Women participation in US public Sector/Government

Research on the male-female balance in numbers, power and opportunities in the government and public sector has included several works and research that highlight the dwindling and adverse ratios in female/male working proportions, status and conditions in the US over the decades, which is also observed as a world wide trend. This is in line with the traditional bias against the female worker that has characterized the world employment scenario for the last several years. Notable works that throw light in this regard are that of Mary E. Guy’s Three Steps Forward, Two Steps Backward: The Status of Women’s Integration into Public Management (1993). Guy wrote, â€Å"When tracing women’s integration into public management, we see pattern of rapid progress in the middle and late 1970s, followed by a period of quiescence in the mid-1980s. The late 1980 and early 1990s, however, are showing enhanced progress again. † Still, â€Å"women occupy the lower rungs on the agency ladders and men occupy the upper rungs,† she wrote (Guy,1993. ) Research and data collected in later years by 2 arious agencies such as the US Department of Labor, the Census Bureau, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have corroborated similar viewpoints. Table I below clearly displays the trend of female/male composition in federal employment. Table I Composition of Federal Work Force – Ten-Year Trend: Some Progress, Little Overall Change FY 1997 – FY 2006[5] Work Force Participation Rate 2000 CLF FY 2006 FY 1997 % FY 2006 % Men 1,487,030 58. 35 56. 94 53. 20 Women 1,124,463 41. 65 43. 06 46. 80 As compared to 1997 there is a minor increase in female employment from 41. 65% in 1997 to 43. 6% in 2006. The positions in which women work have a strong influence on their earnings, facilities and career growth opportunities. Women in managerial positions have greater job flexibility as compared to those in lower service jobs. In some states and departments in the US, employment in managerial 3 positions varies by race and et hnicity, however much anti discriminatory policies may have been put in place. Amongst women, only 25% of managerial positions were occupied by American African women while white women held 41% of such positions. Overall, women earn 85. 5% of what men earn. A majority of women still continue to work in traditionally women’s occupations. In this regard recently released Census data collected by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research clearly indicated that workplace payment gap between women and men is gradually getting bad as compared to earlier times. Between 2003 and 2006 the median annual earnings for women workers in government reduced by 0. 6% at $ 35000 while that for men was almost unchanged at $ 44000. However the overall situation has improved since 1960, when the average American woman earned 60 cents against every dollar earned by the American male. Presently the situation has improved to a woman earning about 85 cents against a dollar earned by a man. It can be seen that status of women has improved in general and particularly in the federal government as also evedenced from census figures. Major contributors for this have been the gradual changes made in law, social and business practices. Moreover the US ec onomy has grown more than five times since then whereby more 4 opportunities for women have been created. Jobs have also shifted from physical tasks to cognitive and calibre related functions thus opening wider avenues for women. Measured by 1960 standards the overall status of the American woman has improved considerably, but they have not got their due proportional share in as much as the economy has grown. In this context an additional observation is the fact that women and most minorities in the US as also in most parts of the world represent a higher percentage of employees at lower levels in any department or undertaking of the government while being absolutely underrepresented at the higher end of the ladder, implying that a very small percentage of women make it to the top positions of the government and public sector undertakings. This is clearly evident from Table II 5 Table II Senior Pay Level Representation FY 1997 / FY 2006 Senior Pay Level Positions FY 1997 FY 2006 Number % of SPL Number % of SPL Total SPL Work Force 15,381 20,070 Men 12,124 78. 83 14,814 73. 81 Women 3,257 21. 17 5,256 26. 19 It can be seen that in 1997 there were 21. 17% women occupying the senior positions while in 2006 the position improved marginally only to 26. 19% The Federal work force has for decades reflected patterns that show disproportionately high numbers of women in lower ranks in the public ector and government departments. Similarly there is lot of disproportion in the number of women occupying higher positions. In 2005, only 6. 2% of federally employed women were occupying positions ranked as upper middle management positions (General Schedule [GS]-13 and above). Comparitively male representation was as much as four times higher with 28% of all males employed in the upper level of GS-13 and above. 6 This is often referre d to as the glass ceiling concept and has become an important tool to understand working environment particularly in the American working context. Significantly the Civil Rights Act of 1991 established the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission which was entrusted the task of assessing the barriers that hindered the advancement of women to top ranking decision making positions. It also set into motion measures that would hinder such discrimination. Discrimination issues based on gender have long been a subject of debate at various forums internationally and was strongly taken up in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and in Civil Rights Act of 1964. However it was soon realised by the mid 1980s that although massive changes took place in the emographic, social, and legal aspects of the US society, such discrimination on the basis of gender continued to exist. Hymowitz and Schellhardt used the term glass ceiling to describe this discrimination in 1986. The few women who managed to rise due to their calibre were also blocked by barriers of strongly embedded disrimination practices that continued to exist and they consequently could not break through the glass ceiling. 7 One particular aspect of gender disparity in lowering the status of women workers is the strong pattern in disparity of pay and benefits as figured from he data available from US Federal salary data for positions primarily occupied by females. Figures available from the Department of Labor show that in 2005 the hourly earnings of women were only 76. 5% as compared to men. It is primarily for this reason that women have started to opt out of bureaucratic employment towards entrepreneurship and other part time work. Table III validates the findings of the federal government census. Table III Federal Wage System (FWS) Representation FY 1997 / FY 2006 Federal Wage System (FWS) P ositions FY 1997 FY 2006 Number % of FWS Number % of FWS Total FWS Work Force 243,343 194,858 Men 217,573 89. 41 173,389 88. 98 Women 25,770 10. 59 21,469 11. 02 8 In the light of these stark revelations the Federal government has taken steps to remove the imbalance in gender employment by attempting to make equal opportunity a possibility for women. All government departments have been asked to devise a strategy and adopt policies to remove the glass ceiling that has been pulling back women from rising higher in their careers and to award them with senior management and decision making positions. A strong measure for gender inequality is the salary levels that differentiate the positions occupied by males and females. Data proves that on an average males earn more than females in the federal government. The average salary for male managers in FY 2005 was $45,300; and for females, $35,300. Thus as an average female employees made about 84. 7% of the salary made by her male counterpart. Since Federal pay scales are never based on gender, they are obviously different due to lower ranks occupied by women. It is also clear that majority of the higher positions are occupied by men. Women occupy 1/3 rd positions below the GS-12 level and only 1/6th of positions above G-13 levels thus implying that majority of women are clustered in the lower echelons of the heirarchy. Table IV below illustrates the percentage details of high ranking women with various government agencies. 9 Significantly and in contrast it can be seen that women occupy 75% and 66. 67% of the top positions with the Defense Security Service and Defense Human Resource Activity respectively. Table IV Ranking of Agencies with the Highest Percentage of Women in Senior Pay Level Positions in FY 2006 (Agencies With 500 Or More Employees) Agency Total Work Force # SPL # Women in Senior Pay Level Positions # % Defense Security Service 544 4 3 75. 00 Defense Human Resource Activity 880 12 8 66. 67 Corp. for National and Community Service 558 19 10 52. 63 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2,195 32 15 46. 88 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 1,140 12 5 41. 67 The years that followed 1991 brought significant changes in the American political landscape and in the entire federal work force. New Presidents brought new concepts and practices regarding women in high positions. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice as also Attorne General Janet Reno became the pioneering and powerful women to hold cabinet positions, and other appointees like Donna Shalala as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alice Rivlin at the Office of Management and Budget, and Sheila Widnall as Secretary of the Air Force caused one dignitary to comment that when senior staff members meet at White House 11 meetings half the attendees are usually women. This is however farfetched and isolated compared to the large array of discriminatory evidence available.