Blog Layout

Supporting women and mothers in the workplace 

U.S. women lost 156,000 jobs in December 2020, while men gained 16,000.  

When I first read this startling statistic from CNN on my social media feed, my hopeful heart said that can’t be true. Which was immediately followed by my knowing head saying of course it is true.  


Because, as a woman in the workforce, I know all too well that more often than not we are the ones whose career paths are sacrificed for our families. We are the ones working harder and getting paid less. We are the ones fighting for equality, not just in wage but in opportunity. And that fight is even more difficult for women of color, whose unemployment rate is nearly two-thirds higher than that of white women.  


Make no mistake—these inequities have deep, long roots that are being brought to light by our current circumstances. Beyond the wage gap, women have faced discrimination and disadvantage in the workplace for decades.[1] 


I recall one position I held where I had worked my way up over a few years. When the promotion was official, I was so proud to have finally achieved a professional goal. A few months later I discovered that my newly hired male colleague was getting paid more than me for the same job. My pride immediately vanished. Happily, I can report that after bringing this to the attention of the hiring manager, adjustments were made. But too many women face a much different ending.  


Gender Wage Gap or Mother Wage Gap 

While the overall gender wage gap has narrowed over time, research shows that today the greatest inequality is the so-called “child penalty” for mothers.[2] Moreover, audit studies and experiments show that among women with identical resumes, those with children are rated as less competent, viewed as worthy of lower salaries, and receive fewer callbacks from employers than those without children. By comparison, men with children suffered no such penalties.[3]  


As a mother this rings painfully true for me. Mothers face agonizing decisions as they choose between A) being present and home for the first critical months of their child’s life, establishing a rhythm with their newborn, enjoying these precious first moments and recovering physically and mentally from a truly incredible feat, and B) ensuring they keep their job, don’t miss out on promotion opportunities, continue to demonstrate their value to the workforce and prove that having a child hasn’t changed anything about their ability to do their job.  


I have always worked in the nonprofit field and most of my colleagues have been women. When I had my son four and a half years ago, I felt well supported at work. And yet, within three weeks of being on maternity leave, I began to wonder what I was missing, what was happening without me, if I was being left behind, and if my position was still valued.  

 

I began to feel a self-imposed need to remain relevant, involved and present in the workplace. I wonder how much of this was my own type-A personality, and how much of this was an informed reaction to all the things I had witnessed and experienced throughout my career.  


A year later when I had an opportunity to level-up to a CEO position at a new organization, I knew my success depended on the support I could receive from my partner and family. I was only able to pursue this opportunity while having a one-year-old at home because my husband transitioned to part-time work and my parents who lived nearby shared in the childcare responsibilities. I am well aware of how privileged I am to have these options and large support network. And yet, I still felt daily internal conflicts about balancing my evening work commitments with missing bath and bedtime. I couldn’t help but wonder if any of my male counterparts were having the same struggle.

  

COVID-19 and the Exacerbated Child Care Crisis  

The 156,000 jobs women lost in one month came primarily from three, traditionally female-dominated sectors—education, hospitality and retail. Many of these jobs are low paying jobs and typically lack sick leave and the ability to work from home.  

As COVID-19 has uniquely highlighted, when work and family come into conflict, women leave the workforce. 


Census data reveals the average price of childcare for two young children in the San Diego region consumes 40% of the budget for a typical family of four. So you can see how too often the math just doesn’t pencil out to keep working. As sociologist Jessica Calarco said, “Other countries have social safety nets. The U.S. has women.”  


How to Fight Gender Inequality in the Workplace  

Make Child Care More Accessible  

Ninety-four percent of U.S. workers involuntarily working part-time due to childcare needs are women.[4] This is an especially big challenge in San Diego, which has the second lowest female participation in the labor force among major American cities. Quality, affordable, accessible childcare would alleviate gender inequality. 


Before the pandemic, San Diego had 335,000 children under 12 with no stay-at-home parent, but only 145,000 available child care spots, leaving us with a shortage of 190,000. School closures have only exacerbated this problem. The steps that both the City and County of San Diego have taken to support accessing childcare during this pandemic are a good start. But we still have further to go.  


Champion Job Quality  

Let’s begin by recognizing that workers who have been deemed “essential”— the check-out clerk at your local grocery store or Target, your child’s teacher, the home health aid taking care of your aging parent— are not paid as if they are essential. We must do more than say “thank you” and cheer for them each night. 


At the San Diego Workforce Partnership, we advocate for jobs to pay a “self-sufficient wage.” Currently, that is a minimum of $17.65 an hour. Beyond wage, job quality includes access to benefits, having a predictable schedule that allows you to coordinate your other responsibilities—such as after-school pick-up or a partner’s schedule—and having opportunities for advancement. Many of our programs prioritize women, and BIPOC communities so that we can begin to close the opportunity and wage gap.  


Create Flexible Workplaces 

If the pandemic has done nothing else, it has proven that flexible hours and virtual/remote work can be extremely effective and productive for the segment of workers whose jobs went remote. More than that, it provides an opportunity for employers to acknowledge the human realities that many workers, including themselves, face. It places trust in a worker to juggle their responsibilities (something they have been doing behind closed doors previously), while still getting the job done.  


I will admit, I struggled with this at first. I worried if my team would be as productive. I wondered about people being able to work, while also home schooling. I questioned the impact on our team’s ability to work collaboratively as people were piecing together new schedules with hours that crept into the evening after kids were asleep. But, it has worked—for the company and its goals and the employees feeling seen and valued. And we continue to work on it together, finding unique solutions to unique circumstances. As a woman and mother, I was committed to doing this for my coworkers.  


What we need is a culture shift. We need to no longer value productivity above sanity or, advancement above family. We need taking maternity and paternity leave, or advocating for extended parental leave to never be seen as a vacation or a choice to take your foot off the gas pedal of your career. We need people, policies and plans to systemically reduce inequality and reverse time-old tradition and toxic stereotypes.[5] Without that, we will never get to a place where women are equal. 

 

Resources:

[1] For just a few examples, see these studies: Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams. Journal of applied Psychology, 90(5), 905.  Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses’ perceptions of family-work conflict and women’s promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of management journal, 52(5), 939-957. Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P. (2012). A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performance in field studies. Journal of Management, 38(2), 719-739. Parker, K. & Funk, C. (2017). Gender discrimination comes in many forms for today’s working women. Pew Research Center.  


[2] Kleven, H., Landais, C., Posch, J., Steinhauer, A., & Zweimüller, J. (2019, May). Child penalties across countries: Evidence and explanations. In AEA Papers and Proceedings(Vol. 109, pp. 122-26).  


[3] Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297-1338. 


[4] Committee for Economic Development (2019) Child Care in State Economies.  



[5] Research shows, for example, that women’s contributions to teams are undervalued. 
Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905.
 

Share This Post:

