The Motherhood Penalty: Working Moms Face Pay Gap Vs. Childless Peers

From BusinessWeek

Posted by: Lauren Young on June 05

What is the wage penalty for working mothers when compared to women without children?

Apparently it is a big one.

While study after study focuses on the gender gap in wages, the pay
gap between mothers and childless women is actually bigger than the pay
gap between women and men, according to sociologist Shelley Correll,
Stephen Benard, and In Paik. Their study, Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty? received the 2008 Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award for Excellence in Work-Family Research at the World at Work conference this week in Seattle.

Using fake resumes for two equally qualified candidates-one
childless, one a mom-the researchers found that the mother was 100%
less likely to be hired when she applied for a position. Mothers were
consistently ranked as less competent and less committed than non-moms.
"They were also offered $11,000 a year less pay, on average, than an
equally qualified childless candidate," Correll says in the author interview that accompanies the award.

And what about men? Fathers got higher ratings than non-dads.

In another study, the researchers used more faux resumes to apply to
638 jobs during an 18-month period. Tracking interview requests,
childless women got 2.1 times as many callbacks as mothers with similar
credentials. As for the guys? There was no difference among fathers and
childless men.

When asked if she was surprised by these findings, Correll, who is
an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at Stanford
University, says:

I was not surprised to find that mothers were discriminated
against, but I was very surprised by the magnitude of the
discrimination. With gender or race, we often talk about the subtle
ways that stereotypes are disadvantaging. With mothers, the effects
were huge, such as being about 100% less likely to be recommended for
hire than childless women and being offered much lower starting
salaries.

Are you as surprised or shocked by this research as I was? Does a
pay gap for working moms and their childless counterparts exist in your
workplace?

 

Reader Comments

Dan

June 5, 2009 04:44 PM

Not
surprised at all. In this economic time, does it really surprise anyone
that employers want the people they think will be at work everyday,
even work overtime, without worrying about whether the employee has to
run out to pick up little Johnny. And when you say they have equal
credentials, the employer then has the right to hire whichever is the
best fit for their needs, so too bad if Mommy isn't what's best for
them.

Kay

June 5, 2009 05:20 PM

Dan,
your logic would be perfect if only children would raise themselves.
Someone took the (considerable) time to raise us, right?

Mary Ellen Walsh

June 5, 2009 05:31 PM

No
surprise at all. I wonder, though if it took into consideration that a
working woman often doesn't take a few years off and working mothers
often do to care for infants. Did these women have the exact same
qualifications? Comparing apples to apples would mean that the mom
would have to be slightly older to compensate for lost time.

Mary Ellen Walsh

founder of www.daughtersandmoms.com

Cindy

June 5, 2009 05:44 PM

My pay gap is huge: used to charge $250/hour as a consultant, now I get NUTHIN and poopy diapers to boot. Whose idea was this?

Dan

June 5, 2009 05:50 PM

Two stupid youth questions: Do parents really reference having kids on a resume? And does it always come up during interviews?

Damon

June 5, 2009 06:44 PM

I don't think a child count should be on any mothers resume.

Eileen

June 5, 2009 10:12 PM

I
think Dan poses a very good question. Employers are legally not
permitted to ask about family during an interview - it's one of the
questions that can get a company in trouble, and a candidate would be
able to enter into litigation against said company if asked.

However, if a resume shows a significant gap, then the interviewer
has the right to ask the applicant to explain it - and if the applicant
volunteers the information, the prospective employer is not liable.

Strategery

June 5, 2009 10:56 PM

I
doubt that a parent would directly reference a child on a resume,
however there might be an obvious gap in employment. As for the
interview, asking a candidate if they are a parent could set the
company up for a discrimination lawsuit if a childless person is
picked--however, if you volunteer that information during an interview
then do so at your own risk. Where I work, everyone is paid (by the
hour) based on their position and the number of hours they have worked
at the company. Some parents with less flexible schedules get less
hours.

Susanne

June 5, 2009 11:29 PM

So
that's the data but why are mother's discriminated against? Also
curious who the hiring managers were? men or women? parents vs.
non-parents? what were the ages? seems like a lot of potential overlap
for other biases."

Sandra

June 5, 2009 11:30 PM

This sounds like a red herring to me.... let's pit women vs. women rather than address the real inequality...

Lauren Young

June 5, 2009 11:34 PM

Several
of you have raised questions about this study and how it was conducted.
I emailed Shelley Correll with Mary Ellen Walsh's questions, and here
is what she wrote back:

This was an experimental study (not interviews), so I compare how
the EXACT same woman is rated but half of raters do not know she is a
mom, the other half do.

