Sunday, January 28, 2018

Centuries of Bias, Cultural Practices and Union Seniority

When brawn defined the ability to make a living, men had an advantage. As brains slowly defined earning power, women had an unexpected opportunity, but history intervened.

When the military fought WWII, the overwhelming number of men serving in the armed forces, vastly outnumbering the women in uniform, benefitted hugely and disproportionately from the GI Bill, granting access to a college education that still eluded women. As GIs returning home were given job preferences in both the private and public sector… but clearly in the Civil Service, men over-populated those jobs, particularly the non-secretarial/administrative jobs where pay was so much higher, and where union representation was exceptionally high. The reality of union seniority – in unions then dominated by men – pretty much institutionalized under collective bargaining agreements a wage disparity that some have calculated represents one of the highest levels of male-female pay differentiation, averaging 20%.

Lots of folks believe that the #MeToo movement, initially reacting to a world where sexual harassment and assault were just too normalized in society, has a powerful legacy of job discrimination and lower pay to fight as well. Sometimes these dual goals struggle against each other in unexpected ways. There are companies avoiding hiring attractive younger entry-level executive women for fear that they may be the source of future sexual harassment/assault claims, picking traditional males instead. I even heard a story, unconfirmed, that a company hired away an attractive female executive from a major competitor specifically to support her as she filed a harassment claim against her form employer.

It’s the stuff no one openly talks about… but there is backlash.  None of this is fair or justifiable, and perhaps the pendulum has to swing back a bit, forgiveness and common sense rise one notch higher, but wrong is wrong… and women now outnumber men in college and grad school these days. Fairness is inevitable, but you can see why it will take time. Meanwhile there is one variable that might us all back a bit: artificial intelligence-driven automation, and oddly enough, it seems that women will have a tougher time as a result. Even more time? Truly unfair.

The January 28th Los Angeles Times explains: “Women are more likely than men to be knocked out of their jobs in the U.S. by automation over the next eight years, and they’ll find half as many opportunities to land new positions unless there’s a new effort to retrain them… Those conclusions, from a study released last week at the World Economic Forum, show about 57% of the 1.4 million U.S. jobs to be disrupted by technology between now and 2026 are held by women.

“With proper retraining, most of the workers could find new, higher-paying jobs. Without it, very few have opportunities, but women fare the worst, according to the study, conducted in collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group… Making the transition will be expensive and difficult, the authors said.

“‘It is definitely unprecedented, the effort that would be required on the part of policymakers,’ said Saadia Zahidi, one of the authors and head of education, gender and work for the World Economic Forum, which held its annual conference last week in Davos, Switzerland. ‘What is different today is that businesses also do recognize that it’s something that would be useful for them.’

“Workers are bracing for a future where it’s estimated each industrial robot displaces six employees and 30% of banking jobs could disappear within five years as artificial intelligence gets smarter. Much of the worst disruption will affect lower-paying jobs often held by women or less-educated workers.

“The World Economic Forum estimates it will take a century for women to reach gender parity in the workplace, almost 20 years longer than it forecast a year ago… Business leaders are becoming more aware of their need to take a leadership role in fixing the gap, Zahidi said. At the same time, it will be a complicated problem to fix because it requires a new educational focus as well as a likely need for income support for workers being retrained, she said.

“Without retraining, a quarter of the workers face annual income losses of about $8,600 and many would not be able to find a new job, compared with a gain of $15,000 for most workers after two years of retraining — with about 95% having a new position available, according to the report. The study was based on data from Burning Glass Technologies and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“One positive for women: Under the retraining scenario, women’s wages would increase 74%, while men’s income would rise 53%, creating the potential for narrowing the pay gap, she said.

“The study looked at 15 different job strategies that could pave the way for new careers for people in professions as diverse as assembly line workers, truck drivers, secretaries and cashiers.

“Although the report found that 90,000 manufacturing jobs, predominantly held by men, are at risk for disruption, there are about 164,000 at-risk female secretaries and administrative assistants who are often overlooked.” But we live in society that seems to have no problem with tax cuts for the same rich who own and will own that automated equipment – and will make the money from that automation that used to be earned by the human beings they are replacing – but a lot of trouble supporting reeducation, training and providing interim support for those individuals making the job transition. Think that fully automated Amazon store in Seattle (above picture) is a good idea? Doesn’t matter, does it? It is a trend that will not stop… along with all the other displacing technology.

Hey folks, we are all in this together. Women are our mothers, wives, daughters, sisters and friends. They earned equality but still have to struggle to get rewarded accordingly. It’s time. Empathy and support are required across the board.

I’m Peter Dekom, and it is time for our society, our government, to prioritize righting a wrong that stubbornly seems to linger well past any justification for this imbalance.

No comments: