Following President Obama's White House ceremony this morning to sign into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, representatives of women's groups are voicing their approval. Among them:
* Debra L. Ness, PresidentNational Partnership for Women & Families: “In making the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the first bill he signs into law, President Obama today signals an end to the days when we had to revisit and defend women’s and civil rights victories of the past, and can instead focus on creating jobs, promoting fairness, and ending discrimination in our workplaces.
The harmful U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear will now become an ugly footnote in our history books. We now enter a new era in which equal opportunity is real and anti-discrimination laws matter. In this struggling economy, workers need protection from discrimination more than ever. Equal pay for equal work is among one of our country’s most fundamental values. We applaud President Obama for taking this essential step for fair pay in America.”
* Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director, MomsRising.org: "It was with great pride and joy that I attended today’s Presidential signing ceremony of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Now federal law ensures that employees are able to seek redress if they learn that they have been discriminated against in pay because of their gender, race or ethnicity. Many years ago, Lilly Ledbetter bravely stood up to a major corporation and fought for the rights of workers all across this country to fight pay discrimination. And today, by making this the very first bill he signed into law, President Barack Obama showed us that he is acting on the promises he made in his campaign."
What reaction have you heard -- among women and other groups? Comment below.
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Friday, October 3, 2008
News You Can Use: Market chaos may affect women's retirement outlook
Women may have to rethink their retirement savings strategies due to the shake up in the U.S. banking system and its affect on the stock market, reports the Web site Women's enews.com.
While women's participation in retirement plans has risen considerably relative to men in recent years, they traditionally have been conservative investors. Their accounts are smaller, compared to men's. Consequently, a sudden and huge loss to the account is a major setback in building an adequate retirement nest egg, according to the online magazine. Data on 2007 balances in defined contribution plans shows that women on average hold $19,749 in their accounts, while the mean for men is $32,391.
Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, told Women's enews.com that recent financial crisis will cause many women to reevaluate their retirement plans and strategies. Some women may have to work longer than they had expected to recoup their losses in the stock market, she added.
Related EBN coverage:
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Scone: Single women’s retirement future slipping away
Although no one is saving well for retirement, a new study from Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies reveals that single women are particularly vulnerable.
It is a group that employers will need to plug into specifically for retirement communications, as research shows the majority of adult women are now single (51% were living without a spouse in 2005), and 10.4 million are single mothers.
Transamerica finds the amount single women say they will need to save for retirement ranges from less than $100,000 to $2 million, with the median being $500,000. However, 60% guessed at that number, while only 6% used a retirement calculator or spoke to a financial advisor. The study also finds that more than one-fifth of single women (21%) didn’t start saving for retirement until age 40 or later, and that the median contribution rate is 6% across all age groups.
These are scary statistics that employers must pay attention to. These women have only themselves to rely on financially, and many are caring for children on their own. Plus, research shows that even if they do ultimately marry/remarry, they likely will outlive their spouse.
With that in mind, I encourage employers to take cues from some school educators that are separating children into boys and girls classrooms. Studies show that both groups fare much better in same-sex environments, for multiple reasons, and I think the same could be true of men and women when it comes to retirement education.
Granted, the tools and techniques for saving and investing adequately are the same, regardless of gender. However, how those techniques are learned may very well be gender-specific, and perhaps all employees might benefit from separate messaging. Clearly, gender-neutral education and communication hasn’t worked very effectively. Let’s give something new a shot.
It is a group that employers will need to plug into specifically for retirement communications, as research shows the majority of adult women are now single (51% were living without a spouse in 2005), and 10.4 million are single mothers.
Transamerica finds the amount single women say they will need to save for retirement ranges from less than $100,000 to $2 million, with the median being $500,000. However, 60% guessed at that number, while only 6% used a retirement calculator or spoke to a financial advisor. The study also finds that more than one-fifth of single women (21%) didn’t start saving for retirement until age 40 or later, and that the median contribution rate is 6% across all age groups.
These are scary statistics that employers must pay attention to. These women have only themselves to rely on financially, and many are caring for children on their own. Plus, research shows that even if they do ultimately marry/remarry, they likely will outlive their spouse.
With that in mind, I encourage employers to take cues from some school educators that are separating children into boys and girls classrooms. Studies show that both groups fare much better in same-sex environments, for multiple reasons, and I think the same could be true of men and women when it comes to retirement education.
Granted, the tools and techniques for saving and investing adequately are the same, regardless of gender. However, how those techniques are learned may very well be gender-specific, and perhaps all employees might benefit from separate messaging. Clearly, gender-neutral education and communication hasn’t worked very effectively. Let’s give something new a shot.
Friday, August 8, 2008
News You Can Use: Kick in that glass celing
More than one-third (34%) of female workers feel they are paid less than their male counterparts for the same skills and qualifications, states new data from a CareerBuilder.com survey.