When she is presented as a mom, she lists that she is an officer in
a elementary school PTA on her resume. That is the ONLY difference
between her and the non-mom version. Yet the non-mom gets called back
by employers 100% more often.

Since adding the slight info about being a mom is the only
difference between the two resumes, we can be sure it is simply being a
mom that is producing the negative effects.

I will be interviewing Correll next week, so if you have any additional questions, please let me know.

Thanks for the interesting conversation! Lauren

jen

June 6, 2009 11:40 AM

In an ideal world:

1. government took care of the kids, even when they are sick for 2+ days per month on average;

2. mothers always gave birth to perfectly healthy babies even when you
worked 14 hours days throughout your pregnancies, like your
bachelorette coworkers whenever client or boss asks you to, travel
red-eye internationally should the need arise.

3. government pays mothers for their pregnancies, labors, kids sick
days off, kids' therapies, time spent on PTA lessons, at mothers own
rate, and give mothers promotions

But we don't live in an ideal world. Government already mandated
some maternity leave, could/should even increase it. but don't cry if
businesses discriminate against family oriented women, wanting to treat
them like everyone else, equal pay for equal amount of work.

Pam

June 6, 2009 11:56 AM

I
should have the "right" to have a dozen children....work less than 40
hours a week....miss work constantly because of sick kids....and make
the same amount of money as my childless girlfriend who works 60 hours
a week and hasn't missed a day of work in 8 years.

Pam

June 6, 2009 12:16 PM

I
should have the "right" to have a dozen children....work less than 40
hours a week....miss work constantly because of sick kids....and make
the same amount of money as my childless girlfriend who works 60 hours
a week and hasn't missed a day of work in 8 years.

Anonymous

June 6, 2009 02:33 PM

I work for a publicly traded company that is regularly ranked high in Working Mother magazine's best places to work.

Prior to the recession, I used to keep an informal attendance log of
the 30 or so people in my group. Without fail, the working moms were
out once, twice, or even three times a month. Other folks were usually
out a three days all year.

What was particularly annoying was that some of the working moms
scheduled dental and doctor appointments during office hours. (These
were women who were on the "Mommy" track and only working three days a
week, mind you.)

It was quite obvious that when there was a child-care crisis (nanny
didn't show up, kid sick so he couldn't be taken to day care), the
burden of calling in sick fell on the shoulders of my working mom
colleagues, not their husbands. It's a tough situation, no doubt about
it.

I have seen through my own eyes and measured quite rigorously that
working moms had a higher level of absenteeism that single men and
women and working dads. Does that mean they should be paid less for the
same job? Of course not.

Now that nationwide unemployment is over 9%, no one ever calls in sick at my office, BTW.

Helen

June 6, 2009 04:45 PM

Wow - does everyone here think all of us working mothers miss tons of work?

I usually go in at 6 am and leave the same time as everyone else
that comes in at 8. I always make up sick days on evenings or weekends,
which is do-able since I am in science. I do this because of my work
ethic, not because I have something to prove. But I suspect my status
as a mother weighs heavily on decisions involving my career path.

I hope a serious look is taken at this issue - and am thrilled to
see it brought forward. Businesses need experienced, competent people
and losing or holding back a good chunk of your workers due to
groundless prejudices is not the way to get our economy back on track.

Pam

June 7, 2009 08:22 AM

Some
mothers do work a lot of hours, but you have to wonder why they choose
to have children when they are basically hiring someone else to raise
them.

Helen

June 8, 2009 11:26 AM

It is obvious from these comments just how bad the prejudices are against working mothers! Let me get this straight:

1. Working mothers are irresponsible for taking time off for sick kids

2. Working mothers are irresponsible for working, because they should be with their kids.

There are a lot of talented people that are working mothers. Many
European countries actually do "get it", and support working families
as part of a long term strategy for a strong economy (imagine not
thinking only in terms of quarterly goals!).

BTW Pam - maybe you never heard of this - but there are other
important people in most children's lives called "fathers" (some
fathers don't work the same hours as the mother). Some children are
even luck enough to have grandparents in their every day lives. Think
outside the box, Pam, and you won't have to worry about all those awful
working mothers so much!

 

 

Cathy Arnst

June 8, 2009 02:23 PM

Fellow
blogger Cathy Arnst here. I actually find myself far more efficient and
productive now that I'm a mother because I no longer procrastinate--I
know I have to leave the office by 6 pm or pay my sitter overtime, so I
get my work done by 6, whereas pre-child I would schmooze with
colleagues or dither about, and often stay in the office until 8 pm or
later. Not only does the American workplace have to get over its
prejudice against working mothers, but it must also get past the idea
that productivity should be measured by time in the office, instead of
output. I think the most successful companies probably get this. As
Helen says, in today's global economy, we cannot afford to disregard
huge groups of capable workers because they chose to raise the next
generation of workers.

