women
women but does not have a significant
(causing them to invest less in human cap-
effect for men.
ital and work less than they otherwise
Married women and single mothers
would), tends to understate their true earn-
include all those aged 18 and older. Single
ings losses relative to men.
women (never married, divorced, separat-
In this model, men's earnings are pre-
ed and widowed) are limited to those 25
dicted based on a sample of men aged 18 or
and older who live alone; these women are
older with positive earnings and positive
clearly dependent on their own earnings
hours of work during the year. Since a key
and for them it is easy to calculate house-
component of the analysis is the contribu-
hold income. Many other single women,
tion of women's earnings to family income
who live in a variety of household forma-
and the resulting changes in family poverty
tions, also suffer from wage discrimination,
rates if women's earnings were not subject
but it is more difficult to determine the
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES
relevant household income for complex
they were to earn the same as men who are
households, whose members may or may
not in female-dominated occupations.
not pool income with each other.
The dependent variable in the model is
the natural log of annual earnings. The
Discrimination Based on
independent variables include educational
Job Class
attainment, race, marital status, the pres-
ence of a child younger than 18, residence
To isolate the effect of gender composition
in a metropolitan area, region of the coun-
of occupations on earnings, we estimate
try, firm size, industry, yearly hours of work
ordinary least squares (OLS) earnings
and percentage of workers in the occupa-
equations following the methodology of
tion who are female. The variables for age
²¹Figart, Deborah M., and June
Figart and Lapidus (1995). 21 In an effort to
and age squared are included as proxies for
Lapidus. "A Gender Analysis of
isolate the effects of pay inequity only (pay
work experience because a specific experi-
U.S. Labor Market Policies for the
differences due to the gender typing of
ence variable is not available in the CPS.
Working Poor." Feminist Economics.
jobs), this model includes additional vari-
In calculating the pay adjustments due
Vol. 1:3, pp.60-81. Fall 1995.
ables that capture other sources of wage
to workers in female-dominated occupa-
differences between women and men. The
tions, it is assumed that no worker would
samples for both women and men include
incur a loss as a result of the implementa-
all those 18 and older with positive earn-
tion of equal pay for work of equal value. If
ings and hours of work during the year. An
the model predicts reduced earnings, the
occupation is defined as female-dominated
actual earnings of the person are assigned.
if 70 percent or more of the workers in the
This method provides a reliable estimate
occupation are women. A total of 500 dif-
for the average movement in earnings
ferent occupations are included in the
for the entire group of workers in female-
analysis. Separate equations are estimated
dominated occupations.
for women and men to measure reliably the
effect on earnings from working in a
National Summary Table
female-dominated occupation. Using esti-
mates from the regression model, the earn-
The state data reporting the raise in annual
ings of women in female-dominated occu-
wages that women would receive if they
pations are predicted as if they were to
earned the same as comparable men is a
receive the same earnings as women who
weighted average of what women in the
are not in female-dominated occupations.
three family. types we studied would gain.
Likewise, the earnings of men in female-
The family types are married working
dominated occupations are predicted as if
women, working single mothers and self-
supporting single women.
28
EQUAL PAY FOR WORKING FAMILIES