Looks like women have some talking to do. What's your thought on sexual discrimination and the glass ceiling in the workplace? Leave your comments below the article.
While 40% of surveyed men make $50,000 or more, only 21% of women do. Conversely, 47% of women earn $35,000 or less, compared with just 28% of men.
Forty-eight percent of surveyed women say that bosses show favoritism towards male employees when it comes to career advancement.
The 2008 study included 4,328 males and 3,632 female full-time employees.
Looks like women have some talking to do. What's your thought on sexual discrimination and the glass ceiling in the workplace? Leave your comments below the article.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Scone: Was 'opting out' ever in?
Here’s something to chew on with your morning coffee:
For all the brouhaha about women exiting the workforce in droves to be on the “mommy track,” a new study poo-poos the exodus and concludes that women are just as fervently running the rat race as ever.
A new study in the latest American Sociological Review finds that fewer than 8% of women born since 1956 left the workforce for a year or more during their childbearing years. In fact, the number who work more than 50 hours per week increased from less than 10% among women born before 1935 to 15% among those born after 1956. Finally, mothers with young children working full time has risen to 38% for women born from 1966 to 1975, up from 6% of women born from 1926 to 1935.
So then where did the whole “opt-out revolution” come from? If women are not only not leaving the workforce in large numbers but actually are working more, was it all in our minds? Just wishful thinking among working mothers who wish they could choose more easily between family and work? I doubt it.
For one thing, of the generation born before 1935, of course hardly any women worked. This study doesn’t exactly break ground there. Nor is it shedding bright light on the fact that in the post-World War II era, significantly more women worked than during the previous generation, and that more women in Gen X and Y work full-time than their mother’s generation.
However, three generations of women (those born after 1956) are taken as one group for the purposes of this research. Clearly, workforce patterns have changed over the course of a generation, let alone three. Among those changes has been more women who have decided to leave the workforce to be at home with their children. For my part, I’m on the young end of Gen X or the old end of Gen Y (however you’d like to slice it) and I actually know as many, if not more, women who left the workforce to stay home with their kids than I do working mothers like me.
So I know that the opt-out phenomenon isn’t all hype, but perhaps it has been overblown. Although there are some women who have concluded that trying to decide between work and family is no choice at all, many of us still are working both outside the home and inside. It’s important for benefit managers and senior execs to remember that we need our paychecks just as much as the men do, so equal pay is vital. And we want to succeed just as much, so don’t be afraid to promote us because you’re worried we’re going to run off to tend to our babies. But at the same time, we miss our babies terribly when we’re in the office, so flexible scheduling is paramount as well. I didn’t say working mothers were easy to please, but we work hard at two full-time jobs, so it’s important for employers to try.
For all the brouhaha about women exiting the workforce in droves to be on the “mommy track,” a new study poo-poos the exodus and concludes that women are just as fervently running the rat race as ever.
A new study in the latest American Sociological Review finds that fewer than 8% of women born since 1956 left the workforce for a year or more during their childbearing years. In fact, the number who work more than 50 hours per week increased from less than 10% among women born before 1935 to 15% among those born after 1956. Finally, mothers with young children working full time has risen to 38% for women born from 1966 to 1975, up from 6% of women born from 1926 to 1935.
So then where did the whole “opt-out revolution” come from? If women are not only not leaving the workforce in large numbers but actually are working more, was it all in our minds? Just wishful thinking among working mothers who wish they could choose more easily between family and work? I doubt it.
For one thing, of the generation born before 1935, of course hardly any women worked. This study doesn’t exactly break ground there. Nor is it shedding bright light on the fact that in the post-World War II era, significantly more women worked than during the previous generation, and that more women in Gen X and Y work full-time than their mother’s generation.
However, three generations of women (those born after 1956) are taken as one group for the purposes of this research. Clearly, workforce patterns have changed over the course of a generation, let alone three. Among those changes has been more women who have decided to leave the workforce to be at home with their children. For my part, I’m on the young end of Gen X or the old end of Gen Y (however you’d like to slice it) and I actually know as many, if not more, women who left the workforce to stay home with their kids than I do working mothers like me.
So I know that the opt-out phenomenon isn’t all hype, but perhaps it has been overblown. Although there are some women who have concluded that trying to decide between work and family is no choice at all, many of us still are working both outside the home and inside. It’s important for benefit managers and senior execs to remember that we need our paychecks just as much as the men do, so equal pay is vital. And we want to succeed just as much, so don’t be afraid to promote us because you’re worried we’re going to run off to tend to our babies. But at the same time, we miss our babies terribly when we’re in the office, so flexible scheduling is paramount as well. I didn’t say working mothers were easy to please, but we work hard at two full-time jobs, so it’s important for employers to try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