By NAWB 03 May, 2024
NAWB gave testimony in support of a 5% funding increase for core Title I WIOA programs to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee. Read the full text below. 
By Brad Turner-Little 10 Apr, 2024
House-Passed WIOA Bill Misses the Mark
By Stacy Heit 02 Apr, 2024
Recommendations F rom the Workforce Trans formation Policy Council
By NAWB 28 Mar, 2024
Forum 2024 Highlights
By Stacy Heit 29 Feb, 2024
2024 NAWB Award Winners Announced
By Stacy Heit 12 Dec, 2023
NAWB responded to the latest WIOA reauthorization proposal on Dec. 12, 2023, in a letter addressed to the chair and ranking member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. Read the full letter below. Dear Chair Foxx and Ranking Member Scott, On behalf of the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB), representing more than 590 state and local workforce development boards (WDBs) across the nation, I am writing in response to the committee’s recent introduction and consideration of H.R. 6655, A Stronger Workforce for America Act (ASWA) to outline our organization’s reservations regarding core aspects of this draft proposal as well as to highlight other, more encouraging, elements of the legislation that we believe would have a positive impact on WDB operations and the wider publicly funded workforce system. Reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) is of critical importance to our organization and our members, particularly at a time of significant change in the wider economy and labor markets. Updating the primary federal investment in WIOA provides Congress an important opportunity to make changes to this legislation to ensure that workers, learners, and employers have a system that is nimble, flexible, and responsive to their needs. As ASWA continues to advance through the legislative process, we look forward to working with you as you and your colleagues further refine and build upon this draft proposal using the recommendations and perspectives outlined throughout this letter. NAWB shares your desire to get more training out of the publicly funded workforce system. However, we strenuously disagree with the proposed strategy contained in ASWA—a narrowly defined federal training mandate—to achieve this vision for the future. Such a mandate is at odds with the state and local governance structure that has long been a hallmark of the primary federal investment in workforce development. Congress has long empowered states and local entities to deliver the programs and services authorized by WIOA due to their proximity to the people being served. State and local WDBs’ understanding of the unique employment needs of the diverse communities they serve is necessary to effectively meet the challenges facing individuals with barriers to employment. A federal mandate, however, removes agency from states and local entities to do this in ways that make sense for their communities, regardless of the actual needs of the populations that must be prioritized by the publicly funded workforce system. As you know, the populations that are most frequently served by WIOA face some of the greatest barriers to finding and obtaining family-sustaining employment. These populations are not often in a position to immediately enter into education and skills development programs without significant wraparound services and supports to ensure their success. The proposed mandate’s structure does not acknowledge this important reality and has the potential for many unintended consequences that are likely at odds with this stated core goal of ASWA. This is especially true because the mandate proposed in this draft legislation is narrowly defined and does not allow for the provision of supports to ensure participant success. If enacted as currently constructed, this mandate has the potential to prevent individuals that need help from WIOA the most from accessing the supportive services and resources they need to be successful in education and skills development experiences that lead to better opportunities for themselves and their families. Put more plainly—while well intentioned, the currently proposed training mandate does not adequately address the need to provide the supports necessary to ensure participant success. Non-completion of mandated levels of training will not help workers nor does it help employers seeking to meet their talent needs. NAWB is also concerned that these challenges would be exacerbated by the proposed funding levels contained in the legislation. While we are appreciative of the new funding from H-1B visa fees envisioned in this legislation for Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) to address the requirements of the proposed training mandate, these funds are variable on an annual basis and are likely to ebb and flow each year based on changes to policy contexts that are difficult to predict. In addition, ASWA proposes only modest increases in authorized appropriations for Title I funding despite historic levels of underinvestment and disinvestment in WIOA and predecessor legislation over the past several decades—the primary reason why current levels of training provided by the WIOA system remain so low. ASWA also increases the allowable percentage of funding that can be reserved by the Governor to 25 percent of all WIOA Title I formula funding, including for the creation of a Critical Industry Skills fund. While we are appreciative that LWDBs are eligible applicants for some of these funds, these changes will further reduce the resources available at the local level to deliver training services newly mandated by ASWA. NAWB agrees that providing upskilling opportunities for workers is an important employment strategy for states which is why we have consistently called for greater local flexibility to make this a reality for more workers. As currently structured, however, ASWA would allow other federal funds, including the Governor’s existing 15 percent reserve funding, to be used to meet the state matching requirement for the creation of such an initiative. This will further reduce the ability of the federal investment to leverage additional state funding for training and employment opportunities for individuals. We therefore recommend that this matching requirement be narrowed to only allow nonfederal state funding to fulfill this requirement or eliminated entirely. For reasons outlined above, NAWB strongly opposes ASWA’s fifty percent training mandate and believes that it should be eliminated or substantially lowered from its current level. In addition, we believe that if a mandate is maintained as the legislative process continues, the underlying definition for what qualifies as training for this purpose be expanded to recognize the critical role supportive services have in ensuring individuals’ success in education and skills development. Our organization’s membership also has concerns regarding the redesignation process for local workforce development areas (LWDAs) proposed in ASWA. NAWB recognizes the need to ensure that LWDAs reflect the communities that they were created to serve and provide locally developed solutions to meet the needs of individuals and employers in these same communities. This is especially important as the nation has undergone dramatic transformations over the years since the time many LWDAs were first created. Yet once triggered by a Governor ASWA’s proposed redesignation process, as currently structured, would adversely impact the geography of all LWDAs in a state, even if a majority of LWDBs in the state vote against such a proposal. NAWB believes it is imperative that an option be included to maintain current LWDA designations should a majority of LWDBs in the state vote to preserve them. Despite NAWB’s reservations regarding these aspects of legislation, which we call on Congress to address as it is further considered as part of the legislative process, there were other positive elements contained in ASWA that we believe have the potential to constructively impact the publicly funded system in important and sometimes profound ways: - Clarifying LWDBs’ budgetary authority over the administration of adult, dislocated worker, and youth workforce development activities in a LWDA. - Improved flexibility to use virtualized services and affiliated sites to deliver one-stop services, along with allowing LWDBs to serve as one-stop operators under certain circumstances. While NAWB appreciates some of the changes made to funding of one-stop infrastructure costs, we strongly believe that dedicated funding is needed for this purpose, rather than the proposed increased Title I contribution, which would have the additional benefit of freeing up more funding for training and supportive services for eligible individuals and populations. - Increasing flexibility for LWDBs to provide reskilling and upskilling opportunities for individuals and workers. - The provision of professional development opportunities for staff and members of state and local WDBs. - A clear emphasis throughout the draft on skills-based hiring initiatives and other thoughtful strategies to clear the path between job seekers and employers, including changes to skills assessments conducted during the initial intake process to reward prior work and learning experiences. - Expanding the definition for foundational skills needs to include digital literacy skills, which we believe is an important reflection regarding the role of these competencies in an increasingly digital-first world. - Formally defining co-enrollment as a way to better promote this strategy as a systemwide priority to help more individuals access and receive the services they need. - A significant overhaul of how eligible training providers (ETPs) are identified, what criteria can be used to establish and maintain provider eligibility, and how related ETP lists (ETPLs) are leveraged to ensure quality. To further improve upon this aspect of ASWA, NAWB suggests building on these positive aspects and establishing clear thresholds and related incentives to establish multistate reciprocity agreements and ensure that providers of quality training opportunities can deliver programs and services to more individuals regardless of where they may reside. - The codification of the Workforce Data Quality Initiative (WDQI) including additional funding via the national dislocated worker reserve fund to increase the program’s funding level. These resources are critical to building the workforce data infrastructure needed to make many of the improvements envisioned elsewhere in ASWA a reality. We are also greatly appreciative of the changes made in ASWA that will enhance access to wage record information needed to reliably and accurately assess program and system performance. - Changes to the Title I youth funding stream, including a more inclusive definition for opportunity youth (OY) and the ability to use ITAs for youth populations. While we were encouraged to note that the mandated split of funds between eligible youth populations has now been modified to be statewide, we believe greater flexibility should be provided regarding this requirement. - Data transparency requirements, including an emphasis on the use of linked, open, and interoperable data schema throughout the draft that will dramatically improve workforce data quality and subsequent use by a variety of stakeholders, including promoting a key tenet of WIOA and carried forward by ASWA—informed consumer choice. - Allowing for public outreach and marketing of federally funded workforce initiatives to increase the public’s awareness of and familiarity with these opportunities. Importantly, this list is not exhaustive and there are other elements of ASWA that are not included above that NAWB has been encouraged to note. At the same time, we understand that this proposal is the first step in a wider reauthorization process. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in the House, as well as the Senate, to build upon the important and encouraging elements contained in this draft proposal and noted elsewhere in this letter. Should you have any questions regarding these perspectives or NAWB’s wider policy recommendations related to WIOA please do not hesitate to contact myself at (turner-littleb@nawb.org) at your convenience. Sincerely, Bradford Turner-Little CEO National Association of Workforce Boards 
By Stacy Heit 07 Dec, 2023
NAWB shared its support for the Advancing Research in Education Act (AREA)—legislation that would reauthorize and make important updates to the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA). Read the full text below. Dear Chair Sanders and Ranking Member Cassidy, On behalf of the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB), representing more than 590 state and local workforce development boards (WDBs) across the nation, I am writing in strong support of S. 3392, the Advancing Research in Education Act (AREA)—legislation that would reauthorize and make important updates to the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA). If enacted this bipartisan legislation would significantly improve the research and data functions carried out by federal agencies in support of the full education and workforce development continuum. LWDBs oversee, at the local level, activities and programs within the publicly funded workforce system and as such have a deep appreciation for the need for quality, timely, and actionable data to support workers’ many needs on their journey to family-sustaining employment. We greatly appreciate the committee’s bipartisan recognition that efforts to more fully understand and improve education must necessarily include a stronger focus on the subsequent labor market and workforce outcomes of students. Understanding what happens to students after they leave a classroom can help to align national education and workforce goals, improve the development of curriculum and delivery of instruction, and would support students as they navigate an increasingly more complex economy that is undergoing dramatic changes. NAWB was especially encouraged to note the following provisions contained in AREA that support these wider goals and objectives: - An explicit focus on postsecondary education and workforce development as a research topic for the National Center for Education Research’s development centers; - Broadening the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioner for Education Statistics to include a focus on postsecondary, workforce, and adult education, including promoting data sharing and linkages across education and training systems; - Promoting voluntary guidelines to standardize data and information and ensure interoperability which would greatly increase the utility and usability of this information for a variety of stakeholders; - Significant and much-needed reforms to the State Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) grant program, including more explicit incorporation of workforce data and related labor market outcomes, especially as it relates to the generation of accurate and timely data needed to support the implementation of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA); and - Directing federal agencies to provide technical assistance to state and local WDBs to support ongoing and effective implementation of education and workforce development investments. Encouragingly there were many other aspects of S. 3392 that NAWB was pleased to note and we are incredibly grateful for the time and energy the committee has devoted reauthorizing ESRA so far. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues to advance this important proposal and look forward to its enactment. Sincerely, Bradford C. Turner-Little, CEO National Association of Workforce Boards
22 Nov, 2023
A Message of Thanks to Our Members from Our CEO
By Melanie Anderson 01 Aug, 2023
NAWB Names Brad Turner-Little President and CEO
By Ron Painter 30 Jun, 2023
A Farewell Tribute: Unpacking 14 Years of Success at NAWB
More Posts
Share by: