[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPACT OF WOMEN'S GROWING
PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKFORCE:
``THE SHRIVER REPORT: A WOMEN'S
NATION CHANGES EVERYTHING''
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN SAN RAFAEL, CA, NOVEMBER 13, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-186 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice John Kline, Minnesota,
Chairman Senior Republican Member
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia California
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Mark E. Souder, Indiana
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Judy Biggert, Illinois
David Wu, Oregon Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
Judy Chu, California
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, Chairwoman
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Washington,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Ranking Minority Member
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Phil Hare, Illinois Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Tom Price, Georgia
Northern Mariana Islands
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 13, 2009................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections................................................ 1
Additional submission:
Emily M. Murase, Ph.D., executive director; and Ann
Lehman, senior policy director, San Francisco
Department on the Status of Women, prepared
statement of....................................... 41
Statement of Witnesses:
Blades, Joan, co-founder, MomsRising......................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Bornstein, Stephanie, associate director, the Center for
WorkLife Law............................................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Ferris, Maria, director, diversity, compliance & employee
experience, IBM Corp....................................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
O'Leary, Ann M., executive director, the Berkeley Center on
Health, Economic & Family Security, University of
California Berkeley School of Law.......................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Zamorano, Claudia............................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
THE IMPACT OF WOMEN'S GROWING
PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKFORCE:
``THE SHRIVER REPORT: A WOMEN'S
NATION CHANGES EVERYTHING''
----------
Friday, November 13, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
the Board of Supervisors Chambers, Marin County Civic Center,
3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, California, Hon. Lynn
Woolsey, presiding.
Present: Representative Woolsey.
Staff Present: Lynn Dondis, Labor Counsel, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections; James Schroll, Junior Legislative
Associate; Rob Gregg, Minority Senior Legislative Assistant.
Chairwoman Woolsey. With the Chair being present, this
proceeding of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee will come
to order.
Without objection, all members will have 14 days to submit
additional material for the record.
A quorum is present--no, it is not. What am I supposed to
say? [Laughter.]
See, we do not have a real quorum. So we have to change our
words slightly. So this is Lynn's job, and I am going to wait
until she guides me through this because, you see, it is all
taken down for the record. It is a formal proceeding.
So with that, I will make my opening statement and then we
will get into hearing our wonderful witnesses.
So I want to thank everyone for coming here today to this
hearing on the impact of women's growing participation in the
workforce, a Women's Nation Changes Everything. Today if a
child is fortunate enough to have two parents, most of them are
in the workforce outside of the home, and they work long hours
and commute long hours. And in a single parent home, it is
almost certain that that parent is in the workforce.
So balancing work and family is a very real challenge for
millions of workers in this country, and it is extremely
important to their children. I am delighted that the First Lady
of California, Maria Shriver, along with the Center for
American Progress, is fully engaged on this issue. The Shriver
Report shines a bright light on the work-life balance dilemma
and makes the point that even though women now comprise one-
half of the United States workforce, our policies to help
working families are badly outdated.
It finds and say that the typical family structure has
changed, and in 2009 only one-fifth of families consist of a
husband who works and a wife who stays home to care for their
children, and that men as well as women are desperate for
family friendly policies.
For those of us who have always been in the workforce, the
findings of the Shriver Report are music to our ears. Many
years ago, many years ago, when my children were not parents
themselves, I was working full time outside of the home. It was
a struggle to meet both the needs of my family as well as
responsibilities of my career.
Early on I did not have sick leave and certainly not family
and medical leave, but even when I could afford to take time
off to care for a sick child, the pressure from the workplace
was overwhelming. If I stayed home, I worried about my job. If
I went to work, I worried about my child.
Unfortunately, some 30 years later parents are still
concerned about the same things. That is one of the main
reasons I ran for Congress, as a matter of fact, over 16 years
ago, to fight for working families.
I was a new member when we passed the Family and Medical
Leave Act, but I knew what an important step we were taking,
particularly for working women. You see, I was a human
resources professional. I got it. I got how hard this was for
women in the workplace. It was so important that we provide job
protected family medical leave for certain workers even though
it was unpaid.
Over the years we have learned that while more than 100
million leaves have been taken under FMLA, nearly two-thirds of
the workforce are not covered by the act, and even if they are,
most workers cannot take advantage of its provisions because
they cannot afford to take the time off.
As the Shriver Report points out, we are now in the 21st
Century. We did know that, didn't we? [Laughter.]
And the world has changed, and workers should have not to
choose between their jobs and their families. In short, we need
a 21st Century solution.
That is why I have introduced the Balancing Act, which lays
out the role the federal government can play in helping to
balance work and family. The bill encompasses the suggestions
for reform in the Shriver Report and includes what families
need to help them balance work and their personal lives.
Title I of the Balancing Act is taken from Representative
Stark's legislation and provides for up to 12 weeks of paid
family leave in the case of birth or adoption, or to take care
of oneself or a sick family member. Title I also provides leave
for parental involvement and family wellness, and expands the
FMLA to additionally cover those employees who work for
employers with 15 or more employees, and it covers same sex
partners. It allows workers time off to address the effect of
domestic violence as well.
Finally, Title I incorporates Representative Rosa Delauro
from Connecticut Healthy Families Act, which provides up to
seven paid sick leave days a year for each worker.
Title II of the Balancing Act spans access to childcare.
Title III strengthens preschool, in school and after school
programs.
And finally, Title IV encourages tele-work and provides for
equitable treatment of part-time and temporary workers under
pension plans and group health plans.
In short, the Balancing Act is a blueprint for work-family
balance. Insuring the passage of all of its provisions is my
ultimate goal as a member of the House of Representatives.
Today we will be hearing from an outstanding panel of
witnesses. You guys are wonderful. Through the lens of the
Shriver Report, they will testify about the obstacles working
families, workers face in trying to balance work and family in
today's world, and they will make the case that policies to
help this balance are absolutely critical.
The United States lags behind the rest of the world in
providing family friendly benefits to employees. It is
unacceptable that this country, which is the number one economy
in the world, can barely compete with developing nations in
this area.
Again, thank you for coming and thank all of you for being
here to listen, and we look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
I would like to introduce our very distinguished panel of
witnesses who have joined us this morning, and those of you who
have not testified before us before, we have a lighting system
that will tell you with an orange light. You have five minutes.
We are not going to cut you off at exactly five minutes because
we only have me. We do not have a whole set of members up here
that want to take up a bunch of time. So we are going to let
you have as much time as you need in this, but to get started,
we would like you to present your paper with a time frame.
At four minutes a yellow light will come on, and that will
tell you you have one more minute before your five minutes, and
start wrapping it up around then.
And now I get to introduce you wonderful witnesses, and
this will be the order. It is just going right down, starting
over here with Ann O'Leary. Ann is the Executive Director of
the Berkeley Center for Health, Economic and Family Security at
the U.C. Berkeley School of Law, and is a Senior Fellow with
the Center for American Progress.
She was a co-editor of the Shriver Report and also wrote
one of its chapters. Ms. O'Leary also worked in the Clinton
administration and served as the legislator director for
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
She received her Bachelor's degree from Mount Holyoke
College, her Master's degree from Stanford University, and her
law degree from Berkeley School of Law.
Claudia Zamorano.
Ms. Zamorano. Zamorano.
Chairwoman Woolsey. The last name?
Ms. Zamorano. Zamorano.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Well, you know, you say it so
beautifully. Zamorano. I am going to call you Claudia from now
on. Is that all right?
Ms. Zamorano. Yes.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Is a resident of Nevada, California,
and is a single mother of two children. She is taking courses
in early childhood education at the College of Marin, and in
2008 she graduated from the San Rafael Beauty Academy. She has
worked as a nanny for 15 years, and her goal is to get her
cosmetology license.
Joan Blades is co-founder and president of MomsRising.org,
a national grassroots organization of over one million members.
She is also co-founder of MoveOn.org.
Ms. Blades practiced law in Alaska and California, taught
mediation at Golden Gate University, is also a published
author. She received her BA from U.C. Berkeley in 1977 and her
law degree from the Golden Gate University School of Law.
Maria Ferris. Ms. Ferris is the Director of Diversity
Compliance and Employee Experience at IBM. Maria is in charge
of the company's global workforce diversity and work-life
programs for staff worldwide and also manages its executive
diversity task force.
Maria holds a B.S. degree in business administration from
Regis University.
Stephanie Bornstein is an employment attorney and Associate
Director of the Center for WorkLife Law. Previously she worked
as a staff attorney at Equal Rights Advocates, ERA, a public
interest law center focused on gender discrimination in
employment and education.
Ms. Bornstein received her Bachelor's degree from Harvard
University and her law degree from U.C. Berkeley School of Law.
Tell me. Do we have a better group of witnesses? No, we
would not.
So now let's get started. We will start with Ann O'Leary.
STATEMENT OF ANN O'LEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BERKELEY CENTER
FOR HEALTH, ECONOMICS AND FAMILY SECURITY, U.C. BERKELEY SCHOOL
OF LAW
Ms. O'Leary. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Woolsey, for
hosting this hearing to highlight the findings of the Shriver
Report.
And for those who have not seen it, I brought a copy of the
Shriver Report here.
And also, thank you for your strong leadership over many
years on the very issues highlighted in this report. It is an
honor to be on the panel with all of the fine women who are on
this panel who have worked so hard on these issues over the
years.
The Shriver Report, a Women's Nation Changes Everything, is
centered around three key facts. For the first time in our
history, women make up half of all workers in the United
States. Mothers are now bread winners making as much or more
than their spouse or doing it all on their own in nearly 40
percent of families. If you add mothers who are co-bread
winners, contributing at least a quarter of the family income,
you find that two-thirds of mothers are either bread winners or
co-bread winners.
These two facts alone are a dramatic shift from the late
1960s when women were only one-third of the workers in the
United States and only 20 percent were bread winners or co-
bread winners. So really dramatic differences of what's
happening today.
The other key fact that you highlighted in your opening
statement, Chairwoman Woolsey, is the difference in our family
structure. In the 1970s, about half of families, around 45
percent, were so-called traditional families. They were married
couples with a man staying at home--I'm sorry. The woman
staying at home. [Laughter.]
Ms. O'Leary [continuing]. With the woman staying at home
and the man going out into the workforce.
But the other big difference is that in 1975, only nine
percent of families were headed by a single parent. Today 22
percent of families are headed by a single parent. So we really
have a dramatically different family structure as well.
So what do these key facts mean for our families, for our
work force and our society as a whole? Quite simply, we believe
that women as half of our workers changes everything. In the
Shriver Report, top notch academic and policy experts from
around the country examined the major institutions in our
society, government, our health and education systems,
business, faith based institutions, and the media, to analyze
how these institutions have responded to these key changes in
our society and where they have fallen short.
Unfortunately, in each instance, the authors of the report
find that our institutions have not adequately kept up with
these changes. Today I would like to focus on how the
government has responded to this new reality and what our
government could do to lead the way in changing our workplace
and family support policies.
As women entered the workforce in droves, women fought hard
to get equal access to the rights of men in the workplace, and
they succeeded with the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act prohibiting sex discrimination in the workplace, and
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. But it has become
clear that merely gaining rights to a workplace where policies
on hours, pay, benefits and leave time were designed around
male bread winners who presumably had no family caregiving
responsibilities and often had a spouse who stayed at home full
time to manage the house and care for children when they were
sick or aging relatives when they became frail; these policies
do not fit today's workers. We simply cannot work in the same
way as traditional bread winners once worked.
Our report highlights the areas in which government has
made progress, but has also fallen short in creating policies
to reflect new realities. I just want to focus on three of
those policies in my opening statement.
The first is family leave. As we all know, a wonderful
thing happened in 1993, thanks to many people in this room,
which is that the Family and Medical Leave Act became law,
guaranteeing unpaid leave for at least some workers regardless
of gender to care for family or medical needs.
While this has helped millions of American take the leave
they need, half of all workers in the United States are not
covered by this law. Furthermore, any leave granted under FMLA
is unpaid, which means many workers cannot take advantage of it
because they simply cannot afford it.
In practice, law also favors in two-parent families that
the parent who makes less money, still more often the woman,
staying home. So too often we end up having gender stereotypes
supported by this law.
The United States is the only industrialized country
without any government sponsored or employer required paid
maternity leave, and we are one of only a handful with no paid
parental leave for fathers.
In terms of pregnancy and caregiving discrimination, the
second point I would like to highlight, most Americans believe
it is illegal today for employers to fire a pregnant worker as
a result of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. But this
just is not the case. Unfortunately, there are many lawful
reasons an employer in the United States can fire a pregnant
worker, and these reasons often disproportionately harm low
wage workers.
A number of federal courts have interpreted the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act to mean that employers that do not allow
workers any leave or extremely limited leave to recover from an
illness or disability are under no obligation to provide leave
to pregnant workers.
Courts have also been clear that a pregnant worker is told
by her doctor that she should not lift heavy weights or needs
to stay off her feet, that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
just cannot cover you. So we have gaps in the law we need to
fill.
In addition to that, in terms of our current economic
situation what we are seeing is a rise in pregnancy claims are
continuing to go up. So this is another area where we really
need improvement. Stephanie Bornstein will talk about
caregiving discrimination. So I will not spend time talking
about that today, but another important area.
Finally, what I would like to talk about is predictable and
flexible workplace scheduled. The Fair Labor Standards Act
requires premium pay for overtime hours worked, but it does not
do enough to address flexible and predictable work schedules.
The current law allows flexibility for compressed work weeks,
but this flexibility is left at the discretion and in the sold
control of the employer. Too many employees have to face
mandatory overtime, and as our colleague from IBM will tell us,
some employers also face the other issue of unauthorized
overtime.
It seems like the right time to begin conversations about
how employers can have flexibility in the workplace, but we
also have to look at the low wage workers who, frankly, need
predictability. It is not fair to a person working in retail
sales who just cannot manage to move on because every day their
employer is changing their schedule. It is very difficult to
have childcare opportunities in those situations.
We also need to address child and elder care, and I know
that is something that you do in your Balancing Act. Chairwoman
Woolsey, you know better than anyone that these issues are not
new, and we thank you for your leadership over many years on
the Balancing Act and your recent introduction of the Family
Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Act. It is time
for government to act, and we are so glad you are leading the
way.
[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Leary follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ann M. O'Leary, Executive Director, the Berkeley
Center on Health, Economic & Family Security, UC Berkeley School of Law
Thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey, for hosting this hearing to
highlight the findings of ``The Shriver Report'' and for your strong
leadership over many years on the very issues highlighted in the
report--the need for our society and our institutions to respond to the
changing nature of the family and our workplaces as a result of women's
growing participation in the workforce.
I am Ann O'Leary, Executive Director of the Berkeley Center on
Health, Economic & Family Security at UC Berkeley School of Law and a
Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress. Most importantly
for this hearing, I am the co-editor of the Shriver Report, along with
my colleague Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for
American Progress. I am also co-author, with Karen Kornbluh, a work-
family policy expert, of the chapter in the Shriver Report on the
government's response to women's growing participation in the
workforce, ``Family Friendly for All Families: Workers and caregivers
need government policies that reflect today's realities.''
``The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything'' is
centered around three key facts:
For the first time in our history women make up half of
all workers in the United States.
Mothers are now breadwinners--making as much or more than
their spouse or doing it all on their own--in nearly 40 percent of
families. If you add mothers who are co-breadwinners--contributing at
least a quarter of the family income--you find that two-thirds of
mothers are either breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their families.
These two facts alone are a dramatic shift from the late 1960s when
women were one third of the workers in the United States, and only 27
percent were breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their families.
The final key fact is that not only has our workforce
changed, but the make-up of our families is dramatically different than
it was in the mid-1970s when women first began entering the workforce
in larger numbers. In 1975, nearly 45 percent of families with children
consisted of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. Today, that
number is just 21 percent or 1 in 5 families. In 1975, single parents
made up only 9 percent of our families with children. Today, single
parent households are 22 percent of our families with children. And, in
1975, 31 percent of families were married dual-income families and
today that number has jumped to 44 percent of our families.
What do these facts mean for our families, for our workforce and
for our society as a whole? Quite simply, women as half of all workers
changes everything.
In ``The Shriver Report'' top-notch academic and policy experts
from around the country examine the major institutions in our society--
government, our health and education systems, business, faith-based
institutions, and the media--to analyze how they have responded to
these key changes in our society and where they have fallen short. In
each instance, the authors of the report find that our institutions
have not adequately kept up with these changes.
Our government still relies on social policies built around the
traditional family. So too does our health system with access to
insurance often tied to good jobs, which are more likely to be held by
men then women.
Our education system is in many ways a success story with women
outpacing or matching men's educational attainment at all levels of
education. Still women remain concentrated in traditional female fields
such as health and education and are falling behind in entering the
higher-paying fields of the future, including science, mathematics,
engineering and technology.
In business, women are half of all U.S. workers and this year women
were running more than 10 million small businesses with combined sales
of $1.1 trillion. Yet, in our major corporations we still have paltry
numbers of women in leadership and too few women overall who have
access to the type of supports that would allow them to reach the top--
flexible hours, career development, and inclusive work environments.
Too many of our faith-based institutions, which for decades relied
on the volunteer work of women to keep them running, haven't adapted to
women's new work schedules and demands. And many faith-based
institutions have struggled to include women as valued leaders.
The mainstream media outlets often suggest that women have ``made
it,'' portraying women as successful executives at the top of every
profession. Yet rarely do we see the face of the millions of everyday
women who struggle to make ends meet to juggle work and family.
What affect does the failure of our major institutions to respond
to this new reality have on workers and families? It means individuals
and families must face these problems as their own personal struggles.
These ``personal'' struggles, however, have a negative impact on the
health and well-being of our families and often cause economic
detriment--from lost income to lost jobs--that has a lasting impact not
only on our families, but our economy as a whole.
Today, I'd like to focus on how the government has responded to
this new reality and what our government could do to lead the way in
changing our workplace and family support policies.
As women entered the workforce in droves, women fought hard to get
equal access to the rights of men in the workplace. And they
succeeded--with the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. But it has become clear that
merely gaining rights to a workplace where policies on hours, pay,
benefits, and leave time were designed around male breadwinners who
presumably had no family caregiving responsibilities and often had a
spouse who stayed home full-time to manage the house and care for
children, as well as sick and aging relatives, isn't enough for today's
workers. Too many workers--especially women and low-wage workers--
simply cannot work in the way traditional breadwinners once worked with
a steady job and lifelong marriage with a wife at home.
Our report highlights the areas in which government has made
progress and has fallen short in creating policies to reflect families'
new realities:
Family Leave. In 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act became law
guaranteeing unpaid leave for at least some workers, regardless of
gender, to care for family or medical needs. FMLA provides qualified
employees with the right to take up to twelve weeks each year of job-
protected unpaid leave for the birth or care of the employee's child,
care of an immediate family member with a serious health condition, or
for an employee's own serious health condition.
While this Act has helped millions of Americans take the leave they
need, half of all workers in the United States are not covered by this
law. Futhermore, any leave granted under FMLA is unpaid, which means
many workers cannot take advantage of it because they cannot afford the
loss of family income. In practice, the law favors families with one
parent who makes less money (still more often the woman) providing care
while the other higher-paid parent continues to support the family at
work.
The United States is the only industrialized country without
government-sponsored or employer-required paid maternity leave and we
are one of only a handful with no paid parental leave for fathers.
Pregnancy and Caregiver Discrimination. Most Americans believe it
is illegal today for employers to fire a pregnant worker as a result of
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. But that is just not the
case. Unfortunately, there are many lawful reasons an employer in the
United States can fire a pregnant worker and these reasons often
disproportionately harm lower-wage workers.
A number of federal courts have interpreted the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act to mean that employers that do not allow workers any
leave or extremely limited leave to recover from an illness or a
disability are under no obligation to provide leave to pregnant
workers. Courts have also been clear that if a pregnant worker is told
by her doctor that she should not lift heavy weights or needs to stay
off her feet in order to avoid negative health consequences for herself
or her baby, then the Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not require her
employer to accommodate these restrictions. Instead, the employer can
legally fire the pregnant worker.
Finally, women who are pregnant or on maternity leave certainly
have no greater right to keep their jobs when lay-offs occur, although
if they are targeted because they are pregnant or on maternity leave
that is unlawful. In recent recessions, claims of pregnancy
discrimination have consistently gone up, meaning women are filing
claims at a greater rate suggesting that they are being fired because
they are pregnant. These women aren't just imagining discrimination--
the percentage of these cases to be found to have merit remains at
approximately 50 percent during highs and lows--so more women are found
to have valid pregnancy discrimination claims in recessions than at
other times.
My colleague, Stephanie Bornstein of the Center for WorkLife Law,
will be testifying about cargiving discrimination. The Center for
WorkLife Law, led by Joan Williams, has improved the use of Title VII
for combating such discrimination. But Title VII and the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act only require access to equal terms and benefits of
all workers, which often is not enough to aid workers with caregiving
responsibilities.
Predictable and Flexible Workplace Schedules. The Fair Labor
Standards Act requires premium pay for overtime hours worked above the
40-hour workweek, but it does not address flexible, predictable work
schedules. The law currently allows for flexibility within the context
of a 40-hour workweek, such as a compressed workweek or daily schedules
with differing work hours, but this flexibility is left at the
discretion and is in the sole control of the employer. The result is a
majority of workers have no ability to control the time that they start
and end their work days, no ability to work from a different location,
and no ability to reduce the hours they work.
There are no federal laws in place requiring or incentivizing
employers to offer predictable work schedules. Low-wage workers, often
working in retail, find predictability even more challenging than
flexibility. When your employer changes your schedule from day to day
or week to week, it makes it almost impossible to organize consistent,
quality child care or elder care for your relatives.
Social Insurance. Our social insurance system was developed around
the notion that couples are married for life and that the man earns the
family income and the wife takes care of the children and ill or aging
relatives. Take Social Security retirement benefits for example. Social
security provides benefits directly to workers and to dependent
spouses. For many women, this provision has been a lifesaver--the
difference between poverty and stability in the retirement years. But
too many women today cannot take full advantage of these benefits--
because of years taken away from the workforce to raise children or
care for ailing parents, they don't earn enough to have their own solid
social security retirement and they don't qualify for spousal benefits
either because they were never married or they divorced before 10
years.
Child and Elder Care. In the 1970s, Congress passed a universal
child care bill, which was vetoed by President Nixon. Today's patchwork
of government child care programs provide too little support to meet
the needs of today's working families and our aid to families with
elder caregiving needs is almost nonexistent.
Chairwoman Woolsey, you know better than anyone that these issues
are not new. For years, you have been a leader in Congress, year after
year introducing and pushing for ``The Balancing Act,'' which provides
comprehensive solutions for families trying to meet the dual demands of
work and family. This year, you have led the way to push for solutions
to the need for paid family leave by introducing the Family Income to
Respond to Significant Transitions (FIRST) Act.
What is new is our changed reality--women are in the workforce to
stay and families must rely on the income of working mothers. The other
thing that is new is that the desire to see our government and our
businesses lead the way in changing our workplace policies is not
coming from women alone. In a poll conducted as part of the Shriver
Report, we found that both men and women overwhelmingly believe that
government and business need to provide more flexibility in work
schedules, paid family leave, and increased child care support.
Further inaction on the part of the government will have real
negative economic consequences for our families. Men and women both
need the leadership of our government to solve these problems.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much, Ann, and it
appears we do not have a yellow light.
Ms. O'Leary. I apologize. I went over.
Chairwoman Woolsey. No, you did fine.
Because I do not know how long she will be able to stay
here, I would like to point out that Supervisor Susan Adams
came to see us.
Thank you, Susan, for being here.
And now we will hear from Claudia Zamorano.
STATEMENT OF CLAUDIA ZAMORANO
Ms. Zamorano. Thank you. Thank you all for being here.
Hello, everyone. Thank you for showing up. I really
appreciate it.
My name is Claudia Zamorano. I am the mother of two
beautiful children, Alicia Daniela, 11 years old, and my son
Alexander, four years old.
I never in my life did expect to be standing here before
you telling you my story. Just two years ago I had a family, a
home, a business, the so-called American dream. Now I stand
here empty handed. I lost it all in a divorce.
I did not understand how hard people really had it until I
got to leave it. I am a woman that does not like to just sit
around. So I involve myself in cosmetology school and finish,
but I have not been able to continue with what I started and
what I studied so hard for, my training and to get my license
for state board.
I went to school to get us out of this, out of where we are
today, but to succeed I will have to be away from my children
40 hours a week just to build clientele, and I cannot afford
the cost of childcare while doing it. So right now I can only
work part time as a nanny to make ends meet, and it is a
struggle every day.
That is the irony of all. I work to support another family
so they can have work-life balance, but I do not have the same
opinion for myself or option for myself.
Since last January I have been on a waiting list to seek
childcare assistance. How long must I wait? If I had childcare
I could work more. I could pay more taxes. The money that I
made we will spend in bills and groceries, rent, and all things
that will help my local economy, and my son will be in an
environment where he can develop and be with qualified
caregivers who will give him the necessities when I am not
around.
I have been very lucky to have my parents help me with my
children when I am not around, but it is getting harder and
harder because I know they are getting older, and they also
have their own health problems, and the money that I provide
them is not enough.
I wake up every morning not knowing if my parents will be
able to take care of my kids or where should I leave my kids
with just for me to go out there to make more money to survive.
The stress has made it very difficult for me emotionally,
mentally and physically. I have somehow managed to put together
a fragile puzzle to take care of my kids, and it is just that,
a puzzle. It could fall apart at any moment.
I ask this committee to consider policies that will support
working mothers like me. We need quality, affordable childcare.
So please increase federal childcare funding.
We need health care. I have gone without health care
insurance for two years. If I had a major illness, I do not
know what I will do. Thankfully, my employer now gives me sick
days, but I have worked in many jobs where I did not have them.
With all of the concern about the swine flu, working
mothers need to be able to take time off to care for their
children if they get sick or their school closes. We also need
flexible work schedules. If my son is sick and my father cannot
pick him up, I have to get him. My employer has been very
flexible in the past, but I am afraid that if I keep asking
that I could risk losing my job.
Please do not take me wrong. I am not asking for a freebie.
I am asking that childcare and health care be affordable for
all. I want to feel my kids are safe and that I am able to work
towards my career goal like everyone else.
I am very proud of my daughter. Last week my daughter was
chosen from her school as one of the 15 out of 600 students as
achieving excellent grades. I want my children to be somebody.
I want them to leave a mark in this country, what is now my
country that I love and respect.
I do not like the fact that my kids have seen this
struggle; I really dislike it. And I stand here on behalf of
those working mothers that now struggle and for the more like
me to come; for all of those mothers who put their kids to bed
and then stay up hours stressed, nervous, scared about what
they will do to keep their children and give them a better
live.
We all need a peace of mind. One thing is for sure. I am
not a leach. I am not a parasite. I am Claudia Zamorano, a
woman, a warrior, but first of all a mother.
Thank you. [Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Zamorano follows:]
Prepared Statement of Claudia Zamorano
My name is Claudia Zamorano. I am the mother of two beautiful
children, Alicia Daniela, age 11 and Alexander, age 4. Never in my life
did I expect to be standing before you telling you my story. Just two
years ago I had a family, a home, a business--the so-called American
Dream but since then it has taken a 180 degree turn. Now I stand here
empty handed because I lost it all in a divorce.
I did not understand how hard people really had it until I had to
live it. I am not a woman that likes to just sit around, so I enrolled
myself in cosmetology school and completed it. However, I have not been
able to continue with my training and apply for the state board license
because I spent my savings on my schooling and now I struggle to pay
for the license and finish what I studied so hard for. I went to school
to get us out of where we are today. But in order to succeed I would
have to be away from my children 40 hours a week to build a clientele
and I cannot afford the cost of childcare while doing it! So right now
I can only work part time as a nanny to make ends meet--and it is a
struggle everyday. That is the irony of it all. I work to support
another family so they can have work/life balance, but I do not have
that same option for myself. Since last January I have been on a list
waiting to receive child care assistance. How long must I wait? If I
had child care I could work more and I could pay more taxes. The money
I made I would spend on bills, groceries, rent, which are all things
that help my local economy. And my son would be in an environment where
he can develop and be with qualified caregivers who would give him the
necessities when I cannot be there.
I have been very lucky to have my parents help with my kids while I
work, but it is getting harder and harder because I know they are
getting older, they have their own health problems, and the money I
provide to them is not enough. I wake up every morning not knowing if
my parents will be able to take care of my kids or who I will be able
to leave them with in order to make money to survive. The stress has
made it very difficult for me, emotionally, mentally, and physically. I
have somehow managed to put together a fragile puzzle to take care of
my kids, but that's just it, it could fall a part at any moment.
I do not have the option to stay home and care for my kids. My ex-
husband works off and on, especially in this bad economy so he gives us
support when he can, but it is not reliable. I cannot count on him for
support so I must work. I'm here today to ask this Committee to
consider policies that support working mothers like me. We need quality
affordable child care so please increase federal child care funding. We
need health care. I have gone without health care insurance for 2
years. If I have a major illness I don't know what I would do. And we
need paid sick days! Thankfully my employer now gives me sick days, but
I've worked many jobs when I didn't have them. With all this talk about
swine flu, working mothers need to be able to take time off to care for
our children if they get sick or if their school closes. We also need
flexible work schedules. If my son is sick and my father can't pick him
up, I have to get him. My employer has been flexible in the past but
I'm afraid that if I keep asking then I could risk losing my job.
Please don't take me wrong--I am not asking for a freebie. I am
asking that child care and health care be affordable for all! I want to
feel my kids are safe and I am able to work towards my career goals
like everyone else. I'm very proud of my daughter because last week she
was chosen from her School as one of 15 out of 600 students for
achieving excellent grades. I want my children to be somebody and leave
a mark in this country, what is now my country that I love and respect.
But I dislike the fact that my kids see me struggle. And I stand here
on behalf of all those working mothers that now struggle and for the
more like me to come. For all those mothers who put their kids to bed
and then stay up hours stressed, nervous, scared about what they will
do to give their children a better life. We all need peace of mind. One
thing is for sure, I am not a leech! I am not a parasite! I am Claudia
Zamorano! A woman, a warrior, but first of all a mother!
Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. And believe me, you are all of that and
more.
Joan Blades.
STATEMENT OF JOAN BLADES, CO-FOUNDER, MOMSRISING
Ms. Blades. It is an honor to be here. It is an honor to be
with you, Chairwoman, and to be here with everyone on this
panel.
I am a co-founder of MomsRising, an online grassroots
organization that works to promote and advocate for family
friendly policies. Our membership is open to everyone who is a
mom and everyone who has a mom. MomsRising addresses issues
that are critically important to a wide cross-section of our
nation. Eighty-two, point, eight million women in the United
States have children, and we all have or had mothers.
MomsRising has more than a million members across the
United States, and our rapid growth speaks to the fact that we
have touched a nerve. As you found and the Shriver Report
points out, Americans, both men and women, are struggling to
balance work and family and the vast majority want to see
policy makers put laws in place that will let them fulfill
their responsibilities at work without giving short shrift to
their families, and we really appreciate the Balancing Act.
Ann O'Leary and others are doing a lot of the data. So I am
going to try and put a little more face on this issue. One of
our favorite, early MomsRising members is Kiki Peppard who
moved from Washington, no, from New York to Pennsylvania
because she could not afford to raise her two kids on her own
in New York and found in Pennsylvania it would be more
affordable. And she did that with confidence because she had a
great resume and great references, and she went out looking for
a job, and as she went to employer after employer, they kept on
asking, ``And do you have children?''
And when they heard that, all of a sudden they were not
interested in hiring her. She could not get a job despite
having a great resume and great references.
Now, there is data that shows us that mothers are 79
percent less likely to be offered a job, and I am not talking
about a single mother. When they found out she was single and
had children, it was impossible for her to get a job, and there
is a reason for that, and that is why we so desperately need
these structures.
We were talking about how other countries have paid family
leave, and we don't measure up to industrialized countries. We
don't measure up to the world. Out of 173 countries worldwide,
there are four that have no paid leave for new mothers. That is
Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia, and the United States of
America.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Would you repeat that again?
Ms. Blades. Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and the
United States of America have no paid leave for new mothers.
That is Sesame Street. One of these countries is not like the
others. [Laughter.]
We have to do better. It is crazy. The decisions parents
are making, shall I take care of my new baby or shall I feed my
family, it is not a question anyone in this country should have
to ask.
But more to say. In fact, we lack many family friendly
programs that citizens of most industrialized countries take as
given, programs like universal health care coverage, paid
family leave, and a minimum number of paid sick days. Of the 20
most competitive economies in the world, the U.S. is the only
one that does not require businesses to provide paid sick days.
Now, work-family balance is not just a problem for the
families who are well off. It is a problem for all women who
work, and in many cases it hits low income workers the hardest.
Over 40 percent of children under six years old live in low
income families, in poor families, and having a baby is the top
cause of a poverty spell in this country. It is a time when
families' incomes drop below the needs for basic living
expenses.
And the lack of after school care and flexible work options
are two of the main reasons that 20 percent of school age
children are home alone each day after school. Family friendly
programs are critical, and they are core of MomsRising's
agenda, which is spelled out in the word ``mother.'' M for
maternity and paternity leave, O for open, flexible work, T for
toxics and other health issues, H for health care, E for
excellent child care, R for realistic and fair wages. S we
tacked on recently for sick days because that is clearly part
of the equation.
If we want to say we have family values, then we have to
also value families by passing the kind of policies that have
long been championed by groups like the National Partnership
for Women and Families, National Women's Law Centers,
Children's Defense Fund, Families USA, 9to5, and you know,
MomsRising has over 80 aligned organizations and partners.
We need the Balancing Act. We need healthy families. We
need to reauthorize the state CHIP and Child Care Development
Block Grants. We need to keep all of those things current and
improve them.
As a nation, we are competing in a global economy which all
of the other top economies are investing in their children and
families while we lag behind. Children quite literally are the
economic engine of our future, and study after study shows that
investing in children and family policy now saves funds later
because of less reliance on government entitlement programs,
less severe illness, lower infant mortality, fewer grade
repetitions, less interaction with the criminal justice system,
and a list of areas where costs are saved goes on. It is
horribly shortsighted to ignore these pressing national issues.
MomsRising actively and regularly engages members to
support family friendly policies. We are asking Congress to
make sure they take care of children and families as they craft
health care legislation, and when the CDC hoping to avert the
spread of H1N1 advised people to stay home from work if they
felt ill, MomsRising members reminded their elected leaders
that almost half of the non-governmental workers in the U.S.
have no paid sick days.
There are millions of people in this country that cannot
afford to lose a day's wages, and in fact, some risk losing
their jobs if they stay home sick. Our members remind leaders
that not only do workers need paid sick days for themselves.
They need it so they can take care of their families. Parents
need to be able to stay home and care of sick children. Paid
sick days are good for the whole community.
Just this week MomsRising member Desiree Rosondo testified
before the U.S. Senate. She told them families like hers need
paid sick days. She told them that difficulty of choosing to
stay home with a sick child when it undermines her family's
economic security.
We do much more than generate E-mail letters. MomsRising
members have delivered petitions, cookies, apples with messages
to elected leaders across the country. They have held hundreds
of house parties to discuss the issues they care about and
screen the Motherhood Manifesto. Our offices are overflowing
with thousands of decorated baby ONEsies that our members have
sent to show support for family friendly policies.
And then we spring up in appropriate situations to help
pass things like paid family leave. It passed in New Jersey
last year. It passed in Washington State the year before.
California, I am proud to say, is the first state to have paid
leave for new parents.
We will continue to work with our members who are in every
state to support federal legislation like the Healthy Families
Act and Balancing Act, as well as to support state legislation
that makes workplaces more family friendly and speak out and
take action on issues that matter most to families because when
this many people are having the same problems at the same time,
we have a national structural issue that needs to be addressed,
and it is not an epidemic of personal failings.
It is time to make the changes, and thank you very much for
having us here. [Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blades follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joan Blades, Co-founder, MomsRising
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee: I am Joan Blades and
I am the co-founder of MomsRising.org, a fast-growing online grassroots
organization that works to promote and advocate for family-friendly
policies. Our membership is open to everyone who is a mom, and everyone
who has a mom. MomsRising addresses issues that are critically
important to wide cross-section of our nation: 82.8 million women in
the United States have children and we all have mothers.
MomsRising has more than one million members across the United
States. Our rapid growth speaks to the fact that we have touched a
nerve. As we have found, and the Shriver Report points out, Americans--
both women and men--are struggling to balance work and family, and the
vast majority want to see policy makers put laws in place that will let
them fulfill their responsibilities at work without giving short shrift
to their families.
Why are these issues pressing right now? Our nation has changed
over the past several decades, but our country's work/family policies
are stuck with a 1950s support structure. Currently, women make up one-
half of the workforce, and women's wages are increasingly important to
the support of their families. Nearly 40% of mothers are the primary
breadwinners for their families, and an additional 25 percent bring
home at least 25% of a family's total earnings. Yet women make 77 cents
to a man's dollar, and mothers fare even worse.
Countries with family-friendly policies and programs in place--like
paid family leave and subsidized child care--don't have wage gaps as
wide as we do here. And we are, frankly, behind the rest of the world
when it comes to family-friendly policies.
For example, of the 173 countries that were the subject of a study
of international workplace policies by Dr. Jody Heymann of Harvard and
McGill Universities, there were only four countries that didn't provide
some form of paid family leave for new mothers. The four countries that
did not--and do not--have some form of paid leave for new mothers are
Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and the United States.
In fact, we lack many family-friendly programs that citizens of
most other industrialized countries take as a given. Programs like
universal health care coverage, paid family leave, and a minimum number
of paid sick days. Of the 20 most competitive economies in the world,
the U.S. is the only one that does not require businesses to provide
paid sick days.
Now, work family balance is not just a problem for families who are
well off. It is a problem for all women who work, and in many cases
hits low-income workers the hardest. Over 40 percent of children under
six years old live in low-income and poor families; and having a baby
is a top cause of ``poverty spells'' in this country--a time when a
family's income dips below what it needs for basic living expenses like
food and rent. And the lack of afterschool care and flexible work
options are two of the main reasons that 26 percent of school aged
children are home alone each day after school.
Family-friendly programs are critical and are at the core of
MomsRising's agenda which is spelled out in the word ``mother.'' M for
Maternity and Paternity Leave; O for Open Flexible Work; T for
Television and other Afterschool Programs; H for Healthcare; E for
Excellent Childcare; R for Realistic and Fair Wages.
If we want to say we have family values; then we have to also value
families by passing the kinds of policies that have long been
championed by groups like the National Partnership for Women and
Families, the National Women's Law Center, the Children's Defense Fund,
FamiliesUSA, and 9to5, five of MomsRising's more than 80 aligned
organizational partners. Policies like the Healthy Families Act, and
the Balancing Act, as well as fully funding and reauthorizing the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); and the Child Care and
Development Block Grant.
We, as a nation, are competing in a global economy in which all the
other top economies are investing in their children and families while
we lag behind. Children, quite literally, are the economic engine of
our future; and study after study shows that investing in children and
family policies now, saves funds later because of less reliance on
government entitlement programs, less severe illnesses, lower infant
mortality, fewer grade repetitions, less interaction with the criminal
justice system, and the list of areas where costs are saved goes on. It
is horribly short-sighted to ignore these pressing national issues.
MomsRising actively and regularly engages members to support
family-friendly policies. MomsRising members have shared their health
care stories with Congress asking that they make sure to take care of
children and families as they craft health care legislation. And when
the CDC hoping to avert the spread of H1N1 advised people to stay home
from work if they felt ill MomsRising members reminded their elected
leaders that almost half of the non-govermental workers in the U.S.
have no paid sick days. There are millions of people in this country
that cannot afford to lose a day's wages, and in fact some risk losing
their job if they stay home sick. They reminded leaders that not only
do workers need paid sick days for themselves, they need it so that
they can take care of their families. Parents need to be able to stay
home and care for sick children. Paid sick days are good for our whole
community
We do much more than generate emailed letters. MomsRising members
have held hundreds of house parties across the country to discuss the
issues they care about and to screen The Motherhood Manifesto film
which delves into the MOTHER agenda. Our offices are overflowing with
thousands of decorated baby ONEsies that our members have sent us as a
show of support for family-friendly policies--and we're getting ready
to exhibit those ONEsies at forums around the country. MomsRising was
instrumental in getting paid family leave passed in Washington State--
making it only the second state to have paid leave, after California
and New Jersey, the third state to pass paid leave. We will continue to
work to get similar laws passed in other states and hope that some day
soon federal legislation will follow.
We'll continue to work with our members who are in every state, to
support federal legislation like the Healthy Families Act and the
Balancing Act, as well as to support state legislation that makes
workplaces more family-friendly, and to speak out and take action on
the issues that matter most to families--because when this many people
are having the same problems at the same time, we have a national
structural issue that needs to be addressed, and not an epidemic of
personal failings. It's time to make those changes.
Thank you.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. I probably should have said a little
bit more about the employee practices at IBM when I was
introducing Ms. Ferris, but we are really honored to have you
here and to show us that some employers and employers of size
have set an example and are good models, and we look forward to
hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF MARIA S. FERRIS, DIRECTOR, DIVERSITY, COMPLIANCE
AND EMPLOYEE EXPERIENCE, IBM CORP.
Ms. Ferris. Thank you, and good morning, Chairwoman Woolsey
and members of the Committee.
My name is Maria Ferris, and I am the Director of
Diversity, Compliance and Employee Experience at the IBM
Corporation. I am pleased to appear before you to discuss a
subject that is both important to me and also the focus of my
job.
But I am also here to explain challenges to our ability to
offer that flexibility due to the lack of clarity and outdated
nature of certain Fair Labor Standards Act for FLSA revisions.
IBM employees are more than 400,000 people in 75 countries and
approximately 25 percent work in the United States. Our U.S.
workforce is very diverse. Thirty percent are women. Twenty-
five percent are minorities, and 54 percent are responsible for
either children or elderly dependents. Fifty-one percent of our
U.S. workforce works outside of a traditional office, and I am
a case in point.
I have worked from my home for the past 11 years, and was
promoted to an executive while doing so.
We believe that work is something one does, not a place
that one goes, and we know the balance of work and family
responsibilities is challenging under traditional work
schedules.
We also know that there are tens of thousands of talented
individuals who without flexibility would not be a part of the
labor market, and at the same time our customers want
commitments met at any place and at any time. That is why it
makes good business sense for us to provide, when possible, a
supporting and flexible work environment.
IBM has a rich history of implementing diversity and
flexibility programs long before government mandates were even
contemplated. Thirty years before the Equal Pay Act, IBM
recruited professional women and promised equal pay for equal
work, and 30 years before FMLA IBM initiated a three-month
leave of absence program, alter extended to three years, making
it one of the most generous policies in the nation.
We pioneered dependent care assistance, investing more than
$200 million since 1983 in creating services that both identify
and refer employees to local licensed resources for child and
elder care. In fact, the infrastructure that we created is now
used by more than 15.6 million employees and people in the
United States.
But enabling and promoting flexibility is not without its
challenges. We are forced to limit flexible arrangements for
non-exempt workers because of outdated and unclear provisions
within the FLSA.
Technology is enabling us to work from anywhere at any time
we choose. For many people the lines between what is and is not
work are blurred, however current law limits and non-
exemptability to manage his or her time in the way that makes
the most sense both personally and professionally. Burdensome
rules restrict non-exemptability to work from home or to take a
few hours off to see their child's school play.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Maria, could you yield for just a
minute? Would you clarify what a non-exempt employees is?
Ms. Ferris. Yes. The non-exempt employee would be an
employee who is paid for overtime.
So burdensome rules restrict a non-exempt's ability to work
from home, to take a few hours off to see their child's school
play or visit elderly parents in a nursing home during the day.
Moreover, the FLSA's treatment of non-exempt computer
professionals and inside sales people is especially limiting,
and it is, indeed, personally demeaning to many of these
professionals who are highly educated and perform highly
skilled work.
For example, it could necessitate that they not be allowed
to access job related technology, such as a PDA or a laptop
outside of the company office or the official work day, and for
non-exempts inside sales employees, earning potential may
actually be less than their exempt counterparts.
Companies wanting to implement workplace and work time
flexibility are also constrained by the risk of legal
liability. The FLSA lacks clarity on the de minimis use of
technology and on unauthorized overtime. Clear statutory
language is needed to define de minimis technology use and how
it impacts working hours. In addition, employers cannot afford
especially in today's business environment to pay for
unauthorized overtime. Unfortunately, current law deems
otherwise.
In conclusion, new technology and globalization has
reshaped our economy and our way of life. How work gets done
and where work gets done is very different now, and for
American women to maintain the gains that we have made and to
insure the flexibility that accommodates work-life balance, we
need to adjust the way of thinking about work and make
legislative changes to keep labor law relevant today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ferris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Maria Ferris, Director, Diversity,
Compliance & Employee Experience, IBM Corp.
Good morning, Chairwoman Woolsey and Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Maria Ferris, and I am Director of Diversity, Compliance and
Employee Experience at the IBM Corporation. In this role, I have
overall responsibility for IBM's Global Workforce Diversity, Equal
Opportunity and Work/Life Programs.
I am a current member and former co-chair of the Conference Board's
Work-Life Leadership Council and was a founding member of the
Leadership Forum for Women's Advancement. I also have held board
positions at the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR),
Corporate Voices for Working Families and the Alliance for Work/Life
Progress (AWLP).
I am pleased to appear before this Committee to discuss a subject
that is near and dear to my heart, as well as the focus of my job at
IBM, workforce flexibility and the needs of working women. I also am
here to bring to the Committee's attention several policy issues that
restrict our ability to provide to a segment of our population work
place and work time flexibility, along with access to technology
outside the workplace. These issues are the consequence of certain
unclear and outdated Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provisions. I will
outline these issues and provide our recommended solutions, and it is
our hope that the Committee will see fit to review these topics during
this Congress.
Let me say from the outset that the IBM Corporation is committed to
creating a supportive and flexible work environment. Giving employees
more flexibility and control over their work is an important means to
achieve greater work/life balance and enhanced productivity. This is
done in the context of a pay-for-performance environment, in which our
focus is, first and foremost, on achieving results. As I will repeat
later, we believe that work is something one does--not a place one
goes.
Employees have told us that balancing their work, family and
education responsibilities, along with other commitments, is becoming
increasingly challenging under traditional work schedules. For many
IBMers, their ability to address work and family is a critical factor
in their decision to stay with IBM. At the same time, customers need us
to meet commitments, any place, at any time. Responding to these needs
is nothing new for IBM, and we have made it a priority to create and
implement programs that address the needs of both the individual and
the company.
IBM Demographics
The IBM Corporation employs more than 400,000 individuals in 75
countries and does business in 175 countries around the world.
Employees in the U.S. make up around 25% of our company--numbering
approximately 105,000.
Our workforce in the U.S. is diverse:
30% are women; 25% are minorities.
39% of our population is over age 50; 6% under 30.
83% are either married or in a committed relationship.
61% are dual earners; 22% are part of one-earner
households.
54% have responsibilities for dependent care (either
children or elders).
34% have responsibilities for elders--statistics which
have more than tripled since 1986.
10% tells us they are part of the sandwich generation--
having responsibility for both children and elders.
IBM is a globally integrated enterprise with employees working with
colleagues from around the world on a regular basis. 40% of IBM
employees work outside the traditional office. They work at home, at
customer locations or in airports and hotels around the world.
73% of IBM managers supervise employees who work remotely--that is,
not at the manager's location. The workplace of today is drastically
different than it was when I began my career with IBM, 30 years ago.
When I started, all of my colleagues came to the same building, and the
workday began and ended at the same time. We started our day at 7:30
and ended it at 4:12--there was no flexibility in our day. Since then,
I have seen incredible change. Early on, I wouldn't have imagined the
ability to work from home. And yet, I've worked from my home in North
Carolina for the past 11 years--I was even promoted to an executive
while doing so.
History of Diversity, Equal Opportunity & Flexibility
IBM has a long history of commitment to its employees and has
implemented workforce programs long before any government mandates
required us to do so.
We hired our first black employee in 1899, and we had a
written Equal Opportunity policy to hire individuals regardless of
their race, color or creed in 1953, 11 years before the Civil Rights
Act.
We hired our first disabled employee in 1914--years ahead
of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 1992 Americans with Disabilities
Act.
In 1934, three decades before the Equal Pay Act, IBM
recruited its first professional women, and IBM's Founder, T.J. Watson
Sr., promised women ``the same kind of work for equal pay.''
In 1956, 30 years before the Family and Medical Leave Act,
IBM initiated a three-month Leave of Absence (LOA) program, which
provided women with the opportunity to take time off after the birth of
a child and then return to the workplace--a policy that was extended to
one year in the 1960s and three years in 1988, making it one of the
most generous LOA policies in the nation.
In the 1980's, IBM began to see a dramatic change in the
demographics of our workforce--driven in large part by the number of
women entering the workforce, many of whom were part of two-career
households. With the increase in dual-career couples, the need for
flexibility began to surface. Employees increasingly cited good quality
child care as a crucial issue in their work and their lives.
In 1992, the LOA program was coupled with a Flexible Work
Program that enabled women the opportunity to ``phase'' back into the
workplace on a part-time basis while still on Leave of Absence.
As IBM sought ways to fulfill its employees' dependent care needs,
it began to look at the development of a national service to which all
employees could go for advice on child care and referrals to licensed
child care services in their communities. When IBM discovered that no
such service existed, it created one.
With the assistance of Boston-based child care experts Fran Rodgers
and Gwen Morgan, IBM developed the IBM Child Care Resource & Referral
Service, along with Work/Family Directions, to manage the service for
its employees. Both were inaugurated in July 1984. This national
service employed a toll-free 800 telephone number that all employees
could call to reach a child care expert. Employees who needed referrals
for local child care facilities were put in touch with a local resource
and referral agency in their own community that could provide referrals
based on their specific needs and desires. The infrastructure that IBM
created is now used by more than 15.6 million employees in many
commercial and government programs throughout the world, and offered
through Ceridian.
To better understand the needs of its employees, IBM initiated, in
1986, the first of its U.S. Work and Life Issues Surveys to obtain
demographic data on its population, employee input about current
programs, as well as suggestions for future programs. The survey, which
has been repeated 5 times, with additional questions, in 1991, 1996,
2001, 2004 and 2007, provided IBM with findings that have changed our
thinking about employees and what is important to them, as well as the
programs we offer.
It became clear, for instance, from the first survey that many
employees had dependent care responsibilities, and a significant
portion, 10%, had elder care responsibilities. As a result of the 1986
survey, IBM returned to Work/Family Directions to develop a service
that mirrored the child care service--but for elder care this time. In
February, 1988, IBM announced and launched the IBM Elder Care
Consultation and Referral Service.
As an employer, we want our employees to be as productive as they
can be. To the extent employees are worried about factors outside of
work--such as who is caring for their children or their parents--they
are less likely to be as effective on the job as they can be.
In 1990, IBM invested $25 million in a `Fund for Dependent Care
Initiatives,' designed to invest in dependent care programs for our
employees in their communities. We renewed the fund with an additional
$50 million in 1992, and we were instrumental in joining with other
corporations to create the American Business Collaboration (ABC). The
ABC was formed out of a growing awareness among leading businesses that
employees were being stretched by child and elder care
responsibilities, and these pressures were directly impacting their
effectiveness at work. At the same time, individual businesses realized
that the costs of providing a full range of services and supports were
often expensive, particularly for companies with diverse workforces in
a variety of locations.
In response to these pressures, the ABC was created with the
knowledge that no individual company could do alone what the ABC could
do collectively. Together, the companies invested in child care
centers, family child care, school age, backup and elder care programs
for their employees.
IBM continues to invest in dependent care, investing more than $200
million since 1983, including a $50 million Global Fund in 2001 and
again in 2007. Today, IBM has investments in approximately 165 child
care programs through initiatives focused on quality enhancement, staff
training, education, access, etc. We have 225 child care center
relationships--139 in the U.S. and 86 in other countries--through which
IBM has purchased priority access slots for its employees. Rather than
cutting back on its commitment in this difficult economy, IBM continues
to back existing projects, and we are developing new programs that
address the child care needs of the business, employees and the
community.
We also recently launched a Global Work/Life Council, chaired by
executives around the world, to enhance our focus on work/life, which
continues to be a key employment differentiator for IBM. The Council
will provide executive sponsorship and insights to work/life and
flexibility and also will play a visible role in promoting awareness of
our programs throughout IBM.
Meeting the Needs of our Female Population
It is important to highlight IBM's long-standing commitment to
women employees and the policies we have created and implemented to
meet the needs of our female population. In short, our goal is to be
the premier global employer for women--particularly working mothers.
As stated above, women represent more than 30 percent of IBM
employees in the U.S., and close to one third (29%) are managers. IBM
women in executive positions in the U.S. have increased from less than
2 percent in 1980 to 25 percent at the end of 2008.
Globally, female IBMers comprise more than 21% of the worldwide
executive population (up from 11.5% at the end of 1995). While IBM is
proud of what we have achieved so far, our dedication to attracting and
retaining women employees is undiminished. We do this because it is
critical to the success of our business, and not because we are
mandated to do so.
In 1995, IBM sponsored a Women's Task Force, one of eight task
forces aimed at better understanding some of our constituencies (The
eight constituencies were: Asian, Black, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/
Transgender, Hispanic, Native American, People with Disabilities,
Women, and Men). The task force consisted of 15-20 executives
representing each of the corporation's business segments and was
charged with the following tasks:
define what the constituency requires to feel more
welcomed and valued at IBM;
define what they can do, in partnership with the company,
to maximize productivity; and
define what can be done to maximize the pursuit of
business opportunities through the buying decisions of the
constituency.
With this charge, the Women's Task Force made the following
recommendations:
implement employee network groups;
develop a regular part-time employment category;
integrate work/life balance flexibility into the business
process;
enhance IBM's focus in the marketplace; and
provide additional focus on technical women and
multicultural women.
Since the task force completed its mission, IBM has implemented
many of the recommendations brought forth, including a LifeWorks
program,\1\ a regular part-time employment program and employee network
groups (currently 49 of the 220 groups are women's groups).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LifeWorks is a program to help employees handle the demands of
daily life, at work and at home, through a wide array of innovative
features. Through LifeWorks, employees have access to trained
specialists who are qualified to answer questions and provide
information regarding dependent care issues, adoption, adult
disabilities, parenting, school achievement, planning for college, or
caring for oneself. Employees can also access an online database to
find information and download material at any time. Employees also have
access to up to 6 free hours of elder or adult care management services
annually through the LifeWorks program. Employees can choose from a
variety of services such as:
In-person assessment of an adult or older relative's
environment, functioning, options for services, or a change in
residence if needed
Check-in services, by telephone or in person, to keep
aware of your relative's condition and care and let you know of any
changes or concerns
Help to manage the different services your relative may be
using or to arrange for new services
On-site evaluations of nursing homes and assisted living
facilities to help you compare and choose facilities
Professional assistance to help you better understand
bills and insurance, provide support with family meetings, and attend
visits at nursing homes, hospitals, or with doctors
Respite care in your relative's home to provide time off
for family members who care for an adult or older relative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM's philosophy on women employees is simple: IBM has attempted to
learn and address the specific needs of women and to create services
that address those needs. We believe the use of these services leads to
a more effective and productive employee who will contribute her best
to the corporation. We believe these key programs provide a foundation
for our women, and our ultimate measurement is for female employees,
particularly working mothers, to aspire to both an executive life and a
family.
The ``New Normal''
Enabling our employees to manage their work and personal life is a
business imperative. We understand all of our employees have a personal
life, and our programs are meant to assist them in being productive on
the job. We also recognize that the way we work has changed from past
practices. The traditional 9 to 5 workplace no longer exists for most
of us. Traditionally, we centered our workweek based upon a Monday-
Friday routine in the local geography in which our employees operated.
We also tended to work fixed and continuous schedules centered on a 9
to 5 workday from a fixed location, within buildings owned or leased by
IBM.
Additionally, we worked in co-located teams, predominantly
nationally focused, that operated within the same time zone. And if
there were global interactions, they primarily occurred at the more
senior levels of the organization. Moreover, while 10 years ago we did
have the use of technology that enabled instantaneous communication,
these tools tended to be limited to the workplace.
Today, IBM is a globally integrated enterprise. Now, in what we
describe as the ``new world of work,'' many of us have regular
interactions with our colleagues around the world. Those contacts now
occur at almost every level of the organization. The business
requirements, in fact, dictate variable, non-continuous work schedules,
particularly for many of us who deal with people in multiple time
zones.
We've seen a great rise in the number of employees who work in non-
traditional offices, for example, those who work at home, those who are
mobile, and those who work from client locations. In fact, those
employees now constitute 40% of the total IBM workforce and 51% of our
U.S. workforce.
Enabling Workforce Flexibility: A Corporate Priority
The new world of work for IBM is characterized by a philosophy that
work is something one does, not a place one goes. It also is
characterized by rapid changes in technology and dynamic markets and an
imperative from our clients for 24/7 availability of our systems and
services. Companies cannot turn back the clock on this dynamism, but we
do have an opportunity to create a new way of working that relieves
some familial and personal pressures.
In many respects, the diversity policies IBM first created in the
1990s anticipated the ``new normal.'' IBM's integrated work/life
strategy, designed to accommodate working parents and those with other
responsibilities, consists of three pillars: culture, flexibility and
dependent care.
Culture pertains to what our employees are telling us. We conduct a
number of employee surveys--most notably the IBM Global Work/Life
Survey--to gather input and data necessary to understand the issues and
programs on which we need to focus. We combine that with training and
commitment from our managers and executive team, consistent with our
business strategy. The 2nd pillar--Flexibility--consists of a multitude
of employee offerings, and the 3rd pillar--Dependent Care (both child
and elder)--is a growing issue for our global employee population.
We strongly believe that the way we work today requires
flexibility--flexibility in meeting the requirements of our clients and
customers, while also managing our personal lives. The most recent 2007
Global Work/Life Survey showed the importance our employees place on
flexibility, affirming that the more flexibility employees have in
where and when work gets done, the less difficulty they have in
balancing the needs of their work and personal life. The clear message
was that we needed to give employees the tools and the responsibility
to manage their work and lives as they deem necessary and appropriate.
Thus, we created six flexibility principles that make up the
framework for the options we provide employees:
1. Focus on results: Work is something you do, not a place you go.
Focus on results, setting goals and measuring performance.
2. The Enterprise doesn't stop: In a globally integrated
enterprise, the business never stops. Somewhere in the world, IBMers
are working on solutions for clients across the planet.
3. Balancing of needs: Flexibility encompasses how, where and when
work gets done, and it is a tool for getting work done. IBM is
committed to providing its employees the greatest degree of flexibility
while balancing the needs of our clients, our business, team
effectiveness and the individual IBM employee.
4. Trust and personal responsibility: Consistent with our core
value of ``trust and personal responsibility in all relationships,''
IBM expects managers and employees to make decisions, including those
about flexibility options, consistent with this value and to
demonstrate personal responsibility to meet business commitments.
5. Range of options: Flexible work options are a vehicle for IBM to
meet the needs of our global clients and can be employee or management
initiated; however, all options must be management approved. Open
dialogue is important to understand and secure support for the most
flexible option, which may include varied work times, part-time, job-
share, work from home, etc., depending on the needs of the business
division, client or individual employee.
6. Understanding differences: Operating effectively in the new
world of work and in a globally integrated enterprise requires
sensitivity to a broad range of differences. This requires every IBMer
to exercise care and judgment in considering the needs of our global
stakeholders--clients, colleagues, and the communities in which we
operate. Each of us must take responsibility to explore, understand and
reflect differences in culture, customs, time of day, holidays,
language, business requirements, the personal needs of stakeholders and
the impact of our decisions on business dealings. Careful inquiry and
dialogue is required, as is the need to adapt and be flexible, as
appropriate, to best meet the needs of everyone concerned.
In order to meet the needs of our employees, IBM offers a variety
of flexible work options, which include:
Compressed/Flexible Work Reduced Work Schedule
Week
Individualized Work Job Share
Schedule
Leave of Absence Mobile
Part-time Work-at-Home
IBM has received widespread recognition for our commitment to work/
life program implementation. For 22 consecutive years, IBM has been
recognized as one of the Top 10 Best Companies for Working Mothers by
Working Mother Magazine and has been on the magazine's 100 Best Company
List since its inception 24 years ago. IBM and one other company,
Johnson & Johnson, are the only two companies to be on the list every
year. Our recognition, however, is not limited to work/life. We
recently were recognized by the Society of Hispanic Professionals as
the Employer of the Year, and we were named one of the top companies
for Executive Women by NAFE. Additionally, among many other honors, IBM
has a perfect score of 100 for 7 consecutive years on the Human Rights
Campaign Corporate Equality Index.
Challenges to Workforce Flexibility Rooted in FLSA
As I noted at the outset of this testimony, implementing these
programs that employees value so highly is not without its challenges.
In today's extremely competitive business environment, we must manage
our employee population to the best of our ability within the confines
of current labor law.
At the same time, technology is enabling us to work from anywhere,
at any time we choose. For many people, the lines between what is and
isn't work are blurring. However, certain outdated and unclear
provisions within the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act limit certain
flexible arrangements for non-exempts and negatively impact a non-
exempt's ability to manage his/her time in the way that makes most
sense, both personally and professionally. These burdensome rules
restrict non-exempts' ability to work from home, to take a few hours
off to see their child's school play, or visit their elderly parents in
a nursing home during the day.
We believe that clarifying and bringing the law up to date, such
that it is relevant to the changing times and needs of employees both
today and in future years, will ensure our ability to maintain and
adapt our flexibility policies for a broader segment of the employee
population.
Specifically, I wish to highlight the following issues:
Computer professional exemption
``De minimus'' use of technology
Employer safe harbor from unauthorized overtime
Inside/outside sales
Computer Professional Exemption: The Computer Professional
exemption was first introduced in 1990, nearly 20 years ago, to address
the absence of any exemption for the developing computer industry. The
exemption criteria, defined narrowly and based on outdated job
responsibilities, do not align to modern IT jobs and have not kept up
with changes in responsibilities of those professionals. Moreover,
modern computer professionals require a higher level of thought and
knowledge basis to perform their duties, and they are highly educated,
often have advanced degrees and keep up with changing technology.
Despite this, many computer professionals must be classified as
nonexempt under current law.
The Computer Professional exemption requires that employees design,
develop, document, analyze, create, or modify computer systems or
programs. Regulations and case interpretation generally apply this work
to program code or operating systems. Courts and the Department of
Labor do not incorporate into the exemption many technical
professionals that design or maintain existing systems and
applications.
The narrow and outdated definition of a computer professional
limits employee flexibility because, as a non-exempt, employees and
employers must strictly account for hours worked. The strict accounting
necessitates, in many cases, employees not be allowed to partake in the
numerous flexible work options available to exempts, since hours worked
must be closely tracked and verified. In addition, their non-exempt
status limits their ability to use additional technology when and how
it best meets their business obligations.
Our recommended solution is to modernize the definition by
explicitly including the broader range of 21st century computer-related
duties, such as updating, maintaining and testing of existing
applications without modifying code (e.g., Tier 2 support and above,
database administrators, testers, etc.) that some professionals perform
today.
``De minimus'' Use of Technology: For non-exempt employees, all
time worked must be recorded and compensated. However, the modern
workplace gives rise to minor IT-related activities outside of the work
day (e.g., checking email/calendar/voicemail before or after leaving
for work, or using a PDA to check a schedule change). The ``de
minimis'' exception addressing these circumstances is not defined in
the law, leaving open to varying interpretations what activity is
considered compensable, as well as what activity triggers the start of
the work day. Unfortunately, there has been a lack of consistency in
current interpretation of these issues. This is a problem that results
in legal uncertainty and risk; it also interferes with our ability to
provide non-exempts work place and time flexibility, as well as limits
certain technology and/or access to technology to non-exempt employees,
outside of official work hours or outside of the official work place.
Our recommended solution is to update and clarify the rules, such
that insignificant IT-related activities are explicitly included in the
``de minimis'' exception and are not considered ``time worked.'' Also,
we would like to clarify that, in the event that insignificant IT-
related activities do constitute time worked, these activities do not
trigger the start of the work day. Thus, the subsequent normal commute
would remain non-compensable time.
Employer Safe Harbor From Unauthorized Overtime: Today, many
employees work from home, making it difficult for some employers to
monitor and validate the amount of time spent working (both for
employees and managers). The current standard that the employer is
liable if it knew or ``should have known'' an employee was working
overtime could mean the employer is liable for overtime even when
unauthorized, and the employer may not be allowed to recapture payments
for unauthorized overtime. Given these standards and liability
exposure, some employers cannot risk having employees work from home or
accessing employer-provided technology outside the workplace, given
managers' difficulty in validating the time. Plain and simple, this
limits flexibility in work time and work place for the employees.
Additionally, in many cases, employees' inability to possess or use
this technology outside of strict working hours or the work place is
not what they desire. Many get quite upset about this, in fact.
Our recommendation is that the statutory language be clarified such
that employees cannot unilaterally decide to work overtime. And, if
they do, the employer is not liable for overtime payments, except in
the case of willful wrongdoing by the manager.
Inside/Outside Sales & Lack of Equality Under the Law: The Fair
Labor Standards Act creates an artificial disparity between ``inside''
and ``outside'' sales employees. Specifically, sales employees who
travel out of the office to a customer's place of business are exempt,
while employees who conduct sales from a fixed office location are non-
exempt. In other words, the non-exempts must be paid on an hourly basis
and be subject to strict record keeping requirements, rigid time
schedules and more stringent monitoring of their work.
We and others across many industries believe these restrictions are
out of sync with today's customer service needs, as well our sales
employees' pursuit of and ability to enjoy greater workforce
flexibility to balance both their work/family needs and their ability
to increase their earnings. These restrictions create an artificial and
outdated distinction between sales reps, although both call on the same
territories, have the same accounts, have challenging sales quotas,
work in partnerships on teams together and are paid off the same sales
results. The legal limitations associated with non-exempt inside sales
also make it hard for us to attract and retain the best talent for this
critical element of how we approach the marketplace.
Our recommendation is to eliminate this artificial and outdated
distinction under the FLSA to account for 21st century communication
and sales methods. Inside sales employees (currently non-exempt) should
be treated the same as their outside sales counterparts (exempt) and
enjoy equal work/life flexibility options, career opportunities, and
tools to perform their job. Under these arrangements, the compensation
structure for sales roles will equitably support pay for performance
based on sales targets and achievement.
Conclusion
The world of work in the United States, and around the globe, is at
a crossroads. In the 21st century, how work gets done, and where it
gets done today are vastly different than a mere decade ago. New
technology and globalization have reshaped our economy and our way of
life. For American women to maintain the gains we have made, and to
ensure the flexibility that accommodates work/life balance, we need to
adjust ways of thinking about work, and make legislative changes to
keep labor law relevant.
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, I hope the IBM
experience I have discussed, and our suggestions for related FLSA
reforms, are helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Stephanie Bornstein.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE BORNSTEIN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, THE
CENTER FOR WORKLIFE LAW, U.C. HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW
Ms. Bornstein. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to
testify today.
My name is Stephanie Bornstein, and I am the Associate
Director of the Center for WorkLife Law at U.C. Hastings
College of the Law, which is a research and advocacy
organization directed by Professor Joan Williams that works to
identify and prevent employment discrimination based on family
caregiving responsibilities.
At WorkLife Law, we believe that a wide range of groups
have a role to play in reshaping the workplace to better fit
the people who work there, who are simultaneously trying to
both support and care for their families. So we have a unique
six stakeholder model. We work with employees and employers,
plaintiffs and management side attorneys, unions, and public
policy makers.
My testimony today is to highlight two related problems
caused by the workplace work force mismatch that the Shriver
Report so vividly described that pose underlying and often
unrecognized hurdles in efforts to remedy work-family conflict.
First is bias against mothers and other caregivers in the
workplace that can result in discrimination known as family
responsibilities discrimination or FRD. Pregnant women, mothers
and fathers of young children or employees with aging parents
or sick spouses or partners may be rejected for hire, passed
over for promotion, demoted, harassed or terminated despite
good performance because their employers make personnel
decisions based on stereotypes of assumptions.
FRD is typically caused by unexamined bias about how
employees with family caregiving responsibilities will or
should act. The most common form or FRD is what is known as the
maternal wall, which are stereotypes that mothers are less
reliable, less competent or less committed to the job, often
triggered when an employee's motherhood becomes salient, for
example, when she announces that she is pregnant, returns from
maternity leave or adopts a flexible work arrangement.
As documented in the Shriver Report, women now make up half
the U.S. workforce and 80 percent of American families with
children no longer fit the traditional male bread winner,
female homemaker model. Although both women and men shoulder
caregiving responsibilities, women still shoulder significant
more family work, and as Joan Blades mentioned, studies who
that bias against mothers at work is among the strongest and
most open form of gender discrimination today.
There was a Cornell University study that showed that when
mothers and non-mothers with similar qualifications were
compared, the mothers were 79 percent less likely to be
recommended for hire, 100 percent less likely to be recommended
for promotion, offered $11,000 less in starting salary for the
same job, and held to higher performance and punctuality
standards.
FRD also negatively impacts fathers who take an active role
in family caregiving. Studies document that fathers who took
even a short work absence due to family caregiving or family
needs were severely penalized at work for that. So, in short,
caregiver bias polices women into caregiving roles and then out
of them into bread winner roles.
Caregiver bias affects employees regardless of industry or
income. Sometimes it is misunderstood as a professional woman's
issue, but it is really not. Anyone who has a job and a family
can experience this, fire fighters, teachers, grocery clerks,
lawyers, and it is a growing problem. Lawsuits are on the rise,
and we run a hotline for workers and calls to our hotline have
dramatically increased in the last two years.
The second issue I want to highlight is the related issue
of stigma against those who work flexibly. Flexible work
arrangements have been around for a long time, but a key
stumbling block to their success is that employees often
encounter bias and marginalization when they try to work part
time or flexibly. Like caregiver discrimination, this what we
are calling flexibility stigma stems from outdated workplace
norms that are unrealistic given today's work force, and the
flexibility stigma mirrors and often overlaps with caregiver
bias because the common perception is that people who need to
work part time or flexibly are doing so for caregiving reasons.
So people who are on inflexible or part-time schedules can
encounter similar stereotypes from their supervisors and
employers whether consciously or not that they are less
reliable, less competent or less committed to the job or less
ambitious or suitable for promotion.
The most clear example of the flexibility stigma is the
extreme economic and career penalties that part-time workers
experience in the United States. American workers who work part
time earn 21 percent less per hour than those who work full
time, and this is a part-time penalty when compared to other
countries. It is over twice as high as workers in the United
Kingdom and seven times as high as workers in Sweden.
Another common example is when employers actively try to
get rid of workers who are working part time or flexibly either
by making working conditions so intolerable that they feel like
they have to leave or by actually terminating or ending those
types of policies.
As Ms. Ferris just demonstrated, there are many bottom line
business benefits of flexibility without stigma, and it is
wonderful that IBM has been such a leader in this area, and
flexibility is also key to helping workers meet both work
demands and caregiving demands successfully, but because of the
negative economic and career consequences for employees who use
workplace flexibility, employees engage in what social
scientists call bias avoidance, and they are not even taking
advantage of what might be offered to them. Employees may be
deterred from using even the best workplace flexibility
policies if they do so at their own peril.
To sum up, caregiver discrimination and the flexibility
stigma have significant costs for both employees and employers
alike. Employers suffer the causes not only of potential legal
liability for discrimination, but also the causes of unplanned
absenteeism, worker attrition, reduced talent pool, lower
productivity and higher health care costs.
Workers and employers both benefit when bias against
caregivers and stigma against working flexibly is prevented and
addressed effectively.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bornstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Bornstein, Associate Director,
the Center for WorkLife Law
Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and Members of
the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, thank you for inviting me to
testify today on the impact of women's growing workforce participation
and the workplace issues addressed in The Shriver Report: A Woman's
Nation Changes Everything. My name is Stephanie Bornstein, and I am an
employment attorney specializing in gender discrimination and the
Associate Director of the Center for WorkLife Law (``WorkLife Law'' or
``WLL'') at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.
WorkLife Law is a research and advocacy organization, directed by
Distinguished Professor of Law Joan C. Williams, that works to identify
and prevent employment discrimination against family caregivers
(``family responsibilities discrimination'' or ``FRD''), and to address
the stigma against working flexibly (the ``flexibility stigma''). My
testimony today will serve to highlight the related problems of FRD and
the flexibility stigma that stem from the mismatch of today's workplace
to today's workforce--a mismatch expertly documented in The Shriver
Report.
The central tenet of WorkLife Law is that a wide range of groups
have a role to play in reshaping workplaces to better fit the reality
and values of those who work there--Americans who must simultaneously
support, and care for, their families. WLL works to address work/family
issues with six key stakeholders, groups usually not found at the same
table: employees, employers, plaintiff-side employment lawyers,
management-side employment lawyers, unions, and public policymakers.
WLL also works with social scientists to spark interdisciplinary
studies of bias against caregivers.
WorkLife Law has engaged in more than a decade of research and work
with these stakeholders on issues of caregiver discrimination,
workplace flexibility, and work/family balance. WLL pioneered the
research of family responsibilities discrimination (``FRD''),\1\
maintains a database of over 2000 FRD cases, and tracks trends and
recent developments in FRD litigation. We provide resources and
training materials to employers and their attorneys to help prevent FRD
in the workplace; educate plaintiffs' attorneys about FRD case law;
provide resources to unions and maintain a database of union
arbitration decisions involving FRD; and provide technical assistance
to policymakers who seek to address FRD and the flexibility stigma. By
working with all stakeholders, we have developed nuanced and balanced
viewpoints and aim to create usable and effective strategies for
preventing and addressing FRD and flexibility stigma.
Discrimination against employees with family responsibilities
The reality of today's workforce is that the vast majority of U.S.
workers have family caregiving responsibilities they must juggle with
work. As documented in The Shriver Report, women now make up half of
the U.S. workforce (49.9%),\2\ and four-fifths (80%) of American
families with children at home no longer fit the traditional male
breadwinner/female homemaker model.\3\ Although both men and women
shoulder caregiving responsibilities, women still shoulder
significantly more family work. Most American women have children (81%
by age 44),\4\ and mothers still spend nearly twice as much time as
fathers doing core households tasks (such as cooking and cleaning) and
twice as much time as fathers caring for children as a primary
activity.\5\ Many American families also bear a heavy load of elder
care: one in four workers has elder care responsibilities.\6\
These realities affect not only working women and families
themselves, but also businesses that seek to hire and retain talented
employees while keeping costs in check. Too often, businesses fail to
recognize the extremely high costs they incur by not matching their
workplace to the workforce of today--costs that include turnover costs
(recruiting, hiring, training, lost productivity) and legal liability
for discrimination claims they may not have foreseen.
Family responsibilities discrimination (FRD), also known as
caregiver discrimination,\7\ is employment discrimination against
workers based on their family caregiving responsibilities. Pregnant
women, mothers and fathers of young children, or employees with aging
parents or sick spouses or partners may be rejected for hire, passed
over for promotion, demoted, harassed, or terminated--despite good
performance--because their employers make personnel decisions based on
stereotypes or assumptions. FRD is typically caused by unexamined bias
about how employees with family caregiving responsibilities will or
should act. For example, a supervisor may assume that a man who is
taking care of his elderly, ill father will be distracted, or that a
woman who just had a baby will be less interested in or committed to
work, and therefore not promote him or her, despite the fact that the
worker continues to maintain the same high level of performance.
FRD has a particularly significant impact on women. Bias against
mothers at work is among the strongest and most open form of gender
discrimination today. The most common form of FRD is ``maternal wall''
bias--stereotypes that mothers are less reliable, less competent, or
less committed to the job. Maternal wall bias is triggered when an
employee's motherhood becomes salient, for example when she announces
she is pregnant, returns from maternity leave, or adopts a flexible
work arrangement. A well-established social scientific literature on
the ``maternal wall'' has shown that mothers experience dramatic
workplace discrimination, with one Cornell University study showing
that mothers were recommended for hire 79% less than similarly
qualified non-mothers, recommended for promotion 100% less, held to
higher performance and punctuality standards, and offered $11,000 less
in salary for the same job.\8\ FRD also negatively impacts fathers who
take an active role in family caregiving. Men can also experience
gender bias when they take a more active role in caregiving than is
seen as appropriate for men. Fathers who seek to actively participate
in caring for their children are also strongly penalized: studies
document that fathers who took a parental leave or even a short work
absence due to family caregiving are recommended for fewer rewards,
viewed as less committed, and given lower performance ratings.\9\
FRD affects employees regardless of industry or income. FRD affects
men and women across the income spectrum and employers in every
industry. Those who have been affected by FRD include employees in low-
wage jobs such as grocery clerk,\10\ mid-level jobs such as medical
technician,\11\ blue-collar jobs such as prison guard,\12\ pink-collar
jobs such as receptionist,\13\ and women in both traditionally female
professions sucteaching\14\ and professional/managerial jobs
traditionally held by men, such as attorney\15\ and executive.\16\
FRD is a growing problem, affecting so many workers and employers
because of the changing demographics of today's working families. FRD
lawsuits are on the rise, and can result in significant liability for
employers. To date WorkLife Law's database of FRD cases includes over
2000 cases alleging FRD, with the largest individual recovery at $11.65
million\17\ and the largest class recovery at $49 million.\18\ A 2006
WorkLife Law report analyzing cases then in our database showed a 400%
increase in the number of FRD lawsuits filed between 1996 and 2005 as
compared to the prior decade, 1986 to 1995.\19\ WorkLife Law also runs
a hotline for workers who believe they have experienced FRD; in 2008,
we received approximately 125 inquiries, double our previous annual
average, and in the first six months of 2009, we received approximately
92 inquiries, putting us on track to exceed 175 inquiries in 2009.
Stigma against those who work flexibly
Flexible work arrangements (FWA) were introduced in the early 1970s
and have been very gradually gaining traction since then. A key
stumbling block to the success of employers' flexible work arrangements
is that employees often encounter bias and marginalization when they
try to work part-time or flexibly. Like caregiver discrimination, this
``flexibility stigma'' stems from outdated workplace norms that are
unrealistic in today's workplaces--workplaces that are still designed
around an ``ideal worker'' who works full-time, full force, for 40
years straight while someone else takes care of domestic
responsibilities.\20\
The flexibility stigma mirrors and often overlaps with bias against
workers with family caregiving responsibilities. Because the common
perception is that most employees who seek to work flexibly do so for
family caregiving reasons, employees who work flexibly can trigger in
supervisors and employers (whether consciously or not) stereotypes like
those encountered by working mothers--i.e., that they are less
reliable, less competent, or less committed to the job.
Employees who work part-time or on flexible hours often encounter
unspoken and often unrecognized assumptions on the part of supervisors
and co-workers about their commitment, dependability, worth, ambition,
competence, availability, and suitability for promotion. These
assumptions affect how supervisors perceive flexible workers and their
performance, which in turn affects the assignments they receive, and
how their work is evaluated and rewarded. As a result, assumptions can
add up to create a significant stigma against working flexibly that
sets up a lesser ``flex track,'' much like maternal wall or caregiver
bias sets up a ``mommy track'' in the workplace.
Perhaps the most obvious example of the flexibility stigma is the
extreme economic and career penalties that part-time workers experience
in the United States. American workers who work part-time earn 21% less
per hour than those who work full-time--a part-time penalty over twice
as high as in the United Kingdom and seven times higher than in
Sweden.\21\ Another common example of flexibility stigma is when a
supervisor actively tries to get rid of a worker on part-time or
flexible schedule, either by creating situations that justify
termination or by making work so unpleasant that the employee quits.
Though research shows the bottom-line business benefits of
flexibility without stigma, it also documents negative consequences for
employees who use workplace flexibility policies.\22\ Because of these
negative consequences, employees often engage in what social scientists
refer to as ``bias avoidance,'' choosing to forgo altogether
flexibility to which they may be entitled. The stigma that attaches to
working part-time or flexibly can deter employees from taking advantage
of even the most generous flexible work arrangements--flexibility that
they, and their families, sorely need.
In conclusion, The Shriver Report highlights vividly that today's
workplaces and workplace policies are outdated, ill-fitted to the
realities of the people who work there. Two significant problems
created by this lack of fit are (1) employment discrimination against
mothers and other workers with family caregiving responsibilities, and
(2) the stigma against working flexibly that deters employees from
taking advantage of part-time or flexible work arrangements.
Family responsibilities discrimination and the flexibility stigma
have significant costs for employees and employers alike. While
employees struggle to overcome stereotypes and be both good workers and
good family members, employers suffer the costs not only of potential
legal liability for discrimination, but also of unplanned absenteeism,
worker attrition, reduced talent pool, lower productivity, and higher
health costs.\23\ Workers and employers both benefit when bias against
caregivers and stigma against working flexibly is prevented and
addressed effectively.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today.
endnotes
\1\ See, e.g., Joan C. Williams & Cynthia Thomas Calvert, WorkLife
Law's Guide to Family Responsibilities Discrimination (Center for
WorkLife Law, 2006 & updates); Joan C. Williams & Stephanie Bornstein,
The Evolution of ``FReD'': Family Responsibilities Discrimination and
Developments in the Law of Stereotyping and Implicit Bias, 59(6)
Hastings Law Journal 1311 (2008).
\2\ Heather Boushey, The New Breadwinners, in The Shriver Report: A
Woman's Nation Changes Everything 2 (Maria Shriver & The Center for
American Progress, 2009), available at http://www.awomansnation.com/
economy.php.
\3\ Heather Boushey & Ann O'Leary, Executive Summary, in The
Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything 1 (Maria Shriver &
The Center for American Progress, 2009), available at http://
www.awomansnation.com/execSum.php.
\4\ Jane Lawler Dye, Fertility of American Women: June 2004,
Population Characteristics 2 (U.S. Census Bureau, Dec. 2005), available
at http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-555.pdf (stating that 19.3%
of women aged 40 to 44 had no children).
\5\ Joan C. Williams, Jessica Manvell & Stephanie Bornstein, ``Opt
Out'' or Pushed Out?: How the Press Covers Work/Family Conflict 20, 20-
22 (Center for WorkLife Law, 2006), available at http://
www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/OptOutPushedOut.pdf (citing Suzanne M. Bianchi
& Sara B. Raley, Time Allocation in Families, in Work, Family, Health,
and Well-Being 31-33 (Suzanne M. Bianchi, Lynne M. Casper & Rosalind B.
King eds., 2005)).
\6\ Jody Levin-Epstein, Getting Punched: The Job and Family Clock,
Center for Law and Social Policy 3 (July 2006), available at http://
www.clasp.org/publications/getting--punched--fullnotes.pdf.
\7\ See Enforcement Guidance: Unlawful Disparate Treatment of
Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (2007), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/
caregiving.pdf.
\8\ Shelley J. Correll, Stephen Benard & In Paik, Getting a Job: Is
There a Motherhood Penalty?, 112 Am. J. Sociol. 1297, 1316 (2007).
\9\ See Tammy D. Allen & Joyce E. Russell, Parental Leave of
Absence: Some Not So Family-Friendly Implications, 29 J. Appl'd Soc.
Psychol. 166, 166 (1999); Julie H. Wayne & Bryanne L. Cordeiro, Who Is
a Good Organizational Citizen?: Social Perception of Male and Female
Employees Who Use Family Leave, 49 Sex Roles 233, 233--34 (2003); Adam
B. Butler & Amie Skattebo, What Is Acceptable for Women May Not Be For
Men: The Effect of Family Conflicts with Work on Job Performance
Ratings, 77 J. Occup. & Org. Psychol. 553, 553--59 (2004).
\10\ Carter v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 470 Supp. 1150 (N.D. Tex.
1979)(manager refused to hire women for managerial positions because of
their child care responsibilities).
\11\ Flores-Suarez v. Turabo Medical Center Partnership, 15 F.
Supp. 2d 79 (D.P.R. 2001)(employee fired while on bed rest; reinstated,
but isolated and had more demanded of her than co-workers).
\12\ Gorski v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 290 F.3d 466
(1st Cir. 2002)(supervisor said ``no one is going to want you because
you are pregnant'' and ``[w]hy did you get pregnant, with everything
going on, why do you want another child?'').
\13\ Van Diest v. Deloitte & Touche, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22106
(N.D. Ohio 2005) (employee laid off following leave to care for sick
mother); Hill v. Dale Electronics Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25522
(S.D.N.Y. 2004) (after employee announced her pregnancy, complaints
were trumped up and she was fired).
\14\ McGrenaghan v. St. Denis School, 979 F. Supp. 323 (E.D. Pa.
1997)(teacher involuntarily transferred from full-day teaching position
to half-day teaching, half-day resource aid position following the
birth of her disabled son).
\15\ Sigmon v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 901 F. Supp. 667
(S.D.N.Y. 1995)(when law firm associate became pregnant, department
chairman allegedly said ``With all these pregnant women around, I guess
we should stop hiring women''; when she returned from maternity leave,
the firm allegedly would not give her work, criticized her attitude,
and terminated her); Halbrook v. Reichold Chemicals, Inc., 735 F. Supp.
121 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)(in-house counsel forced to strike a ``bargain'',
where she would stop raising women's issues in return for which
management would stop harassing her about her maternity leave), later
proceeding, 766 F. Supp. 1290 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Trezza v. The Hartford,
1998 WL 912101 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 1998)(lawyer with excellent
performance evaluations not promoted after she had children).
\16\ Strate v. Midwest Bankcentre, Inc., 398 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir.
2004)(executive vice-president's position eliminated while she was on
maternity leave and she was told not to apply for a new position);
Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46 (1st Cir.
2000) (the only top executive who was female was fired, based on
stereotyping).
\17\ Dee McAree, Family Leave Suit Draws Record $11.65M Award:
Chicago Verdict May Be Sign of Emerging Trend, National Law Journal,
Nov. 11, 2002, at A4, available at http://www.law.com/jsp/
article.jsp?id=1036630387895.
\18\ Verizon Paying $49 Million in Settlement of Sex Bias Case,
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 6, 2006, available at http://
seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/272846--verizonbias06.html.
\19\ Mary C. Still, Litigating the Maternal Wall: U.S. Lawsuits
Charging Discrimination against Workers with Family Responsibilities
(Center for WorkLife Law, 2006), available at http://
www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/FRDreport.pdf. WLL is in the process of
updating this data. Preliminary results indicate a sharp increase in
the number of FRD cases in 2007 (316 cases) and 2008 (348 cases) as
compared to 2006 (176 cases). Plaintiffs prevail on motions, resulting
in settlements, or win verdicts in approximately 50% of the cases.
Settlements and verdicts average $100,000, and WorkLife Law has a
database of over 125 verdicts that exceed $100,000; several are multi-
million dollar verdicts.
\20\ See Joan Williams, Unbending Gender 1-3 (2000)
(conceptualizing the ``ideal worker'' norm).
\21\ Joan C. Williams, Jessica Manvell & Stephanie Bornstein, ``Opt
Out'' or Pushed Out?: How the Press Covers Work/Family Conflict 31
(Center for WorkLife Law, 2006), available at http://
www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/OptOutPushedOut.pdf (citing Janet C. Gornick &
Marcia K. Meyers, Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling
Parenthood and Employment, 63 Figure 3.4 (2003)).
\22\ For examples, see Lotte Bailyn, Breaking the Mold: Redesigning
Work for Productive and Satisfying Lives, 2nd Ed. (200); Jennifer
Glass, Blessing or Curse?: Work-Family Policies and Mothers' Wage
Growth Over Time, 31 Work and Occupations 367 (2004); Cynthia A.
Thompson et al., When Work-Family Benefits Are Not Enough: The
Influence of Work-Family Culture on Benefit Utilization, Organizational
Attachment, and Work-Family Conflict, 54 J. of Vocational Behavior 392
(1999); Leslie Perlow, Finding Time: How Corporations, Individuals, and
Families Can Benefit from New Work Practices (1997).
\23\ See, e.g., WFC Resources, Making the business case for
flexibility, available at http://www.workfamily.com/Work-
lifeClearinghouse/UpDates/ud0043.htm (collecting studies).
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. So we are going to do this a little bit
differently than we would normally. I would like to offer the
witnesses as we are asking questions and talking about certain
issues for the next 45 minutes feel free to weigh in and have a
conversation with each other. I think this will be very good.
And, audience, I am sorry. This is a federal hearing
procedure. Is that what you call it? It is a hearing, and there
is no room for audience participation, except that you are
here, and I love it that you are here.
I want to tell a story for Claudia. It is heartbreaking for
me that you are going through exactly what I virtually went
through 45 years ago. My kids' father left us. They were one,
three and five years old. I went back into the workforce. Now,
remember this was 45 years ago. That is a long time. That is
when they could ask you if you had children and if you have
childcare and were you using birth control. I mean, they could
do that. [Laughter.]
And so I went to an agency, an employment agency, to get
started with my job search. First of all, I was an executive
secretary before then at a television station. It had been ten
years since I had been at work because I had my children. I
flunked all of the tests, the typing test, the shorthand test,
and passed the intelligence test way above most people. So they
wanted still to talk to me.
And this woman that was interviewing me said, ``What is the
matter?''
And I said, ``I don't want to go to work.'' I had never
intended to leave my children and be in the workforce. This was
1968. I mean, I graduated high school with Good Housekeeping
magazine being my Bible. [Laughter.]
You know, I had college experience. I had work experience.
I was a mother. I was going to be a perfect wife and a perfect
mother.
So this woman said, ``Well, okay. You know, we are going to
send you on a practice interview because you have got to get
going here, you know. You are going to tell the interviewer
that you have always intended to go to work when your youngest
child was one years old.'' [Laughter.]
``That you have a perfect marriage.'' I mean, I told her
their dad had left. He was mentally ill. I mean, I say that
lightly, but that was not light then.
``And you are going to tell them that you have got
childcare across the street from your house.'' Total, one, two,
three, lies. ``That is the only way you're going to get
employed.'' So she said, ``I have got a place to send you right
now, today.''
And I went, took their test, did great, told my three lies,
and got hired, the first job I interviewed for. That was Don
Green how is the Green Music Center, Telecom Valley father,
Telecom Valley of Sonoma County. I mean, you know, timing is
everything. Luck is everything. I was so lucky. But I went to
work as his secretary.
Well, somewhere along the way, a few months, I told him the
truth because I could not stand it. ``I told you three lies.''
He was, ``I know.'' I mean, he could have fired me right
then and there, but those lies I told are the same lies that
have to be told today.
Ms. Blades. Yes.
Chairwoman Woolsey. That is the point of my story. What is
the matter with the United States of America that we so
undervalue children that we make their parents lie to have a
job? [Applause.]
So let's talk about, if you would, from your perspective
the most important areas that we in the federal government need
to change in order to make our kids know that we care enough
about them that if their parents have to go to work, which
parents do, that we are going to take care of these children.
Because, you see, they are going to be teenagers. I mean, they
are going to feel unsafe as little kids if we do not start
caring about them. They are going to become teenagers. They are
going to be really angry, and they will have every right to be.
So what do we need to do? Where can we start?
Joan.
Ms. Blades. I am going to follow up on what you were just
talking about. Actually when MomsRising was just getting off
the ground, I came to Washington, D.C., and was in a house
meeting talking about Kiki's story, and there were people there
saying, ``Well, they can't ask her that.''
And at that very same time, perversely enough because we
were trying to get some protections so that could not be asked
in Pennsylvania at that time. One of the MomsRising members was
on the radio talking about maternal profiling, which is the
discrimination against mothers in hiring wages and advancement,
and she was getting call-ins from small businesses saying, ``I
do not want to hire single moms. I have to be able to ask that
question.''
So though there is a perception in kind of a legislative
community that this is handled, the reality out in the sticks
is that there are companies that have best practices, but most
companies or most people do not think there is any kind of rule
against that. And my understanding, in fact, is that in terms
of family responsibility you cannot if someone is married in
about half of those states, but in terms of family
responsibility, I think it is Alaska, and Stephanie, back me
up, Alaska and Washington, D.C.
Ms. Bornstein. D.C.
Ms. Blades. That is it. So, ``do you have children?,'' gets
asked all around this country every day, and we know what the
outcomes are from your experience and the data. So that is
something that is not even visible at the legislative level,
and we have been trying to move this in Pennsylvania and are
failing. I do not know. I am stumped. We are working on it.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Maria.
Ms. Ferris. I guess the question is what can we do, and I
think, you know, clearly the idea in the story demonstrates
that companies can do a lot, and we have offered a lot for
women, as well as men, from a flexibility standpoint, but we
want to do more. We want to really make sure that flexibility
is something that is available to all of our employees.
So to the extent that we can update current labor law to be
more reflective of the way we work today I think would go a
long way to helping us achieve that goal.
Chairwoman Woolsey. So I think, if you will yield back to
me, I think you know, I know you know that the barrier there is
that there is flexibility law that is not in place, but there
are proposals that give 99 percent of the choice to the
employer and not to the employee. When we can find the place
where it works for both employer and employee, we'll get there
because it's very necessary.
But to change overtime laws so that only the employer gets
to set who benefits and what the hours are and when a person
can and cannot take advantage of this new law, it is just not
going to work because we will be taking steps backward.
We really need you to help us because I know IBM is going
to want to do it in the best interests of both. So let's work
on that together. Okay?
Ms. O'Leary. Chairwoman Woolsey, I think that this is a
great point, which is how do we incentivize businesses to do
what IBM is doing, but how do we also incentivize the small
businesses who have real concerns and constraints when you have
three people working for you and you are trying to figure out
how to make this work.
And I think one of the things that we have been talking
about is looking to the model that has happened in the U.K. and
Australia and New Zealand. They have something called right to
request flexibility. Now, this does not require employers to
grant flexibility, but what it does is it requires the
employers to have a conversation with their employees and not
to retaliate against them, not to demote them or fire them if
they have that conversation.
I think we should expand it in our country to talk about
right to request flexibility and predictability for our low
wage workers, but certainly I think that it is an important
point that you were making, Chairwoman Woolsey, which is let's
do it in a way that is good for the employer and the employee
and does not impact the economic security of workers who
necessarily rely on the importance of their overtime pay. So
really trying to figure out a way to have this conversation, I
think is such an important piece.
If I can just point out one other thing, one of the things
that we found in the polling that we did with the Shriver
Report is that men want to see these changes, too, just as much
as women, but what I want to point out in this room today--we
have a couple of men.
Chairwoman Woolsey. We do.
Ms. O'Leary. But I think one of the things that is really
interesting is that Michael Kimmel, who is a sociologist who
wrote the chapter about men's responses, found that men are
accepting of this. They want these changes, but they do not
have the same political activism around these issues that women
do, and certainly a number of your male colleagues, Congressman
Stark, Senator Dodd, are engaged in these conversations. We
need even more at this table in this room who are really
working with us on these issues.
So businesses, men, all of us together in government work.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
Ms. Bornstein. I would like to add just a thought on the
FLSA issue. I think it is really important that IBM, who is a
best practice employer, is raising these issues, and that, of
course, makes us want to think through if a best practice
employer is having concerns, obviously that's something that
folks who want to advance this need to address.
One concern about the issue of the FLSA that we would point
out is that hours, overwork, is an extreme problem in the U.S.
that contributes to work-family conflict, and data shows that
workers are working longer hours than ever before, which
exacerbates work-family conflict, and that exempt professionals
have been hit the hardest by this trend.
So you know, actually there are statistics that 30 percent
of men who are in professional, exempt jobs, their full time is
50 hours or more a week. That is a third. So I think we have to
be really mindful.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Exempt means they are not paid
overtime.
Ms. Bornstein. Right.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Supposedly professional level.
Ms. Bornstein. So I just think this underscores the data
out there, and what is happening with hours underscores the
need to be really cautious when we are looking at the FLSA in
terms of not exacerbating the hours that are being worked.
Just to comment on something that Joan Blades said about
family responsibilities discrimination. Chairwoman, you asked
what can be done, and I just want to point out that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidance in 2007 and
some more guidance in 2009 about caregiving discrimination, and
how to sort of explain how it is illegal under existing law to
some degree, and I think there is a lot of confusion.
Joan's testimony points out that it actually is illegal if
you are asking women but not men family questions because that
is gender discrimination, but it is often not recognized that
way.
So I think one of the things that our organization is
interested in is more education and training around that
caregiver guidance, especially for employers who, you know,
oftentimes some of this is completely unintentioned and just
based on deep rooted stereotypes that people do not even know
they have.
And so I think a lot more education and training around the
caregiving guidance would be very helpful.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Claudia.
Ms. Zamorano. As a self-employee, it is really hard for
nannies like me that really have to struggle in finding a job.
We have to show good, excellent, excellent references for them
to see that we can provide good care for the children, in
taking classes, bringing diplomas, and that is a good thing.
But many of us or many of the women out there do not get
the help that I am getting right now. We are struggling out
there. They do not see us seriously. They do not take us
seriously. It is a very tough job. I really think that
something needs to be done as how to come out of that struggle,
how to help ourselves not only to take care of those families,
but also to take care of our children because our children are
living alone.
I see kids out there on the streets at very late hours at
night. Where are their parents? They are working. They have no
childcare for them. Nobody can provide for them. So how do we
do this?
We really need the help.
Chairwoman Woolsey. And I agree with you totally. The
Balancing Act addresses this by knowing that we need before
school care, after school care that would be welcoming and fun
and important to these latch-key kids because they have a place
to go, a place that they feel comfortable, wanted, loved,
supported, and that all comes from a society that says, ``Okay.
Your folks have to work. Your mom has to be a nanny and take
care of other people's kids. You know, you can't be on the
street, but we want you to be safe with us.'' And that is what
is missing. We do not care about those kids enough.
Ms. Zamorano. And I also went through what you went through
years ago. A year ago I was hired by this family, and the first
thing that came to my mind is like I cannot bring my problems
to work. So I started working there and one time she made a
comment of, ``A friend of mine has problems and they are
getting divorced. So I think she should stay there until her
kids are 18 and just be there,'' and I am like okay.
[Laughter.]
I am like she put a lock in my mouth. I could not tell her
anything. So it is hard. It is really hard, and it is just a
survival thing that you just keep quiet, just keep quite,
cannot do anything.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Well, here is a question I have for all
of us. Claudia has actually put her career on hold, and she is
taking care of other people's children so that they can have
careers. This is described in the Shriver Report actually, and
it is becoming a new reality for immigrant workers.
How are we going to do something? We cannot let this be the
status in the United States of America. Would anybody like to
respond to that?
Ms. O'Leary. I would be happy to respond, and I really
recommend the chapter in this report called ``Invisible
Women.'' It is written by Maria Echaveste, who works on these
issues and is a strong voice, and I think one of the things
that she says is that the very thing that Claudia is going
through, which is this invisibility and misunderstanding about
the issues that are happening, but more than that, it is also
often very unfair and often unlawful treatment of workers. You
are lucky if you get a good employer in this situation, but the
unlucky among us are forced to work uncompensated overtime, not
to have sick days, and not to have the same type of flexibility
that professional women often get by having nannies in their
homes.
So I think one of the things that is so critical, and I
know you do this in your Better Balancing Act, is to be
comprehensive for all women and to make sure that we are really
looking at the solutions.
You know, the other problem that women face not so much in
the home, but retail workers who are working at 24-7 economies
so that when professionals get off work they can go to work. So
there are so many different issues of how do you make sure
there is child care at 11 o'clock at night when somebody is at
work.
So I know you know these issues all too well, Chairwoman,
but I think there is lots we can do together.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Actually, after I told my lies and got
employed, remember this is 45 years ago. I mean, you know, you
would think it would be so much better now. I wanted the
childcare professional to come to my house because at one,
three and five year old children, you know, and I wanted them
to bring their little kid to my house and, you know, all be a
happy family.
It really did not work out. We had 13 different childcare
providers in one year, 13, and you know, that was hard on me,
big deal. It was so hard on my children, and my oldest child
was five years old. He was in kindergarten, and I would tell
the person that brought her child to my home, you know, go over
everything, and if you have any questions ask Joe. [Laugher.]
Joe was five years old. He did know the answers, but
imagine the burden I put on that child. I mean, I am guilty
about that. I could cry about it, obviously.
So what are we doing? I mean, part of the Balancing Act is
to provide more and high quality childcare, paying childcare
workers. [Applause.]
Paying childcare workers, I mean, valuing them in their pay
and benefits. How close are we, you know, getting there from
your report?
Ms. Bornstein. I would just add just another thought of how
to do this is that, you know, part of the problem with the way
our workplace structures are is they are very all or nothing,
especially in the professional context. So I think policies
that allow people to work reduced or flexible or alternative
schedules would sort of also reduce the need to be constantly
outsourcing your child's care. I mean, if people were able to
work more reduced hour schedules without penalties, they might
actually opt to do that more, which would reduce the overall
childcare burden.
Ann mentioned the Right to Request bill, but there is also
part of your Balancing Act that focuses on part-time equity,
and I think that is sort of making policies apply equitably to
part-time workers or reduced hours workers and also the part
that encourages businesses to engage in telework.
And so I think part of the problem with why childcare is
continually being sort of outsourced and downsourced and
becoming a burden on lower income workers is that people are
working longer hours than they would ultimately like to because
our workplaces just are not designed to think about how we
actually live our lives these days.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Right, and we also have the economy
that has crashed in on everybody, and people that have jobs are
desperate to keep them, and what I am finding, and this is
working mothers particularly in this, that, say, the middle
management person, they are doing their boss' job, that the
boss got displaced, and they are doing their assistant's job
and their job.
Those are long hours. That is a lot of stress.
Yes.
Ms. Ferris. I would just like to comment on the childcare,
and as I had testified, IBM has really invested substantially,
over $200 million in dependent care initiatives for our
employees, and it has not only been childcare centers, although
we have 139 childcare centers in the United States that we
purchase priority slots for our employees. We also know that
not all employees want to go to a childcare center. Some people
want to have in-home care, and we invest in helping the quality
of that care by providing training for providers, grants for
after school programs so that our employees do have qualified
places for their children to go.
And we have done it in the communities where employees
live. So it is not a company headquarters or at our buildings
necessarily. It is really in the community, which has been so
helpful because now that we have such flexibility, not everyone
goes to an office, as you know, but they might want to use
something closer within their community.
And this is a place where businesses can help out, too. The
American Business Collaboration was created in the '90s, and it
brought together companies who pooled their resources to invest
in childcare initiatives, and the model of it was that together
we could do what none of us could do alone, and so invested in
many, many programs for employees.
Chairwoman Woolsey. So let's talk about the benefit to the
employer. Because I do not have any other members up here I
keep talking about me, but I am going to. [Laughter.]
Because it made such a difference in me knowing why I
needed to be part of the House of Representatives. I mean, you
know, lucky me. I survived well, but there are so many women
that need so much help, and families.
When I was having those 13 childcare providers, and we went
from that and then there was some time in between with better
care; then I remarried and had four kids then because my
husband had a child. We had four, six, seven and eight. They
all became teenagers at once, by the way. [Laughter.]
That is why I became a very humble member of Congress. I
raised those teenagers.
We brought my mother from Washington State to Petaluma, and
she came to our house after school. It was that very same month
that I was promoted to be an executive at the company I was
working for because half my brain was always home. There would
be kids at home. They were in different situations, but they
did not want to be there. They wanted to be home.
As soon as my mother was there and I knew they were safe
and taken care of, I just boss them. So what does that mean to
employers when their workers feel safe about their children?
Ms. Ferris. Well, you are absolutely right. One of the
reasons that we do this is so that our employees can be as
productive as they can be while they are working. To the extent
that we have someone who is worried about their child or
worried about a parent who is ill, they are not focused on the
job, and that is what we need them to be.
And to the other point, you know, we want to make sure that
women come to work at IBM. They are such a critical part of the
talent pool, but we want them to stay at IBM, and we want them
to grow with IBM. And so we have increased the number of women
executives substantially. Sixty-five percent of our women
executives are working mothers today.
Ms. O'Leary. I will just add to that. You know, let's just
all give a round of applause to IBM for what they are doing.
[Applause.]
You know, I think it is exciting to hear these best
examples because not only is it exciting for the employees, but
you see it is really good for the bottom line. In the Shriver
Report we cite a number of reports that show that when you get
women involved and you let them rise to the top, that, in fact,
their profits increase.
We have a study from Pepperdine University that says that
the 25 best corporations for women in the Fortune 500 list, 34
percent have higher profits.
We looked at a 2000 study from Catalyst that found that
Fortune 500 companies with more female board members were more
profitable than those with fewer. So we really do see the
difference.
The other thing that I think is exciting in terms of small
business community is one of the things that is happening is
that in small businesses women who do end up leaving
corporations are starting small businesses. We are seeing some
increased flexibility in small businesses as a result of
women's leadership.
So these do happen, and they are profitable, and I think
that is the point that often gets lost in this.
Ms. Bornstein. Yes, just if I could add to that, you know,
IBM is clearly an example of an employer that gets it and gets
the benefit, the financial benefits of making a more family
friendly workplace. I think that one of the problems is a lack
of understanding of the business case. Too many employers sort
of see the dollars and cents when it comes to implementing
these policies, but they don't think about what they just label
as the cost of doing business that actually that investment
could reduce, like turnover, attrition, lost productivity, you
know, training, recruitment. Those are sort of, oh, those are
just the cost of doing business. I am just running my business.
But if you propose implementing some sort of policy about
flexibility or childcare, that is when they see the dollars and
cents, and so I think really tying those two things together is
something that would be more useful and hopefully we could, you
know, make a little more clarity for other businesses.
You know, those costs of business can go away if you make a
little bit of an investment.
Chairwoman Woolsey. And won't it take businesses talking to
other businesses, employer to employer, in order to get that
message across?
Ms. O'Leary. That is exactly right. I mean, we need people
like IBM, and you already do this, and really, you know,
shining the spotlight, but then really influencing the
corporate community, and I think that makes a tremendous
difference.
We were really lucky as part of the Shriver Report to have
Valerie Jarrett, one of the President's--I love the babble of
children, so no worries--Valerie Jarrett is one of the
President's top advisors who heads up the Council on Women and
Girls and has talked about the fact that the administration
wants to do more to highlight these businesses not just for the
sake of the applause for those who are doing a good job, but
for the sake of saying to other businesses, ``This can work not
just for your employees, but for you and for your profit
line.''
So I hope that they will do that, and that Congress will
work with them to help that happen.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Well, I have written that legislation.
Ms. O'Leary. Oh, good. Thank you.
Ms. Blades. And I am just going to chime in here because it
is businesses talking to businesses, and it is also, you know,
having the culture change so that it comes from every direction
because we need the government to be supporting it with the
kind of policies they present, the businesses seeing the win-
wins because when you look at these businesses that do well by
their employees, they actually have a better bottom line, as in
these businesses that have women in them.
And you know, part of the MomsRising is kind of the
grassroots level of that, which is small businesses and
individuals in this, you know, kind of mutually respectful and
raising all boats approach to it.
So this is kind of an exciting area because I think you can
find a lot of agreement if you get down to what we really are
trying to accomplish.
Ms. O'Leary. And can I just add one more thing in terms of
practically what the federal government can do? I recently
wrote a report this summer about federal contracting. I think a
lot of people do not know that billions of dollars that get
invested by the federal government in contracting. It affects
about 25 percent of our workforce.
So one of the things I have been saying is that the federal
government should not just lead as an employer, but also lead
as a responsible contractor and reward those like IBM, like
others. Deloitte Touche is another example who are just doing a
very good job. Let's make sure that they do not get points off
in their bidding process because it costs them a little bit
more on the front end to do this. Let's give them points for,
you know, having paid sick days, having paid family leave.
So I think that is a real role that everybody can play.
Chairwoman Woolsey. That is a very, very good idea.
Claudia, if we solved your immediate problem with adequate,
reliable childcare, if your kids could go after school to a
safe boys or girls club or on school site or something, what
other problems and what other needs do you have that your
employer needs to change, not this particular employer, but any
employer, would need in order to make it really possible for
you?
Ms. Zamorano. Well, paid sick days. That is what women
need. Flexible schedules for women that are single like me or
men, because there are also men suffering.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Yes.
Ms. Zamorano. So it is a matter of understanding the
necessities of a worker so that we can give the best of us and
have a varied workplace, and do not bring our problems home or
our problems to work.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Absolutely.
Ms. Zamorano. Health care; that is another.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Now, large employers have employee
assistance programs. You know, your family that you work for
cannot be your employee assistance person.
Ms. Zamorano. I have been very lucky with this family.
Ms. O'Leary. And one of the things in your bill obviously
is is this your childcare resource and referral so that if you
do have a breakdown if you are going to care for someone else's
children, there is somebody in the community who you can call.
I mean, there are certainly community models of this. In Moran
we have it in the East Bay where you can say, ``Listen. I have
to go take care of this child and I need some help,'' or your
employer is also flexible so that you could bring your children
with you, and these are the types of things that would be a big
help.
Ms. Zamorano. It really worries. The way the economy is
going right now, I mean, what good does it do for me to stay
home really and just live out of the government? I do not think
so. That is not me, and I know many women that do not like
that. So I want to go to work. I need a job, you know, and I
need to give my kids the best that I can. I do not want them to
be losers. I cannot allow that to happen.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Obviously, with your 15 out of what,
how many children?
Ms. Zamorano. Six hundred.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Yes. What you are doing is working.
Ms. Zamorano. Thank you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. But it is hard work.
Ms. Zamorano. It is very hard, yes.
Chairwoman Woolsey. So that is what this is all about. It
is really not about Claudia. It was never about me when I was
at work. It is about these children and our future. They are
our future, and if we go ahead business as usual and pretend
like, okay, they are little; let's ignore them, and then by the
time they get in the workforce, we are furious at them because
they are not prepared and ready.
And it is not just struggling kids or poor kids. I watch my
grandchildren. We have three families with children, two
professional people in each family. They work so hard to do
right by their children, the dads as well. I mean, they really
work hard, but they have more privileges because they have got
higher paid jobs, but the time is what. No matter what you are
earning, you do not have more.
These kids have to know that we as a society care about
them enough to invest in them, not wait until they are ready to
go in the workforce. [Applause.]
Those are my closing remarks. I would like each of you if
you would like to say some closing remarks, and then we will
close off the procedure.
Ms. O'Leary. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey, again,
for hosting this. I just want to follow up on what you just
said about time.
I have a dear cousin of mine who is older than me, and she
was dying very sadly of M.S., and she said to me in kind of her
parting words, and I had just had a small child. I have a small
daughter who is now two and a half, and my daughter was a baby,
and she said, ``My biggest advice to you is the thing that you
can give your child is the gift of time.''
Her husband was a writer, and he took time off to care for
her. She had a beautiful daughter who is now in her 20s, and I
think that is right. We need to give people the gift of time.
In order to do that, we need to have these policies in place so
that, you know, one of the things I think is frustrating to me
about this report sometimes is that the media tends to focus
on, well, what is happening in the family in terms of personal
negotiations and struggles.
This is not just about everyone's own personal private
struggle. This is about how we support each other as a society.
You have got that, and we need to make sure that everybody gets
that.
So thank you so much for this opportunity.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you, Ann.
Claudia.
Ms. Zamorano. Thank you so much for letting me share my
story with you all. I really appreciate it and have my children
and my family. My parents who have said, ``We could not have a
better daughter than you,'' and I love my family so much. If I
was without them, I do not know what I would do.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you. Well, you need support
beyond your parents. They are wonderful, but let's see if we
can get you some and change society that way.
Joan.
Ms. Blades. Well, thank you for being support in
Washington, D.C. to get these policies across because, I mean,
it is really the long-term thinking that is something we have
to start doing, and fundamentally, this is about long-term
thinking and making it possible for parents to take care of
their kids.
And it is actually really good for everybody when we do it
right. So we will do our best to support you on our end.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Maria.
Ms. Ferris. Thank you.
It was certainly an honor for me to travel from North
Carolina to be here today, a beautiful, beautiful state.
Chairwoman Woolsey. No, it is a beautiful district.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Ferris. Let me clarify. Sorry.
One thing, you know, that occurs to me as I listen to the
discussion. All of us no matter who you are have a personal
life, and that could be men, women, no matter who you are, and
we need to make sure that all of us get the opportunity to
balance and to manage our work life and our personal life.
And one of the things that we found at IBM through the
work-life surveys that we have been doing since 1986 is the
biggest help in helping employees manage that personal and work
life is flexibility, and as we see flexibility increase over
the past 20-some years, we can see difficulty managing work and
personal life actually decrease.
So to the extent that we can expand flexibility and provide
it for as many people as we can, I think that will be a home
run for us.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Stephanie.
Ms. Bornstein. Thank you also for inviting me to testify.
It has really been an honor and very interesting to be sitting
here and listening to everyone's comments.
I am going to put an open parentheses that Ann started with
just underscoring her point that we have really as a society
tended to think of these as individual people's problems. You
deal with your work-family problems outside of work, and you
come to work, and you do your job. You know, we have this
individualistic idea in this country.
And I think the Shriver Report is really showing this is a
tipping point. We cannot continue to think about the issue of
work and family this way because it is not working for workers,
50 percent of whom now are women, and it is not working for
businesses either. They are experiencing costs, and I think
that, you know, I am thrilled that the report came out, and I
think it is very useful. We can use it as a tool to show, you
know, this is not a problem we can leave to everyone's own
individual solutions anymore. We need more.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much.
And the report has refocused a lot of people in this
country on an issue that we have been working on for 3,000
years, right? But let's take it and make something of it and go
forward.
With brains like yours and investment in caring like all of
you, we are on our way.
So as previously ordered, members will have 14 days to
submit additional materials for the record, and with that, the
hearing is over.
[Additional submission of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Emily M. Murase, Ph.D., Executive Director; and
Ann Lehman, Senior Policy Director, San Francisco Department on the
Status of Women
The Shriver Report highlights how women in the workforce (now 50%)
changes everything. We, the San Francisco Department on the Status of
Women, could not agree more! To help companies implement the policy
concerns raised by this critical report we have spearheading a new
program for private sector companies, the San Francisco Gender Equality
Principles Initiative (GEP Initiative). The GEP Initiative is a
partnership between the San Francisco Department on the Status of
Women, the Calvert Group, Ltd., one of the largest families of socially
responsible mutual funds in the United States, and Verite, an
international labor and human rights monitoring organization. The GEP
creates a framework for private sector entities to measure gains in
gender equity.
Background
In 1998, San Francisco became the first city in the world to enact
a local ordinance reflecting the principles of the U.N. Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
The CEDAW Ordinance states that ``there is a need to work toward
implementing the principles of CEDAW in the private sector.''\1\ It
also calls for gender analysis of private entities to the extent
permitted by the law.\2\ The first 10 years of CEDAW implementation in
San Francisco focused on assessing and improving gender equality within
government entities. The Department determined that using CEDAW in the
private sector was critical to ensure the promotion of gender equality.
Also in 2004, Calvert partnered with the U.N. Development Fund for
Women (UNIFEM) to develop the Calvert Women's Principles (CWP), the
first corporate code of conduct focused exclusively on the advancement
of women worldwide. The partnership grew out of our mutual concern for
women in the workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ City and County of San Francisco, CEDAW Ordinance 325-00,
Section 12K.1(c)
\2\ Ibid., Section 12 K.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does it work?
Through detailed benchmarks, indicators and resources the GEP
Initiative offers clear, practical standards to which private sector
entities can aspire, and a measure against which they can assess their
progress on 7 fundamental gender equality issues: 1) employment and
compensation; 2) work-life balance and career development; 3) health
and safety; 3) management and governance; 4) business, 5) supply chain
and marketing practices; 6) civic and community engagement; and 7)
transparency and accountability.
The GEP Initiative provides a framework through which businesses
can achieve greater gender equality and build more productive
workplaces, where women and men have equal opportunities to realize
their potential--from the factory floor to the board room, in both
developed and developing countries. In 2008-2009, the initial year of
the project, 18 of the San Francisco Bay Area's largest companies and
nonprofits joined the GEP Initiative, including Deloitte, the Gap, IBM,
McKesson, The San Francisco Foundation, Charles Schwab, Symantec and
others.
The GEP hosts quarterly roundtables, each one focused on 1 of the 7
principles, to foster peer-to-peer discussion between companies on best
practices and challenges related to promoting gender equality. The
companies work with the GEP partners to create self assessment tools
and compile resources to help them implement innovative polices and
practices. Here are ways other businesses can get started on improving
gender equality in their workplaces:
Conduct a self-assessment. Use the GEP self-assessment
tool to evaluate current workplace policies and practices in relation
to the principles.
Develop an action plan. Leverage the self-assessment
findings to prioritize next steps and develop an action plan that
includes measurable short- and long-term goals for improving gender
equality.
Engage with stakeholders and peers. The GEP Initiative
offers quarterly roundtables for participating companies in the Bay
Area. These roundtables are guided forums for companies to learn about
best practices in corporate promotion of gender equality, gain advice
from peers on how to advance gender equality, and develop practical
policies and performance improvement tools.
These tools will be available online for businesses, NGOs, and
individuals worldwide to take the GEP self-assessment or access the
wealth of resources that is being collected. The Initiative is
developing a user friendly website which is due to premier in March
2010.\3\ Currently we have 3 sets of Indicators and Resources
completed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under construction at .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principle 2 Work-Life Balance and Career Development
Principle 3 Health, Safety and Freedom from Violence
Principle 4 Management and Governance\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Each set of indicators and resources are available at see
http://www.sfgov.org/site/dosw--page.asp?id=84665. The GEP just held
its 4th roundtable on November 6, 2009 focused on pay equity (Principle
1 Employment And Compensation). These will be finalized in the near
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GEP and the CWP also form the basis for a set of global women's
principles that are being developed by the U.N. Global Compact and
helped shape the Gender in Sustainability Reporting Guide of the
International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank
Group, and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The GEP has been translated into six languages English, Arabic,
Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish. More information on this
initiative can be found at www.unglobalcompact.org/issues/human--
rights/5March2009--ToolsAndResources.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information please visit www.sfgov.org/dosw or contact Ann
Lehman ([email protected], 415-252-2576).
______
[Whereupon, 11:54 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]