Oh those tawdry office affairs.  They certainly have garnered quite a bit of attention lately with comedian David Letterman and ESPN sports fanatic Steve Phillips.  Office romances are as old as the dark ages and they certainly won’t end anytime soon because of sensationalistic media stories.  However they do bring up larger issues about the role of power in the workplace, and who holds it.

Recently one of the few women to write for the Late Show in the 80’s discussed the sexually charged, toxic workplace.  In a Vanity Fair piece, she talked about the rumors she heard regarding Letterman and other high-level male employees having sexual affairs with female staffers.  She felt that the women involved in the affairs had access to information otherwise out of reach, and that they wielded greater power disproportionate to their job title.  As a result, she felt demeaned in a hostile work environment and left the show abruptly. 

With people working longer hours and spending more time with their coworkers, office relationships are inevitable.  However it’s when issues of power and authority come into play that women start to be on the losing end.  Power is the greatest aphrodisiac, which is certainly evident in the political world with the fallout of many male politicians over the past few years.  Bosses sleeping with their subordinates won’t change.  However what can change is the disproportionate number of male bosses.  

Like many offices nationwide, late-night writing staffs have long been a boys club.  In 27 years, Late Night and the Late Show have hired only seven female writers.  It supports other statistics about women lagging behind men when it comes to positions of leadership and power.  Women make up about half of all associates at law firms, but only 15 percent of partners.  Moreover, women hold about half the jobs in the U.S., but make up only 15.7 percent of corporate officers and executive managers, 15.2 percent of boards of directors, and 3 percent of CEOs. This imbalance causes women to feel demeaned and leave their job, and makes for a potent mix that can spur incidents of sexism and sexual harassment in the workplace. 

Regardless of fewer women holding leadership positions, it’s not that the tables should be turned to gain better balance between the sexes.  As written by Kate Daily in Newsweek, “This is not to say that I think female bosses sleeping with their male interns would be a true symbol of gender equity, or that women are so virtuous and men so vile. But much of the imbalance that makes tawdry office affairs more commonplace comes from the reality that the men at a company have more authority than the women: the power to hire and fire, the power to make or break careers, the power to move up the ladder at a faster clip.” 

The sexual scandal between David Letterman and his female staffers, while disappointing and shocking, brings up a larger issue about the lack of women in power in offices nationwide. The unequal dynamic can cause female workers to feel devalued and perceived to work less because of their lower position.  In addition, many women feel that they must flirt and play up their looks to get noticed and have their ideas heard.

More female bosses would help to demystify this perception that women employees have to show off their sexuality to get noticed and move ahead.  It would also address the abuse of power continually shown by men in executive positions spurred by the fact that most women hold positions of lesser privilege.
 
Workplaces like late night comedy shows with mostly men in positions of power should reevaluate their hiring practices and make a concerted effort to build genuine diversity.  I have no doubt there are many qualified, talented female writers out there. 

As the former writer from the Late Show says, her impetus for speaking up was not to bring shame onto David Letterman but instead to encourage him “to hire some qualified female writers and then treat them with respect”.  If something positive could come out of this scandal, I believe that would be it.

Sergeant Kimberly Munley was at work directing traffic at Ft. Hood with her partner when they heard shots and ran towards the sound rather than away.  From news reports we learned that she confronted the gunman and shot him four times while being wounded herself.  Authorities said Officer Munley fired on the suspect just three minutes after the gunfire began, and base officials said her efforts ended the crisis. She is currently at a hospital and in stable condition.  Last night she called friends to say she was OK.

Various news sources reported that Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the base commander said, “It was an amazing and aggressive performance by this police officer.”

I don’t think anyone can question her valor or her level headedness during this crisis.  It does seem ironic that at a time when there is an ongoing debate about whether women can serve in combat, this young woman entered what could only be called a combat zone and did her job.

While the nation morns those who lost their lives and those who were wounded at Ft. Hood yesterday, we also would like to acknowledge and thank Kimberly Munley, a working woman doing her job.

Every day millions of women work for a nonprofit organization or receive vital services from one.  Women depend on nonprofits to deliver a steady paycheck, child care, affordable food, housing, medical care, domestic violence assistance and many other services that provide an important social safety net for our communities.

Nonprofits are predominantly small employers and are facing serious challenges in providing and affording health care coverage for their employees.  Unfortunately, regardless of the role nonprofits play in our nation’s economy and the welfare of our citizens, the sector has been lost in the overall health care dialogue.  As a result, they are at risk of not receiving adequate support in the final health care legislation.

Nonprofits have suffered from the economic crisis like every sector.  Over the past year, organizations have faced escalating operating costs, decreased revenues from all types of funders and increased demand for more services.  As a result, nonprofits have had to re-evaluate their operations and lay off employees.  Ironically, at a time when nonprofits need to provide more services to our most vulnerable citizens, they cannot with the potent combination of decreased revenue and sky rocketing health care premiums.

Unaffordable health care puts an even greater pressure on the nonprofit sector, which is why it’s vital that nonprofits receive the relief they deserve from Congress.

Nonprofits bring value to all of our communities every day.  The economic viability of nonprofit organizations is critical to sustaining a healthy, vibrant citizenry in strong communities. Nonprofit organizations provide a wide spectrum of services that touch every person’s life in one way or the other.  They provide support to our most vulnerable populations, and many of those clients are women and children who depend on various programs to survive.  If nonprofits suffer and have to downsize services because they do not receive equivalent relief as other sectors, thousands of women will be impacted nationwide.

For decades, nonprofits have struggled to attract a talented pool of employees.  Part of this is their inability to provide competitive wages and benefit packages that can attract capable applicants who will grow within the sector.  Nonprofits want to pay their employees a living wage and decent benefits, but with the increasing costs of health care it has gotten much harder. A critical component of any benefits package is health care so if policymakers fail to recognize and address the needs of nonprofits the damage to the sector and its female employees could be long lasting.

Together, nonprofits employ nearly 13 million individuals–almost 10 percent of the U.S. workforce–who are integral to the vital services these organizations provide to communities throughout the nation.  Nonprofit employees are predominantly female and depend on their employers to provide adequate, affordable health care coverage.  However without appropriate health insurance subsidies from Congress, nonprofits will have to either cut benefits to their employees, stall wages in order to afford benefits, or cut back on needed services.

In the end, nonprofit employees suffer financially, organizations lose capable staff and nonprofit clients get denied the services they need.  Nonprofits feel the health care cost squeeze much like small business and need equivalent support.  Among the 30 million uninsured people, many of them are working for small nonprofit employers that cannot afford insurance.  According to the Urban Institute of the 984,386 registered nonprofits nationwide, 82.3% (810,149) have budgets of $500,000k or less. Therefore most nonprofits have small budgets and according to the Johns Hopkins University Listening Post Project, only 46 percent of small nonprofits offer health benefits to their employees.

Nonprofits are a significant piece of our nation’s small businesses.  Yet with all of the attention small business has garnered throughout the health care reform debate, nonprofits have been completely left out of the dialogue. Policymakers and the media have failed to acknowledge this important sector of the workforce.  Because nonprofits are predominately small employers, they suffer from the same challenges as small business even with a different tax status.

Fortunately through the hard work of nonprofit advocates, some headway has been made in getting nonprofits included into reform legislation.  The Senate Finance Committee included in their completed bill a tax credit amendment that would allow charitable organizations with 25 or fewer employees to be eligible to apply the tax credit against the organization’s payroll taxes withheld from its employees.  Nonprofits would be eligible for a 25% credit from 2011-2013 and a 35% credit in 2013 to help provide quality, affordable health insurance to their workers.

The Senate Finance Committee amendment is a viable way for Congress to support the sector.  At the very least, it recognizes the role nonprofits play in our nation’s economy and their need for health care relief.  Unfortunately the proposed comprehensive House health care bill does not include a nonprofit amendment and leaves the sector out.  As a result, nonprofit advocates will be monitoring whether this amendment gets included into the final Senate bill and not lost during the final Conference Committee process.

Nonprofits must be innovative and diversify their funding to stay financially solvent, but at the same time the federal government must be a supportive partner.  Nonprofits should not be dismissed by policymakers, but instead embraced for their immeasurable value.  And the health care debate is a prime opportunity for federal policymakers to recognize the unique and important role nonprofits play in our society.

Nonprofits are naturally resilient and nimble because they have to be in order to survive.  However their tenacity can be pushed only so far.  They can be crippled by health care costs like any other sector and now is the time to send a clear warning signal to Congress.  As the debate continues to rage on, nonprofits want to see the federal government showcase their support of the sector by explicitly including them into the final health care reform bill.

This post is a part of the National Women’s Law Center “Women Blog for Health Care 2009“

photo credit

Last week President Obama made a bold statement against hate crimes by signing into law legislation that will help protect citizens against bias based on who they are, what they look like, who they love and how they pray.

The current law, enacted four decades ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to assaults based on race, color, religion or national origin.  The newly signed bill will broaden current law and make it a federal crime when an assault or attack occurs because of a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.  With the stroke of a pen, women have exanded rights under the hate crimes law. 

It’s long overdue that our country makes it a federal crime to assault an individual based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.  Crimes motivated by prejudice and dislike about a group of people must not be tolerated.  A hate crime is defined as a crime of violence that is motivated by hatred of the group to which the victim belongs.  Typically hate crimes are done at least partly and sometimes mainly directed at the victim’s community.  It involves violence and sometimes death, and usually occurs at an unpredictable time and location.  Victims are randomly selected by their perpetrators based on something the perpetrator abhors or finds disturbing.

The new hate crimes law will give equal protection to persons of all genders, races, colors, nationalities, religions, sexual orientations, gender identities, and degrees of disability if they experience a hate crime against them.  The bill will also lift a requirement that a victim has to be attacked while engaged in a federally protected activity, like attending school, for it to be a federal hate crime.

Since the death of Matthew Shepard, who was brutally beaten and killed because he was gay over 10 years ago, the issue of hate crimes has not been adequately addressed for the gay community.  The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and state and local governments the tools they need to deter and prosecute acts of violence toward all groups of people who experience discrimination. 

Opponents of the new law claim it infringes upon our First Amendment rights.   However freedom of speech, even hate speech, is protected under the First Amendment.  Hate crimes legislation only targets actions that are criminal acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial beliefs. 

In addition, opponents claim that current federal and state laws and regulations are adequate enough.  This viewpoint is narrow minded and does not take into consideration that a crime directed toward someone based on their identity breaks down our social fabric and segments the population in a very negative way.  Specific laws directed toward hate crimes is needed because hate motivated crime is special.  Hatred is directed at an entire community in addition to the immediate victim.  And in order to prevent these types of acts from happening people must know that they could face federal prosecution. 

Mathew Shepard’s family and others that have experienced the loss of a loved one due to violent, discriminatory acts have fought hard for this important first step. Everyday too many people are being devastated by senseless hatred.  I applaud President Obama for signing this legislation into law and sending a message that our country will not tolerate cowardly and inhumane acts against people’s identity.

One of the great myths of public service is that working for the federal government comes with great benefits. While that may have been true in the past, those benefits have not kept up with the changing demographics of the federal workforce. Right now the federal government lags behind the private sector and the world in family-friendly workplace policies.

75 percent of Fortune 100 companies provide an average of six to eight weeks of paid leave to new mothers and two weeks for new fathers.  Federal employees get NO paid parental leave. Instead we treat parenting as a short-term disability or illness. The U.S. is the only industrialized country that does not offer some form of paid parental leave. The European Union guides its 27 member states to offer a minimum of fourteen weeks of paid maternity leave.

The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act (FEPPLA) will provide federal workers with up to four weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child. The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act is an important first step toward establishing the federal government as a model employer. FEPPLA will help our federal government recruit and retain dedicated and talented workers, enable working parents to care for and bond with newborns and newly-adopted children, and show that the federal government truly values families. Like many pieces of work-life balance legislation, FEPPLA has passed the House, but remains mired in the Senate.

Paid parental leave ensures that parents can take time off to care for a new child without suffering devastating financial consequences. The current practice of saving unused vacation time and sick days may work for the lucky family who never gets sick, but it is unrealistic for most families. For low-wage workers, new employees who haven’t built up their vacation time, or those who have used up their sick days before delivery, having a child means that they will either lose several weeks of pay that is crucial to their family’s survival, or return to work immediately after the child is born.

The American family has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. Federal employee benefits should reflect the way we live now – not a half-century ago. In the 1960s, the overwhelming majority – 70% — of American families with children had a mother who stayed home to provide round-the-clock childcare. Today, that statistic is reversed: two-thirds of families with children have either two employed parents, or a single employed parent, most of whom now work full-time. Not only are many more parents working, but working parents today work longer hours than their counterparts of a half century ago. Times have changed; so should our benefit policies.

Offering paid parental leave will help the federal government recruit and retain dedicated and talented workers and compete with the private sector. The federal workforce is aging and family-friendly benefits could help attract younger workers. From 1994-2004, the average age of federal workers increased from 43.6 years to 46.7 years.  Younger workers are leaving public service because the benefits are not keeping up with their needs.

As the nation’s largest employer, the Federal Government should be a leader in family-friendly workplace policy.

Over the last two weeks there has been a flurry of media activity and discussion about the state of women in our country because of a new report, “A Woman’s Nation”, released by the Center for American Progress in partnership with Maria Shriver.  It’s been exciting to watch the conversation about women unfold in the media’s major news outlets including Time Magazine, NBC Nightly News and CNN’s coverage of The Women’s Conference in California. 

While the impetus to write “A Woman’s Nation” was to explore the state of women in modern society it was also to look at how men and women can have the support they need to reach their potential and lead fulfilled, healthy lives.  To examine this further, the report covers a wide range of issues that women and men face in their personal, professional and economic lives.

To build on “A Woman’s Nation” the cover story of last week’s Time Magazine entitled “The American Woman” included a poll that asked men and women their thoughts and opinions on a whole host of issues.  Included in the poll was a question around whether businesses have done enough for modern families.  The poll found that “Eighty-four percent of Americans agree (53% strongly) that businesses haven’t done enough to address the needs of modern families. Asked what would have to change to make it easier to balance work and marriage and children, 54% of women and 49% of men said more-flexible work hours or schedules; 15% of women and 17% of men said more paid time off; and 13% of women and 12% of men said better or more day-care options.”

This poll result struck me because it showed that men and women equally view the need for better flexible work options and policies to support their demanding lives. 

Historically work-life balance has been regarded as a women’s issue but that is rapidly shifting as women outnumber men in the workforce, more men lose their jobs and must stay at home, and the strain of balancing work and family falls onto everyone more evenly.  Work-life balance is a family issue that impacts both genders.  However typically it’s been women who have embraced the issue and advocated for policies that will bring about better flexibility, such as paid Family and Medical Leave and paid sick leave. 

Our society has yet to figure out a way to tag workplace flexibility as critical to men despite ample reasoning and evidence that men are happier and healthier if they have opportunities to invest more time and energy outside of the workplace.  Regardless there are very few men who are taking on this issue in a substantive way, and that needs to change.  Men must be involved for there to be stronger political will toward passing legislation and changing the mindset of business.  Women’s voices cannot be the only ones heard in the halls of Congress and corporations that flexible work policies are not just needed, but demanded.  Men must join the chorus.

In a recent article in The American Prospect entitled “Work/Life Balance is Not a Women’s Issue” it goes on to say that “men need to transcend from the personal into the political, as women have done. It’s great to get a good laugh out of playground politics, but it’s imperative to look beyond the purview of the local park and start advocating for change at the federal level.”

All of us have a stake in whether there is a shift in our society and employers internalize flexibility as a key part of running a successful organization.  Anyone who hopes to be a balanced person with relationships and passions outside of work has to speak up, and that includes men. 

However what will it take to get men to stand up for these issues in a powerful way?  The catalyst is unknown but with a disproportionate amount of men losing their jobs during this recession, and a change in gender roles happening in homes nationwide, work-life balance will resonate with men more than ever before.  Work-life advocates should tap into this shift and encourage men to join women in their quest to change the attitudes of business and Congress to support workplace flexibility options.

Now is a great opportunity to rebuild what’s fallen apart during the recession.  As employers rebuild their workforces after giant layoffs it is an opportune time to put back their organizations in a more enlightened and egalitarian way.  Businesses need to be engaged and encouraged through research and evidence about how and why workplace flexibility works and helps their bottom line.

However for this to happen there must be an enormous amount of public dialogue and engagement from both genders to ask for more supportive workplaces so that they can achieve a higher quality of life.

Today’s guest blogger is Tal Schapira, BPW Foundation intern extraordinaire.

Studying in the Political Mecca of the United States has its advantages.  I run on the National Mall and see the Lincoln Memorial every morning.  I often have to wait for a Presidential motorcade to pass as I walk to class.  And, I can intern at  BPW Foundation and get sent to Capitol Hill!

Last Friday morning, I attended a congressional briefing on the importance of FWAs.  What are FWA’s you may ask? FWA = flexible work arrangements.  FWAs include flexibility around schedule (10-6 instead of 9-5), hours worked (part-time, job sharing) and place of work (telecommuting). At the briefing, a panel of 12 representatives from business, senior, disability, women’s and work-family organizations all discussed why FWAs are important for the groups they represent.  The diversity of the panel revealed the relevance of FWAs in the current job market and confirmed their positive effects on the workplace.  Flexible work arrangements benefit everyone – employer and employee – because they recognizes that everyone has familial, personal, and unexpected responsibilities. 

Society tends to move forward. We recognize the negative effects of ingrained practices and change accordingly. Why then, has the workplace remained stagnant in the face of an obviously changing workforce? Life expectancy has increased and people are willing and able to work past the retirement age.  My dad is 50 and nowhere near retirement! At age 50, the minimum age for joining the AARP, a worker may have kids and older parents to care for and their school performances and medical appointments often happen during the traditional 40 hour, 9-5 work week. A flexible work schedule enables all employees to balance familial and work responsibilities and is necessary for all workers, not just parents.

Flexibility will help employers retain good workers and maintain workforce stability, while giving employees increased job satisfaction.  Employees with health conditions, young children, older parents or long commutes may benefit from a compressed work week, predictable schedules, or telecommuting and other alternatives to the traditional 9-5.  As we develop socially, economically and culturally, the need for flexible work arrangements is evident.

We love our network of working women advocates. YWM encourages you to find ways to manage both your career and your children. Today’s guest blogger is Adrienne Carlson.

My friends and I have a raging ongoing debate – are the kids of working moms more secure and self confident than those of their stay at home counterparts?

My answer is that it all depends on the mom in question.

In my experience, I’ve seen moms who stay at home neglect their kids, and I’ve also met working moms who doted on their offspring and took the best care of them. The working moms who manage to juggle both career and children with great efficiency do so because of they’ve figured out a few tricks along the way.

4 Ways Moms Manage a Career and Children

•    They are organized: Working moms generally operate according to timetables and schedules that they have set for themselves. They are prompt and precise in all their activities and they plan their days to the last minute. They’re usually up at the crack of dawn, preparing meals for their kids and spouses and running around during their free hours doing errands and getting their chores done. They use weekends to cook healthy meals for their family and freeze them, and to catch up on the laundry and other household tasks.

•   They make the effort: Efficient mothers go the extra step to cater to the needs of their kids, especially when they’re little. While they may have childcare, they make the effort to be with their children when it really matters. They’re there for all the important events in their kids’ lives, starting with being there to tuck them in to bed every night.

•    They have supportive spouses: If working mothers have to continue to be efficient in rearing their children, they need to be supported adequately by their husbands or partners. Their spouses must assume an equal amount of responsibility for the children too, or the marriage is going to be put under a considerable amount of strain.

•    They teach their kids to be independent: As their kids become older and gain in confidence, working mothers stop babying them and instead encourage them to be responsible for their own lives. They teach their kids to be independent and to help around the house. They are supported by their children in their efforts to become super moms, and this is why they are as efficient as they seem to be.

It’s not that hard to manage both a home and a career and be successful at both – all you need to do is be dedicated and organized.

Adrienne Carlson regularly writes on the topic of nurse practitioner schools. Adrienne welcomes your comments and questions at adrienne.carlson1@gmail.com or info@youngwomenmisbehavin.org.

photo credit

Listen up ladies and gents, the battle is over. “The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything,” a study by Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress, boldly declares:

The battle of the sexes is over. Men and woman overwhelmingly agree on what they want in life, and how they view their roles in marriage, as parents, and in their jobs.

The battle has been replaced by the “Negotiation Between the Sexes.”  No longer locked in competition, men and women are negotiating everything from work to family to elder care.

I should be shouting “hip hip hooray,” right? Unfortunately, my pesky Gen Y cynicism is exposing itself.  I don’t think that the battle is over. The transformation within the household is not being reflected in the market. The declaration fails to acknowledge that gender relations exist beyond the household.  Women and men may be “negotiating” and “sharing” household responsibilities, but gender disparities outside the household are alive and well.

Let’s take women’s economic participation, for example. Here’s what we know:

• Labor Market Sex Segmentation. Although my favorite female heroines on TV are world-class surgeons and high-powered lawyers, the top five professions for women in 2008 were: administrative assistants, registered nurses, elementary teachers, middle school teachers, and cashiers and retail salespersons.
• Gender Wage Gap. It’s well known that women continue to make less than 80 cents for every dollar a man makes. What is not always reported, though, is how this inequality adds up over time. The gender wage gap results in a $434,000 wage loss over a woman’s 40-year career.
• Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. I may not worry about being chased through the office by male colleagues who want a peek at my panties like in Mad Men, but that doesn’t mean the war on sexual harassment has been won.  In a recent poll, 31 % of women workers reported they had been harassed at work. Of those women, 43 % were harassed by a supervisor and 27 % by an employee senior to them.

If we’ve entered a new phase of “negotiation” why the persistent inequalities? In my readings of the headlines, women still risk being fired if  they try to “negotiate” equitable pay. And, there must be some fear of retribution behind the fact that 62 % of women who are harassed never take action.

The gains that women have made are important, but it’s premature to say the “battle” is over.  It will not be over until greater gender equality is achieved in all areas of life: economic, political, and social.

Photo Credit

Over the years, there’s been plenty of shaming big employers — picketing, signs with attack slogans, marching in the streets. But the game of us-against-them doesn’t work.

In order to transform the workplace to better reflect today’s workforce, we need to think about how to make working women and their families happy.

Business and Professional Women’s (BPW) Foundation learned some tips to creating successful workplaces for both employers and their employees. Well, there are actually quite a few, but at least we know these efforts are worth it and it seems that the stock market is starting to agree.

In a Harvard Business Review article, Freek Vermeulen cites a study by Professor Michelle Arthur, from the University of New Mexico, that measures the stock market’s attitude toward Fortune 500 companies’ announcement of work-life programs.

The findings show that there is a 4.8% positive swing when this type of news is released. For perspective, there was a slightly negative response (-0.35%) back in the 1980s.

In recognition of October as National Work and Family Month, BPW Foundation came up with a “tip sheet” to help all workplaces become better aligned with today’s workforce.

Successful Workplaces Tip Sheet:

1. Flexibility. Maybe there’s no such thing as balance. But at least employers can offer their employees the tools–telecommuting options, shift exchanges, compressed work weeks–to better manage their life inside and outside of the workplace.

2. Diversity. It’s more than filling quotas. Define it as broadly as possible for a competitive advantage: race, age, gender, orientation, disability, religion. Because, according to a study out this summer, “the mere presence of social diversity makes people with independent points of view more willing to voice those points of view, and others more willing to listen.”

3. Equity. It currently takes 16 months for a woman to earn what a man makes in 12 months. And that’s not even adjusted for race. Make equity in both pay and access for positions and promotions a priority.