FACTORY FLAW THE ATTRITION AND RETENTION OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - AAUW
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FACTORY FLAW THE ATTRITION AND RETENTION OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Factory Flaw: The Attrition and Retention of Women in Manufacturing was researched and written by Lauren Haumesser, Ph.D., AAUW Research Associate and Melissa Mahoney, Ph.D., independent consultant. Kate Nielson, J.D., AAUW Director of Public Policy and Legal Advocacy, and Leticia Tomas Bustillos, Ph.D., AAUW Federal Policy Manager, provided additional support in developing recommendations. AAUW is thankful to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, Women in Manufacturing, and DuPont Specialty Products for circulating our survey of women in manufacturing jobs on which a portion of our analysis is based. AAUW gratefully acknowledges the generous support of The Arconic Foundation, which made this report and its publication possible.
FOREWORD
A cornerstone of AAUW’s commitment to ensuring economic security for women
is our work to close the gender pay gap. For much of our 140-year history, we have been
working to ensure that equal pay becomes the law of the land. And while there has been
significant movement since we began our efforts, that progress seems to have stalled over
the past several decades—and a stubborn pay gap remains.
One of the prime explanations for this persistent gap is the fact that women tend to work
in jobs and in industries that pay less than those fields dominated by men. Nowhere is this
more apparent than in manufacturing, where women make up only about one-third of all
employees—and the industry subsectors in which women work are among the lowest paid.
This report, made possible by a generous grant from The Arconic Foundation, explores
the barriers to women in manufacturing and examines what can be done to encourage
women to enter, thrive and advance in this industry. In removing barriers for women in
manufacturing, we also aim to ensure more women persist in the sector, reducing attrition
rates. Doing so is an essential endeavor: Not only will women and their families gain from
having access to these well-paying jobs, but the industry will benefit richly from skills, talents
and diversity that more women can bring.
AAUW’s research reports, such as this one, inform and advance our ongoing programs,
our work with employers and our advocacy efforts with state and federal policy makers.
We hope Factory Flaw: The Attrition and Retention of Women in Manufacturing will inspire
and empower others to join us in our efforts to increase the presence—and the power—of
women in the manufacturing world.
Julia T. Brown, Esq. Kimberly Churches
Board Chair Chief Executive Officer
www.aauw.org •1INTRODUCTION
F or years, Americans have worried about the loss of
manufacturing jobs. But while the number of Americans
employed in the manufacturing industry has declined
toxic work environments—such as those caused by sexual
harassment—are likely to earn less in their new jobs.6 This
experience may be particularly pronounced for women who
dramatically since the late 1970s, that trend has reversed leave manufacturing, since jobs in the industry tend to pay
in the last decade: In January 2010, 11.6 million Americans well and have good benefits relative to other private-sector
worked in manufacturing; by January 2020, 12.8 million did.1 jobs.7 But research also indicates a number of reasons
The recent uptick in manufacturing is good news for women stay in their jobs, including satisfaction with their
workers. Across demographics, workers in manufacturing employer’s paid family leave and flexible work policies.8
jobs make more, on average, than the population as a None of these studies, however, focuses specifically on
whole.2 This is especially true for women, who make 11.5% women in manufacturing jobs.
more than their counterparts in other private-sector jobs.3 The economics research on women’s experiences in
Manufacturing jobs also tend to offer good benefits relative manufacturing is similarly thin. A small body of research
to other private-sector jobs. shows the decline in manufacturing employment was
Yet too few women are able to take advantage of this wage particularly hard on women without a college education, as
premium: Only 29.2% of all manufacturing employees are employers are looking increasingly to hire workers for more
women. This gender imbalance is, of course, bad for women. highly-skilled jobs.9 Additional evidence suggests that the
It is also bad for employers, who have reported difficulties decline in manufacturing has affected even those women
in finding workers qualified for jobs in high-tech subfields who do not work in the industry. By reducing employment
such as computer manufacturing. To help women and their opportunities, for instance, the decline in manufacturing has
employers, it is important to understand whether women are contributed to increased opioid usage and opioid- and other
leaving their manufacturing jobs, why they do so and how drug-related deaths since the late 1990s and early 2000s.10
employers can encourage them to stay. Opioid use could also damage women’s job prospects if, for
Little research has been done on women’s experiences in example, they were to fail an employer’s mandatory drug test.
blue-collar industries in general—let alone manufacturing But none of this research explains directly why women leave
in particular. But social scientists have identified a number the manufacturing industry.
of reasons women leave jobs in other industries. Women In short, then, there is no research on women’s attrition
who experience sexual harassment and women who from manufacturing jobs—despite the fact that the industry
encounter a glass ceiling are more likely to leave their jobs has grown over the last decade and that manufacturing jobs
than those who do not.4 And women who work in industries can afford women long-term economic security.
dominated by men like manufacturing are more likely to This study aims to remedy that gap by assessing four
experience sexual harassment and sense they are being areas of concern: the status of women in manufacturing,
passed over for promotions.5 Moreover, women who leave whether women in manufacturing are more likely to leave
2 • www.aauw.org he loss of
T
manufacturing jobs
in the early 2000s
disproportionately
hurt women. Even
as the industry
has started to
recover, women
in manufacturing
their jobs than women working in other industries, why
women leave manufacturing jobs and what might encourage face persistent
them to stay. To study these questions, we designed,
collected and analyzed survey data from 214 women who
problems—including
work in the manufacturing industry in the United States; sexual harassment,
inequality in pay
the survey ran between April and July 2020. We analyzed
employment and wage trends in U.S. manufacturing over
the last two decades using aggregate data published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics and calculations made from
and promotions, and
the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey Outgoing dissatisfaction with
Rotation Group (CPS ORG).
Our research found that women have been significantly family leave—and
affected by the overall decline in the industry over the last few
decades. The decline in manufacturing has affected women
are more likely to
directly—in the form of lost jobs and wages—and indirectly, on leave their jobs
other dimensions of well-being. Less educated women who
cannot fill the increasingly highly skilled jobs in the industry
than women in
were particularly hard hit. Using data from 2018 and 2019, we other industries.
also identified a number of factors that make women more or
less likely to leave their manufacturing jobs. Overall, women in
manufacturing are more likely to leave their jobs than women
in other industries. But certain subsets of women—older
women, mothers, women living in rural areas, union members,
and Black and Asian women—were less likely to leave their
jobs. Experiencing sexual harassment, sensing that they are
outnumbered by men and being passed over for promotions
and raises also increase the likelihood that women will leave
their jobs. Being satisfied with paid family-leave policies and
the availability of flexible work measures, on the other hand,
can make women more likely to stay. At the end of the report,
we offer recommendations to employers and policymakers to
improve retention of women in manufacturing jobs.
www.aauw.org •3STATUS OF WOMEN IN
MANUFACTURING
Manufacturing that period (see Figure Women work in a variety textile products at 53.5%.
employment declined 1). This modest uptick in of manufacturing Women workers made up
from 2000 to 2010, employment is a function of subsectors. the lowest share of total
rebounded since 2010 for broader economic recovery In 2019, women worked employment in subsectors
both men and women. and increased manufacturing 35.7% of all jobs in such as primary metals
According to data from the output following the 2008 nondurable goods (14.3%), wood products
Bureau of Labor Statistics financial crisis and the Great manufacturing and (14.9%), nonmetallic
(BLS), total employment in Recession. 23.9% in durable goods mineral products (16.5%),
manufacturing declined by Despite the fluctuations in manufacturing (see Table and petroleum and coal
4.4 million jobs between employment over the last 20 1). Yet they made up the products (16.9%). All of
January 2000 and January years, women’s share in total bulk of employment in two these–with the exception
2020—a 26% reduction. The manufacturing employment subsectors, both of which of petroleum and coal
culprits in this decline are hovered around 29% are in nondurable goods: products–are in durable
capital-intensive production, throughout the period. apparel at 67.3% and goods manufacturing.
the automation of production
in manufacturing, and Figure 1. T
otal Employment and Women’s Employment
international competition— in U.S. Manufacturing, 2000 to 2020
particularly from countries
18,000
like China, where there are
large pools of relatively 17,000
inexpensive unskilled labor.11 16,000
The decline in employment
hit women workers harder 15,000
than men: Women lost 31% 14,000
of their jobs in the industry
(from about 5.4 to 3.7 13,000
EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
million) whereas men lost 12,000
23% of their positions (11.9
11,000
to 9.2 million).
As can be seen in Figure 10,000
1, however, the industry
9,000
has begun to rebound
since 2010. From January 8,000
2000 to January 2010, total
7,000
employment in the industry
declined by 34%, with 6,000
women losing relatively more
5,000
jobs than did men.12 From
2010 to 2020, on the other 4,000
hand, the industry added 1.4
3,000
million jobs, a 12% increase.
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Women’s and men’s
employment rebounded at n All employees n Women employees
the same rate (12%) over Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey. Accessed May 21, 2020.
4 • www.aauw.orgTable 1. A
verage hourly earnings, employment and employment changes in U.S. manufacturing by
subsector, 2000 to 2019. (Subsectors ranked by share of women in employment.)
Share of Total Employment Changes
Women in Average Total Employment (in 1,000s) 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2019
Subsector Hourly
Employment Wage Total % Total %
-Feb 2019 -Feb 2019 2000 2010 2019 (1,000s) Change (1,000s) Change
Manufacturing 28.3 27.48 17,263 11,528 12,840 -5,735 -33% 1,312 11%
Durable Goods 23.9 28.95 10,877 7,064 8,059 -3,813 -35% 995 14%
Nondurable goods 35.7 24.95 6,386 4,464 4,781 -1,922 -30% 317 7%
Subsectors
Apparel 67.3 21.78 484 157 110 -327 -68% -46 -30%
Textile product mills 53.5 19.58 230 119 113 -111 -48% -6 -5%
Miscellaneous durable goods manufacturing 42.3 25.98 728 567 618 -161 -22% 51 9%
Printing and related support activities 39.4 23.2 807 488 425 -319 -40% -63 -13%
Food manufacturing 38.3 20.98 1553 1451 1643 -103 -7% 193 13%
Textile mills 37.8 20.8 378 119 109 -259 -69% -10 -9%
Miscellaneous nondurable goods manufacturing 37.7 25.84 276 211 314 -65 -23% 103 49%
Chemicals 32.6 32.4 980 787 850 -194 -20% 63 8%
Computer and electronic products 31.8 36.75 1,820 1,095 1,081 -725 -40% -14 -1%
Semiconductors and electronic components 33.9 32.19 676 369 377 -307 -45% 8 2%
Electronic instruments 30.7 40.26 488 406 424 -81 -17% 18 4%
Communications equipment 30.5 38.2 239 117 84 -121 -51% -34 -29%
Plastics and rubber products 31.5 23.84 951 625 737 -326 -34% 112 18%
Electrical equipment and appliances 30.1 28 591 360 405 -231 -39% 46 13%
Motor vehicles and parts 26.8 26.87 1,314 679 999 -635 -48% 320 47%
Furniture and related products 25.5 22.03 680 357 388 -323 -47% 31 9%
Transportation equipment 24.2 32.58 2,057 1,333 1,734 -724 -35% 401 30%
Paper and paper products 24 26.4 605 395 365 -210 -35% -29 -7%
Machinery 19 29.79 ,1457 996 1,126 -461 -32% 130 13%
Fabricated metal products 18.9 25.22 1,753 1,282 1,492 -471 -27% 210 16%
Petroleum and coal products 16.9 42.97 123 114 115 -9 -8% 1 1%
Nonmetallic mineral products 16.5 25.31 554 371 422 -183 -33% 51 14%
Wood products 14.9 21.07 615 342 409 -273 -44% 67 19%
Primary metals 14.3 27.22 622 362 385 -260 -42% 23 6%
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey. Accessed May 23, 2020; BLS, Employment and
Earnings Data, Table B-5a. Employment of women on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted. Accessed May 23, 2020; BLS, Employment and Earnings Data,
Table B-3a.Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted. Accessed May 24, 2020
Between 2000 and 2010, added in 17 of the 24 jobs were cut over the period. Women are
job losses were particularly manufacturing subsectors These declines are due in underrepresented
acute in subsectors shown in Table 1 between large part to trade exposure, in higher-paying
dominated by women 2010 and 2019. It is notable, particularly from China, since manufacturing
such as apparel and textile however, that apparel, work in this subsector tends subsectors.
products, which cut 68% which has a long history to be labor intensive and thus Manufacturing subsectors
and 48% of all workers, of employing women, more easily substitutable in which women workers
respectively. Jobs were continued to shrink: 30% of with cheaper imports.13 are more represented tend
www.aauw.org •5to pay lower hourly wages. diploma also declined from (see Figure 2). Higher Those with only a high
Indeed, the share of women about 15% to 9%. At the education has also become school diploma lost 609,000
employed in a subsector same time, college and more important for men positions (a 29% decline),
and average hourly wages graduate education has in manufacturing, but the those with less than a high
are negatively correlated become more important change is not as dramatic school degree lost 314,000
by 32%. Take, for example, for women in the industry. as for women (see Figure positions (a 42% decline)
the difference in wages and In 2003, 19% of women’s 3). In 2019, 20% of men in and those with some college
representation in durable jobs in manufacturing were manufacturing held at least lost 153,000 positions (a
and nondurable goods. In held by those with at least a a college degree, compared 12% decline). Offsetting
February 2019, women four-year college degree–by to 32% of women. these losses, women with
accounted for only 23.9% 2019, 33% were. In fact, In terms of the total at least a bachelor’s degree
of workers in durable goods by 2018, more women number of jobs, between gained employment in
manufacturing jobs, which in manufacturing had a 2003 and 2019 women manufacturing over the
paid $28.95 per hour—$1.47 college degree than had without a bachelor’s degree period. Employment by
above the average of $27.48 only a high school diploma lost jobs in manufacturing. women with a college
for all manufacturing
jobs. Yet they accounted
for 35.7% of workers in Men are more likely than women to hold the
nondurable goods jobs,
which paid below-average
highest-paying manufacturing jobs: Only 17% of
wages ($24.95 per hour). workers in the petroleum and coal fields, which
Another example: Women
made up only 16.9% of pay almost $43 an hour, are women. But women
workers in the petroleum
and coal products
account for more than half of workers in textile
subsectors, which paid jobs, which pay under $20 an hour.
the highest wages of any
subsector in 2019 ($42.97),
Figure 2. S
hare of Women’s Manufacturing Employment
but they accounted for
by Education Level, 2003 to 2019
53.5% of workers in textile
45%
product mills, which paid
the lowest wage ($19.58) of
40%
any subsector that year.
35%
Undergraduate and
graduate education has 30%
become more important
for women’s employment 25%
in manufacturing.
Historically, manufacturing 20%
has been a good source of
employment for both men 15%
and women who hold a high
school diploma or less. But 10%
between 2003 and 2019,
the share of manufacturing 5%
jobs held by women with
0%
only a high school degree 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
declined from 41% to 32%.14 n Less than High School n High School n Some College n College or more
The share held by those
Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data. http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps-
with less than a high school outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020).
6 • www.aauw.orgdegree increased by 41%, Figure 3. Share of Men’s Manufacturing Employment
or 307,000 jobs, and those by Education Level, 2003 to 2019
with advanced degrees
45%
increased employment
in manufacturing by a 40%
staggering 95%, or 227,000
jobs. 35%
These figures illustrate 30%
the fact that American
employers are seeking to 25%
hire workers with more
20%
education to fill more highly-
skilled jobs than they did in 15%
the past.
10%
White women still
5%
make up the majority of
women in manufacturing, 0%
but their share of 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
employment in the n Less than High School n High School n Some College n College or more
industry has fallen while Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data. http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps-
outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020).
that of employment
of Hispanic and Asian
Figure 4. S
hare of Women’s Manufacturing Employment
women has increased.
by Race and Ethnicity, 2003 to 2019
Between 2003 and 2019,
70%
white women’s share of
employment decreased
from 66% to 58% (Figure 60%
4). The employment share
of Hispanic women, on the 50%
other hand, increased from
15% in 2003 to 20% in 2019. 40%
For Black and Asian women,
their respective shares in 30%
employment stayed about
the same over the entire 20%
period. For Black women,
this was at about 11% of
10%
total women’s employment
and for Asian women, it was
0%
about 8%. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
In terms of number of
n White n Hispanic n Black n Asian
manufacturing jobs, only Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data. http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps-
Asian and Hispanic women outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020).
saw gains between 2003
and 2019. But while Asian subsectors. Of the 76,000 manufacturing (30,000). On of the 141,000 jobs Hispanic
women have gained jobs jobs Asian women gained, average, jobs in chemical women gained, however,
in relatively well-paying most were in chemical manufacturing and were in food manufacturing
subsectors, Hispanic manufacturing (36,000), transportation equipment (121,000 jobs)—jobs that are
women have gained jobs transportation equipment are relatively well paid in the relatively lower-skilled and
in relatively low-paying (31,000), and food industry.15 The vast majority lower-paid.16
www.aauw.org •7Prime working-age Figure 5. Women’s Manufacturing Employment by Age, 2003 to 2019
women and men lost jobs
16
in manufacturing, while
those aged 55+ gained
jobs between 2003 and 14
2019.
Across the board, workers 12
aged 25 to 54 lost jobs in
Employment in 100,000s
manufacturing between 10
2003 and 2019. The loss
was most significant for 8
those aged 35 to 44 (See
Figures 5 and 6). Women 6
in this age group lost 35%
of their jobs over the period 4
(522,000 jobs), whereas
men lost 31% (1.1 million 2
positions). Workers aged
55+, on the other hand, saw 0
large gains in this period. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Women aged 55 to 64 n 16 to 19 n 20 to 24 n 25 to 34 n 35 to 44 n 45 to 54 n 55 to 64 n 65+
increased their employment Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data. http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps-
outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020).
by 45% (284,000 jobs).
Men in this age group saw Figure 6. Men’s Manufacturing Employment by Age, 2003 to 2019
a 57% increase in their
40
employment (839,000 jobs).
Individuals over age 65
35
saw the largest percentage
gains in employment of 30
any age group: Women
Employment in 100,000s
saw a 135% gain in their 25
employment (148,000 jobs),
whereas men had a 130% 20
increase in employment
(309,000 jobs). At least 15
two factors could explain
these trends: a decline in 10
the appeal of manufacturing
jobs among prime-age 5
workers, particularly as the
wage premium relative to 0
other industries has shrunk; 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
and older workers putting n 16 to 19 n 20 to 24 n 25 to 34 n 35 to 44 n 45 to 54 n 55 to 64 n 65+
off retirement because they Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data. http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps-
outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020).
need extra earnings to make
ends meet. From 2003 to 2019, union 2). But over the same Though the loss of
members lost a significant period, men who were not collective bargaining hurts
Only men who did not number of jobs: Unionized union members increased all workers in terms of pay
belong to unions gained men lost 37% of their jobs, employment by 12%, and working conditions,
jobs in manufacturing and unionized women whereas non-unionized it is especially harmful
between 2003 and 2019. lost 40% of theirs (Table women lost 8% of their jobs. for women, who benefit
8 • www.aauw.orgFigure 7. S
hare of Women’s Employment in Manufacturing by 7). The share of women
Broad Occupation, 2003 to 2019 working in production jobs,
60%
however, declined by about
5 percentage points from
42.2% in 2003 to 37.6%
50%
in 2019. Management
occupations comprised
40% an average of 11% of
women’s employment
in manufacturing and
30%
the importance of this
occupational category
20% increased from 9% of
women’s employment to
10% 13%.19
0%
Women’s average hourly
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 wages in manufacturing
n Management n Production n Other Occupations are consistently less
Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data. http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps- than men’s, but women’s
outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020). wages grew at a faster
rate on average than
men’s since 2003.
The number of union jobs in manufacturing Between 2003 and 2019,
has shrunk, and women have been especially women’s hourly wages
increased faster, on average,
harmed: Wages are higher—and the gender pay than did men’s (Table
gap is narrower—for unionized workers. 3). Yet a gender wage
gap persisted across the
wage distribution over the
the most from union pay discrimination is rising. relative importance of period—but it shrank more
membership. An analysis The decline in unionization production occupations at the higher percentiles of
from the Economic Policy and concurrent decline in shrunk. the wage distribution than
Institute (EPI) found that women’s wages also makes Since 2003, more women it did at the lower ones. The
in 2016, wages were 23% women less likely to tolerate have worked in production largest closure occurred at
higher for unionized women the sexual harassment, than any other category the 99th percentile, where
workers than those who gender discrimination and of manufacturing (Figure the relative wages of women
are not. Unionization also other unfavorable conditions
helps close the wage gap: that they may encounter on
Table 2. Change in Employment by Sex and
Unionized women earn 94% the job, as research shows Union Status, 2003 to 2019
of the hourly wage of their that workers are only willing Percentage
male counterparts, but non- to work jobs with higher risk Job Change change
unionized women earn only of these if a pay premium is Women Unionized -191,966 -40%
78% of what non-unionized attached to them.18 Not Unionized -360,499 -8%
male workers earn.17 This
Not Specified 9,939 6%
reveals that unionization also The relative importance
decreases the likelihood that of management Men Unionized -697,062 -37%
women workers experience occupations to Not Unionized 227,101 12%
gender pay discrimination on women’s employment Not Specified -124,366 -24%
the job—so with unionization in manufacturing grew
Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data.
declining, it is likely that since 2003, whereas the http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps-outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020).
www.aauw.org •9and men went from 72% in Table 3. A
verage hourly wage for those employed in manufacturing by
2003 to 94% in 2019. At the income decile and sex, 2003 and 2019 (in 2019 dollars)
90th percentile, the relative
wage improved from 74% to Women's wage /
Women Men Men's wage
83%. This means that, while
Wage % %
well-off women are closing Percentile 2003 2019 Change change 2003 2019 Change change 2003 2019
the manufacturing wage
10th $10.24 $11 0.76 7% $12.54 $13.50 0.96 8% 82% 81%
gap, women at the lower
end of the income ladder are 20th 12.19 13.00 0.81 7% 15.32 16.00 0.68 4% 80% 81%
being left behind. 30th 13.93 15.00 1.07 8% 18.08 18.27 0.19 1% 77% 82%
40th 15.63 16.50 0.87 6% 20.89 21.00 0.11 1% 75% 79%
White women in
manufacturing 50th 17.55 18.80 1.25 7% 23.68 24.15 0.47 2% 74% 78%
consistently earned more 60th 20.06 21.43 1.37 7% 27.86 28.07 0.21 1% 72% 76%
on average than Black
70th 23.41 25.48 2.07 9% 32.14 33.60 1.46 5% 73% 76%
and Hispanic women and
less than Asian women. 80th 27.86 32.82 4.96 18% 38.69 40.85 2.16 6% 72% 80%
Between 2003 and 2019, 90th 36.81 46.15 9.34 25% 49.53 55.56 6.03 12% 74% 83%
Black and Hispanic women’s
99th 69.64 96.90 27.26 39% 96.08 103.25 7.17 7% 72% 94%
wages declined relative to
their white counterparts All 21.41 24.60 3.19 15% 28.46 30.69 2.23 8% 75% 80%
(Table 4). In 2019, Black
Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data. http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps-
women earned 78% of what outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020).
white women workers did—
which is down 5 percentage Table 4. A
verage hourly wage as a share of white average hourly wage by
points from 2003—and sex and race/ethnicity, manufacturing sector, 2003 and 2019
Hispanic women earned
Women Men
66% of what white women
did—a 4 percentage point Race/Ethnicity 2003 2019 % point change 2003 2019 % point change
decrease. The position Black 83% 78% -5 74% 71% -3
of Asian women, on the
other hand, improved by Hispanic 70% 66% -4 65% 72% 7
15 percentage points, from Asian 101% 116% 15 110% 119% 9
101% in 2003 to 116% in
Other 89% 95% 7 85% 78% -8
2019. This increase relative
to white women is also Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data. http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps-
outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020).
reflected in Asian women’s
relative wage increase
Table 5. A
verage hourly wage for those employed in manufacturing by
between 2003 and 2019,
sex and race/ethnicity, 2003 and 2019 (in 2019 dollars)
which was the largest of
any racial/ethnic group Women Men
(Table 5). This is likely Race/Ethnicity 2003 2019 change % change 2003 2019 change % change
because in 2019, over 50%
White $22.93 $26.77 $3.84 17% $30.55 $32.78 $2.23 7%
of Asian women working
in manufacturing had a Black 19.06 20.86 1.80 9% 22.74 23.28 0.54 2%
college or advanced degree, Hispanic 16.15 17.61 1.46 9% 19.75 23.51 3.76 19%
compared to less than 40%
Asian 23.12 31.05 7.93 34% 33.56 38.85 5.29 16%
of white women—indicating
that Asian women are more Other 20.30 25.51 5.21 26% 26.1 25.42 -0.68 -3%
represented in high-skilled
Source: Author’s calculations from CEPR data. n.d. “CPS Outgoing Rotation Group.” CEPR Data. http://ceprdata.org/cps-uniform-data-extracts/cps-
manufacturing jobs. outgoing-rotation-group/ (accessed June 4, 2020).
10 • www.aauw.orgARE WOMEN IN
MANUFACTURING MORE
LIKELY TO LEAVE THEIR JOBS?
Women in manufacturing are more likely to leave industries and men working in any industry were. This
the industry that employs them. finding holds when controlling for age, race, marital
In our analysis, we also looked at the contributions status, parental status, union membership, region
of two key variables—gender and employment in and local economic activity. While it also holds when
manufacturing—to the likelihood that a worker would controlling for sexual harassment, doing so reduces the
leave a job in any major industry between 2018 and magnitude of the likelihood. In other words, when women
2019 (Table 2).20 Strikingly, we found that women in are less likely to experience sexual harassment on the
manufacturing were more likely to leave their jobs for job, they are less likely to leave manufacturing work
work in other industries than women working in other altogether than they otherwise would be.
Women are more likely than men to leave the manufacturing
industry, as well as more likely to leave the industry than women in
other fields. A possible explanation: Sexual harassment appears to
be especially widespread in the manufacturing industry.
WHY DO WOMEN LEAVE?
Sexual harassment earn less in their new jobs less likely women are to workplace (see Figure 8).
Women working in than they did before.23 experience workplace One woman described the
manufacturing are more Our research found that sexual harassment, the unnerving experience of
likely to experience sexual women who face sexual less likely they are to leave having “a male coworker
harassment than those in harassment at work are jobs in manufacturing—a wrap his hand around
women-dominated or even more likely to leave their finding that reveals how her neck from behind”.
gender-equal sectors.21 job—but the relationship important eliminating Others described enduring
Experiences like this could between sexual harassment sexual harassment is to harassment “on a daily
make women feel less safe and quitting is more keeping women in the basis” and “every single
on the job. It could also complex than one might manufacturing industry. day.” Notably, whether
make it harder for them expect.24 The survey data we an employer-mandated
to be promoted, which In our analysis of industry collected, however, sexual harassment training
could lead to lower pay and transitions, we found complicate these findings. had no effect whatsoever
lower rates of overall job that women who are Women who responded on whether harassment
satisfaction among women less likely to experience to our survey experienced ultimately occurred—a
working in the sector.22 sexual harassment at sexual harassment at finding that reminds us
Indeed, research shows work—proxied by a higher alarming rates: 68.2% of that harassment results
that women who leave toxic proportion of women to women of color and 62.6% from structural power
work environments, such men in a workplace—are of white women reported imbalances, not the choices
as those caused by sexual less likely to leave for jobs experiencing some form of a few bad actors.
harassment, are likely to in other industries. The of harassment at their Yet, unlike making
www.aauw.org • 11the decision to leave ceiling—the less likely work—perhaps a result of men, [whether] it’s doing
the industry in general, women are to move away the high rate of unionization something wrong or right.”
there was no relationship from jobs in an industry. among women surveyed.) Another reported, “They give
between experiencing most Similar to our analysis of When these responses were us easier job[s] because they
forms of harassment and sexual harassment, we combined into one variable, silently believe we aren’t
women’s willingness to found that controlling for the the results were astounding: capable of doing as much
accept a comparable job at height of the glass ceiling Nearly 30% of the difference as the men. It’s humiliating.”
a different manufacturer. reduces the likelihood that in whether a woman would Others described being
Women who experienced women in manufacturing accept a job at another ignored or dismissed by
unwanted verbal and will leave the industry. employer could be attributed men at work, and multiple
physical advances were The survey data bear to whether she believed men women reported having to
the only ones who were these findings out. Of received more promotions “work twice as hard” to earn
more likely to report higher women surveyed, 31.5% or pay than women.27 the same recognition that
turnover intentions—yet reported feeling that men Open responses to the men get. If manufacturers
even then, the relationship received more promotions survey substantiate these want to retain women, they
was quite weak.25 Sadly, it than women. Since nearly findings: Again and again, must pay and promote them
seems that women believe 90% of respondents women reported that men equally to men.
that harassment is an
industry-wide problem, and Figure 8. Sexual Harrassment in Manufacturing
have accepted it as the 100%
price of doing a job they
90%
otherwise enjoy. According
80%
to one woman, the industry
“is male-oriented. Basically[,] 70%
Percent of Women
if you are a woman, expect 60%
comments. And get over 50%
it.” Other women wrote off
40% 50% 61.8% 62.0% 72% 73.8% 82.7%
harassing behavior as “men
being men,” and said it was 30%
women’s responsibility to 20%
stick up for each other. 10%
But sexual harassment 0%
stems from a power I have heard I have seen I have been I have received I have seen I have been
people talk people make subject to unwanted people display subject to
imbalance in the workplace: about sex or suggestive unwanted propositions sexually- unwanted
Individual women cannot make sexist noises or hand verbal for dates suggestive touching,
comments or gestures advances or sex images kissing, or
be personally responsible jokes other physical
for changing this structural advances
problem. REPORTED FORMS OF HARASSMENT
Source: AAUW survey of women in manufacturing jobs
The glass maze worked in production jobs, who are supervisors judged Workplaces dominated
Women are far more likely it appears that women are them more harshly than by men
to leave their jobs if they encountering gender-based the men on their teams Women who feel
perceive that men receive barriers at every level of and overlooked women's outnumbered by men at
more promotions or more employment and promotion, contributions. In response to work are no more likely
pay than women do. not just at the top—a reality a question asking what her to take a job at another
Our analysis of industry that psychologist Linda employer could do to make employer than those who
transitions shows that, Jean Schaumann has her more satisfied at work, do not feel they are in the
the greater the share of conceptualized as a “glass one woman said, “Treat minority.28 This is despite
women managers in a maze.”26 (Only 15.6% said me as an equal. Forget my the fact that roughly a third
sub-industry—or more they felt that men received gender.” A second asked of women feel outnumbered
permeable the glass more pay for the same “to be treated equally to the either at their current
12 • www.aauw.orgemployer in general (36.7%)
or in their department in
Woman of color in manufacturing Altogether, 69.2% of women
were not satisfied with the
particular (33.7%). are outnumbered on the basis amount of paid family leave.
These results could Women’s dissatisfaction
mean one of two things. of both gender and race, making came through in their written
On the one hand, women them feel especially isolated comments on our survey.
may have accepted that “Offer maternity leave with
manufacturing is a field and unwelcome. full pay rather than just
dominated by men, and short-term disability pay,”
therefore do not anticipate one woman suggested.
that moving from one out as respectful, helpful job at a different employer Others requested “more
manufacturer to another and interested in their than those who do not have paid time off for pregnancy,
would change the gender development. caregiving responsibilities— taking care of a child, and
dynamics. Some of the An interesting note: perhaps because merely other related care” and
open-response comments Women of color were switching employers carries “increas[ing] the number of
support this hypothesis. One far more likely to report less risk than leaving the weeks of maternity leave.”
woman wrote, “As a woman feeling outnumbered at industry as a whole. But family leave is not just
in manufacturing, it slowly their employer than white More definitive, however, about caring for children.
becomes clear that there are women were.29 This is are the effects of paid One woman recounted how
still remnants of a ‘good old despite the fact that the family leave. Research her husband, who works in
boys[’] club.” survey item asked solely by EPI shows that, for all the same company, gets a
On the other hand, about gender, not race. workers aged 18 to 64, “huge amount for sick pay”
working in an environment This finding indicates that the total compensation and was using that benefit
dominated by men may not being a woman of color in premium—calculated as to take care of a relative.
be inherently bad or difficult. manufacturing is doubly the sum of wages and If manufacturers want to
Perhaps what matters is isolating: Women of color benefits, like paid leave— retain women workers,
not how many men there feel outnumbered on the for manufacturing relative they will need to improve
are, but whether they treat basis of gender and race. to other private sectors family leave policies to allow
their women colleagues was 15%, as opposed to women more paid time to
fairly and respectfully. One Parental status and paid the 10.4% premium for take care of their children
woman recalled how at her family leave wages alone.30 Although and their families.
previous employer—a steel Women who are parents the data to disaggregate
manufacturer—she “didn’t are less likely to leave the this calculation by gender is What other
realize [she] was the only manufacturing industry not available, it is likely that characteristics explain
woman in the department altogether than those who the additional premium on women’s departure from
for a really long time… are not. Yet while being a total compensation matters manufacturing?
because…[she] had a great parent reduced the likelihood profoundly for women In our econometric
support team. They were that a woman would leave workers, especially those analysis, several other key
all men. They never treated a manufacturing job, it of child-bearing age. More independent variables had
[her] differently and were increased the likelihood that generous benefits and paid a significant impact on
genuinely interested in a man would. These findings leave time could make jobs women’s job transitions
[her] growth and success.” suggest that childcare in manufacturing more away from manufacturing:
When the team changed, responsibilities constrain attractive to women. age, parental status, rural
however, the situation mothers’ decisions to Our survey substantiates area, union membership
deteriorated: The men change jobs—but did this hypothesis. and state-level economic
asked her to “do mundane not do so for fathers. By Dissatisfaction with the activity. Most of these
things” and “treated [her] contrast, women who are amount of paid family factors reduced women’s
like an assistant.” Less parents or who care for an leave is a key reason that industry mobility. The
ambiguous were women’s aging relative are no more all women—even women exception to this is state-
feelings on women bosses, or less likely to accept a who are not mothers—leave level per capita GDP, which
whom they universally called comparable manufacturing their manufacturing jobs.31 made women more likely
www.aauw.org • 13to leave manufacturing; increased the likelihood that likelihood that a person This could be a reflection
this makes sense, since a man would. Being Black or would leave a job in that better-educated men
greater economic activity Asian reduced the likelihood manufacturing in the full may have relatively more job
increases job alternatives. that a woman would leave a sample and in the sample market opportunities and
Regarding parental status: It manufacturing job relative to of men. In contrast, having may be more likely to seek
is notable, that while being a white women working in the a college degree did not them out, particularly when
parent reduced the likelihood industry. have a significant impact on confronted with the overall
that a woman would leave Having a four-year college women’s transitions away decline in U.S. manufacturing
a manufacturing job, it diploma increased the from jobs in manufacturing. over the last decades.32
HOW CAN WE KEEP WOMEN
IN MANUFACTURING?
Our findings above demonstrate that eliminating sexual harassment, ensuring equality in pay
and promotions, and providing adequate paid family leave can all encourage women to stay in
manufacturing jobs and in the manufacturing industry. Here is how employers and policymakers can
take action on those and other measures:
Sexual Harassment Though bystanders are unlikely to be nearby when the
Changing workplace culture is a key component of stopping most egregious harassment occurs, their intervention in
sexual harassment, but our research found that sexual the early stages of harassment can prevent perpetrators
harassment training is not working. To urge system change from escalating their behaviors.36
and make harassment training more effective, employers can: Conduct climate surveys: Regular, anonymous climate
Create a well-defined sexual harassment policy: The surveys will help ascertain existing workplace culture,
policy must include examples of prohibited behavior and identify potential areas for growth for the employer and
be based on a commitment to diversity and inclusion, guide the revision of training and other procedures.
rather than compliance. Anti-harassment policies should
be comprehensive and prohibit harassment based on any Legislation is another important way to tackle workplace
protected characteristic. sexual harassment. Solutions must be comprehensive,
Institute a complaint process procedure: There should including a number of provisions to protect workers and fix
be a complaint procedure that identifies HR professionals overly narrow standards created through problematic case
designated to document and investigate complaints, law. Policymakers can:
and explain this process to employees. According to the Codify strong protections: This includes enacting anti-
EEOC, this process should be “multi-faceted, offering retaliation provisions, prohibiting non-disparagement
a range of methods, multiple points-of-contact, and and non-disclosure agreements unless requested by the
geographic and organizational diversity where possible, employee, banning pre-dispute mandatory arbitration,
for an employee to report harassment.”33 expanding protections to cover all employees,
Take training seriously: Merely attending a mandatory instituting strong penalties and eliminating caps on
seminar won’t stop harassment. Instead, employers need damages awarded to workers who have experienced
to conduct in-person, interactive trainings that last at discrimination.
least four hours.34 Specifically, enact strong federal legislation and state
Involve white men in the training: Research suggests that equivalents:
there is a backlash against training when it is conducted ¡The Bringing an End to Harassment by Enhancing
by a woman, but not when it is conducted by a man.35 Accountability and Rejecting Discrimination (BE
Conduct bystander awareness training: Beyond HEARD) Act would ensure all workers can do their
standard sexual harassment training, bystander training jobs without fear of harassment by building on
empowers people to stop harassment in its tracks. existing civil rights laws to provide new protections
14 • www.aauw.orgfor workers, while also safeguarding existing gender pay gap because it assumes that prior salaries
discrimination laws. were fairly established by previous employers. Relying
¡The Ending the Monopoly of Power Over Workplace on salary history allows a new employer to continue
harassment through Education and Reporting underpaying an employee who faced a pay gap and
(EMPOWER) Act would increase transparency and lost wages due to bias or discrimination at a previous
training in the workplace, making it less difficult for job. Salary history questions can also introduce bias
employees to come forward and report inappropriate and discrimination into the recruitment process of a
behavior. company that may be attempting to avoid it. Employers
¡The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would end should prohibit the use of salary history and instead use
another form of sex discrimination and promote market research to determine what the position is worth
women’s health and economic security by ensuring to the organization.
reasonable workplace accommodations for workers Publicize wage ranges for all job postings: Increased
whose ability to perform the functions of a job are transparency levels the playing field when job applicants
limited by pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical are negotiating their salaries. Publishing salary ranges
condition. also provides employers with the opportunity to
proactively ensure they are in line with the market and
Ensuring equality in pay and promotions correct any disparities that may have arisen over time.
The gender and racial pay gaps are persistent. Over the
last several decades, these gaps have started to close. But Policymakers have the opportunity to support workers by
progress is slow and both employers and alike must take providing needed protections and encouraging employers to
action to speed the pace of change. be good actors. They should:
In addition to being ethical and good for employees, pay Make existing law stronger: Over the years we have
equity is beneficial to employers because it drives higher learned a lot about the ways pay discrimination works,
retention and morale, according to our research. Employers so we must enact laws to close existing loopholes.
should: Additionally, policymakers should strengthen penalties
Conduct pay audits: Pay audits can be used to for equal pay violations, prohibit the use of salary history
understand, monitor and address gender pay in employment decisions, prohibit retaliation against
differences. Regularly analyzing pay decisions—when workers who voluntarily discuss or disclose their wages,
salaries are set, when job functions change, when and support data collection and research. At the federal
bonuses are awarded or raises given—ensures that level, enacting the Paycheck Fairness Act, as well as the
salaries remain equitable and employers comply with Pay Equity for All Act and the Fair Pay Act, would codify
the law. these recommendations.
Prohibit retaliation for wage disclosure: Pay disparities Build off of state successes: Over the past decade,
are notoriously difficult to detect and many employers states have enacted a bevy of laws designed to close
punish employees for asking about or sharing that the gender and racial pay gaps. Implementing pieces of
information. Such punitive pay-secrecy policies make federal bills and enacting new, progressive provisions at
it difficult for workers to remedy wage disparities the state level enables timely discoveries about which
because they cannot find out if they’re being paid less. policies work.
Employers should not impose such policies and should Enact the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act:
proactively ban retaliation against employees seeking Union membership plays a critical role in ensuring
this information. pay equality. Unionized women earn 94% of the hourly
Ban the use of prior salary history: The practice of wage of unionized men, whereas non-unionized women
using past salaries to set current wages perpetuates the earn only 78% of what non-unionized men earn.37
Current efforts to curb sexual harassment do not appear to be
effective. Employers should be more proactive in offering training
programs and establishing reporting procedures, and we need
stronger state and federal laws to help tackle the persistent problems.
www.aauw.org • 15Thus, though the decline in union membership in Offer a variety of flexible work measures—including
manufacturing jobs hurts all workers, it especially hurts flextime, a compressed work week, shift swapping,
women, who rely on unions to guarantee a fair wage.38 shift splitting and the ability to work part time. These
The PRO Act would expand various labor protections measures give manufacturers the certainty that they will
related to employees’ rights to organize and collectively have workers on the line when they need them—while
bargain in the workplace. affording workers the flexibility to take care of their
families.
Improve Paid Family Leave
Despite many cultural and legal advances in American Support Higher Education Access
society, women are generally expected to be the primary As new jobs in manufacturing demand greater skills and
caretaker in their families—both of children as well as other education, opening doors to more women to acquire
family members who need assistance. Coupled with a lack associate, bachelor and advanced degrees is an essential
of systematic supports for new parents, this has profound component of recruiting and retaining women in the
consequences on women’s careers and paychecks. industry. Policymakers should enact legislation that:
Protects Pell Grants and ensures that they work for
Employers can address this by: all students: Need-based grant aid helps alleviate
Offering paid family and medical leave to all the amount of debt students must assume to attend
employees: To support all workers and address college. The federal Pell Grant Program is critical to
yawning pay and promotion gaps, employer-sponsored many students’ success in higher education. Congress
leave must be fully paid, cover time away for both should double the maximum Pell Grant and restore its
caretaking and personal medical reasons and be equally purchasing power to cover the increased costs of college
available to men and women. attendance.
Encouraging all employees to utilize their leave: Even if Addresses additional costs students face beyond tuition:
employers offer generous leave, if the workplace culture Often lost in the conversation about affordable higher
discourages it or penalizes those who use it, employees education are the other costs incurred by students during
will not utilize it. This will penalize those workers who their time in school. For example, many students are
have no alternative but to use it. also parenting while enrolled in college and may take on
additional loans that students without dependent children
To support employers who may not be able to afford to offer do not need. The costs of child care put it out of reach
comprehensive paid leave, policymakers should enact a for many student parents, making affordable on-campus
national paid leave system. child care a necessary and effective resource. The federal
Pass the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) program to support this type of affordability, Child Care
Act: This bill would establish paid medical and parental Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS), should be
leave for all workers. fully funded to continue to support parenting students as
Pass the Healthy Families Act: This bill would allow they pursue higher education.
workers to earn paid sick days to cover temporary and Offers broad-based student loan debt cancellation and
minor illnesses and caregiving. supports repayment and assistance approaches that
Enact state level responses: In the absence of a reflect borrowers’ realities: The global pandemic and
comprehensive federal paid leave policies, many states resulting economic crisis have laid bare the struggles of
have enacted their own reforms. State should continue many borrowers, particularly women, people of color and
this practice, both to support their residents and to try low-income individuals. Offering a range of approaches—
out new approaches that may one day be implemented including student debt cancellation, streamlined income-
at the federal level. driven repayment options, refinancing and private student
loan discharge in bankruptcy—will support individuals and
Institute Flexible Work Measures their families, while enabling them progress confidently in
The availability of flexible work measures can help retain their careers.
women in manufacturing jobs. Our research found that
women whose employers offer flextime—that is, flexibility in Employers can also support their workforce by:
when workers start or end their workdays—are moderately Providing tuition reimbursement: Education assistance—
less likely to accept a position at another employer.39 whether through tuition payments, loan repayment or
Employers should: grants—is a great way to support current employees,
16 • www.aauw.orghelp retain exceptional workers and recruit high-quality the same sense of support from women’s resource groups
candidates. that white women do—likely because the groups, like the
Creating apprenticeship programs: Apprenticeships
industry itself, are heavily white, and therefore do not
are a great way to learn on the job. They provide direct attend to women of color’s intersectional identities. One
access to jobs and offer debt-free career training. white woman’s comment can help us understand why
Employers can ensure they have a pipeline of women women of color may not feel helped by general resource
entering their workplace by creating and promoting groups. “I’m offended that ANY of this has to be questioned
these types of opportunities. as a ‘woman’ race or religion,” she wrote, “I do not think my
color, race and/or gender should matter.” A white woman’s
Diversify Employee Resource Groups race may not matter at work, but a woman of color’s
Employers often point to employee resource groups as probably does—and women of color need to have spaces
evidence of an inclusive work environment. Yet there is to find support.
little research on whether the groups do, in fact, increase
job satisfaction or decrease turnover.40 Employers should:
Our research found that, for white women, the availability Organize more diverse employee resource groups:
of employee resource groups helped reduce turnover. For These could include groups for women of color and for
women of color, however, this was not the case.41 mothers. These groups can make more women feel
These findings indicate that women of color do not gain welcome on the factory floor.
Checklist for Retaining Women in Manufacturing Jobs
Employers Policymakers
Stop sexual Create a well-defined sexual harassment policy
q Codify strong anti-harassment protections
q
harassment Institute a complaint process procedure
q Enact the Bringing an End to Harassment
q
Make sexual harassment training in-person and interactive
q by Enhancing Accountability and Rejecting
Have white men conduct sexual harassment training sessions
q Discrimination (BE HEARD) Act
Conduct bystander awareness training
q Enact the Ending the Monopoly of Power
q
Employers should have and encourage the use of an
q Over Workplace harassment through
anonymous tip line for those who experience or witness Education and Reporting (EMPOWER) Act
harassing behavior. Enact the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
q
Ensure equality Conduct pay audits
q Enact the Paycheck Fairness Act
q
in pay and Prohibit retaliation for wage disclosure
q Enact the Pay Equity for All Act
q
promotions Ban the use of prior salary history
q Enact the Fair Pay Act
q
Publicize wage ranges for all job postings
q Enact the Protecting the Right to Organize
q
(PRO) Act
Improve paid Offer paid family and medical leave to all employees
q Pass the Family and Medical Insurance
q
family leave Encourage all employees to use their leave
q Leave (FAMILY) Act
Pass the Healthy Families Act
q
Offer flexible Offer flextime
q
work measures Offer compressed work weeks
q
Offer shift swapping
q
Offer shift splitting
q
Offer the ability to work part time
q
Support higher Provide tuition reimbursement
q Protect Pell Grants
q
education Create apprenticeship programs
q Address costs beyond tuition, including
q
access by fully funding Child Care Access Means
Parents in School (CCAMPIS)
Offer broad-based student loan debt
q
cancellation and support realistic
repayment and assistance approaches
Diversify Include groups specifically for women of color
q
employee ERG leaders should be welcomed to bring concerns and ideas
q
resource for workplace culture improvements to HR. HR should create
groups avenues for anonymous or confidential feedback.
www.aauw.org • 17You can also read
