Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: Hiring, Pay, and Harassment

Introduction

Gender discrimination continues unabated even after extensive public awareness campaigns and legislative efforts to address it. It is the responsibility of human resource managers to oversee company policies and ensure that women in the organization are treated fairly.

Gender discrimination remains a universal problem, and even in the United States—a nation recognized for its commitment to freedom and equal rights—women have not fared significantly better. Discrimination is most visible in the workplace, where women continue to be viewed as inferior. From the initial hiring process to decisions about position and pay, there is marked discrimination at every stage. Instances of sexual harassment have not ceased, and there is an undeniable male hegemony in the corporate sector. Even in multinational companies with dedicated human resource management departments intended to address worker concerns, discrimination persists.

Hiring Practices and the Glass Ceiling

There is clear evidence that men are generally the preferred candidates for most positions in the job market. Even when candidates of both sexes possess similar qualifications, employers show a distinct bias in favor of men. An audit study of restaurant recruitment patterns in Philadelphia attested to the existence of such discrimination. The study used mock résumés to examine hiring patterns at restaurants throughout the state. The results revealed that women generally received offers from lower-paying restaurants, while larger, better-paying establishments preferred male candidates (Neumark, 1996).

When it comes to promotions, discrimination against women is even more blatant. Men occupy most high-ranking positions within corporate structures even when women with equivalent qualifications and experience are available. A study conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office on the performance of women in managerial roles clearly indicated the existence of a "glass ceiling"—an invisible but impenetrable barrier between women and executive leadership, preventing them from reaching the highest levels of the business world regardless of their accomplishments and merits (Dingell & Maloney). The same research found that "while women make up 46.5% of the workforce, they represent only 12% of all corporate officers" (Dingell & Maloney).

Even in scientific circles, women are viewed in a lesser light. A study conducted by Nancy Hopkins, a senior biologist at MIT, on the working conditions of women at that institution yielded startling revelations. The study highlighted glaring discrepancies in recruitment patterns and the discrimination experienced by women scientists. One shocking observation was that over the ten-year period from 1985 to 1994, the number of women researchers and teachers at MIT was less than one-tenth that of men. Helen Davies, a senior microbiologist, remarked: "It rates as one of the most important reports on academic women in science in the past two decades because it concerns one of the most important research universities and resulted in an admission of discrimination" (Loder).

Salary Disparities Between Men and Women

Although virtually every state has enacted fair wage legislation, a significant pay gap between men and women persists. Over the past two decades, wage statistics have consistently indicated that women earn only around 75% of what men earn. This disproportionate compensation is often explained away by pointing to extended absences due to pregnancy and other domestic responsibilities that women bear. According to 1999 statistics released by the American Federation of Labor Unions, a large wage gap between men and women remained: "Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 38 years later, women are still paid less than men—even when we have similar education, skills, and experience" (Bhagat, 2002).

In a study conducted across a sample of 807 institutions with a total of 40,878 administrative staff, women held 43% of the positions. However, most of these women were employed by institutions of lower prestige and resources. Because of the inverse relationship between women's employment rates and the caliber of the institutions that hire them, women tend to earn considerably less. With qualifications and experience held equal, women earned approximately $40,000 per year, while men in comparable roles earned $53,600. This demonstrates that women are economically disadvantaged not only by direct pay discrimination but also by the types of institutions that hire them (University of Albany). There is also clear occupational segregation, as women seldom hold the same job titles as men doing equivalent work—organizations frequently assign women different titles and correspondingly lower pay. Research has further discounted the argument that this pay disparity reflects differences in skills: one study found that "if women were men with the same credentials, they would earn about 18% more" (Isaacs).

Conclusion

Our society still continues to be male-dominated. Despite legal injunctions and broad social awareness, the problem of gender discrimination continues unabated. It is most pronounced in the workplace, where a substantial gap between the two genders persists across hiring, compensation, and daily working conditions. This pervasive attitude of prejudice must be rooted out of our social, economic, and political spheres.

It is the responsibility of human resource managers to oversee company policies and ensure that women in the organization receive fair treatment. It is equally within the purview of human resource professionals to ensure that corrective measures are taken as quickly as possible to redress any situation that violates accepted principles of gender equality. There is still a long way to go in restoring full equality for women in every walk of life. Only when that goal is achieved can we genuinely claim that America is a nation of freedom, equality, and justice for all.

References

Neumark, David. "Sex Discrimination in Restaurant Hiring: An Audit Study." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1996, pp. 915–941.

Loder, Natasha. "U.S. Science Shocked by Revelations of Sexual Discrimination." Nature, vol. 405, no. 6787, 2000.

Dingell, John D., and Carolyn B. Maloney. "A New Look through the Glass Ceiling." U.S. House of Representatives.

University of Albany. "College and University Women's Salary Continues to Lag."

Bhagat, Rasheeda. "Equal Work: Unequal Pay." Business Line, February 22, 2002.

EEOC. "EEOC Scores Major Victory in Mitsubishi Lawsuit." January 21, 1998.