KB

June 8, 2009 06:31 PM

I
have this great new invention that will solve all of these problems!
It's called a "Father" and it takes responsibility for 50% of all of
the child-rearing responsibilities! Anyone want one?

Seriously though, this sheds light on the fact that mothers often
sacrifice far more than fathers and are judged in every direction.

Take time off work to tend to a sick child? Bad worker!

Don't take that time off work? Bad mother!

Take time off work to stay home with the kid? Bad worker!

Get a divorce and want that sacrifice accounted for in alimony payments? Money-grubbing biyatch!

So ladies, stay home! Squeeze those babies out! Stay in the kitchen!
If you get a divorce, live like a pauper and don't complain because You
Should Have Known Better!

Anonymous

June 8, 2009 09:35 PM

To
respond to BusinessWeek blogger Cathy Arnst, working as a reporter or
editor is different from working in a group situation, say like a call
center.

If your child is sick and you can't come to work, the story you're
writing will get postponed. It's unlikely that your colleagues will
have to pitch in extra and work harder because you're not there the way
they might at a call center or a restaurant.

I think these concerns have become intensified as companies have cut
staffing levels to the bone. At my job, if someone is out sick, we're
all working harder that day.

Univ

June 8, 2009 09:41 PM

I take a little bit of offense that women that have kids don't give just as much as women that do.

I am not a single mother, but have many friends that were raised in
families where the mother was alone, or the only bread-winner. I have
seen these women working 2 to 3 jobs so that they can bring home enough
money to support the family. They were paid a portion of what they
deserved, and on average they had to do overtime because they were not
getting paid as much as other people around them.

Mothers that work do it for 2 reasons, just like everyone else that works. One, they have to. Or Two, they want to.

Overtime aside. You sign up to work a specific amount of hours. If
you can work those amount of hours just as well as someone else, why
would you get paid less?

Elizabeth

June 8, 2009 10:09 PM

For
those of you who are complaining about working moms, who do you want to
have kids? The heroin addicted 18 year old on probation? Sure, she
isn't in a position where some cold soulless b*tch who couldn't get a
boyfriend will take her job, but ....

I feel like a lot of time the people who discriminate against
working moms are the "childless by choice" ladies, that is to say,
women that no men want.

Also, interestingly enough, the people who miss the most work in my
office are 1. a guy who likes to party and 2. a girl who has a dog that
takes up a lot of her time (vet appts, training appts, etc)

Sarah

June 8, 2009 10:22 PM

Being
a working mother is not easy. The work force is not always fair.
However, when I go to work I get to feel successful and fulfilled as a
professional adult, even though I make almost 10% little less than my
predecessor who didn't have kids. When I come home, I get hugs and
cuddles from two sweet kids who beg for stories and kisses at bedtime,
even though they had to go to daycare for 9 hours. I feel pretty lucky!

Working "parent"

June 8, 2009 10:24 PM

I
recently was "let go" from my job when my child hit a major medical
crisis and my employer decided to replace me with someone male,
younger, able to travel and work 70+ hr weeks. All because I asked to
work a 40 hr week for a few weeks to be able to help (my husband,
child, family) get things in order.

Prior to this "problem" I was an executive who worked 60-80 hrs a
week and traveled at least 2 weeks out of a month. I made my company
serious $. One problem in years and I got screwed, big time. They
blamed the economy. No kidding.

My family lost more than 2/3 of our income, plus the health coverage
that was critical. We are facing losing our house and all that we've
worked for in the last 20 yrs.

I've seen male colleagues whose children have medical issues, like
cancer, who are given company support and major flexibility, and even
weeks of time off without penalty. But this is never extended to the
mothers - who, as many have said, are seen as the main caregivers.

It is a shame that companies and the management can't see the big
picture. This discrimination explains why I see so many type-A moms
dropping out of corp. life to run school and volunteer groups, turning
simple parties into large productions.

Some of us really are better suited to being working parents.

@Cathy, I agree with you completely on productivity/output. Punching a clock often has nothing to do with real success.

So, what's an under-compensated woman to do? I, for one, am likely
going to switch careers. I look forward to the follow-up blog posts on
this topic :)

scott

June 8, 2009 10:27 PM

Jen, u scare me with your "Govermment" references. Ikes!

LL

June 8, 2009 10:35 PM

As
a child-free woman of child-bearing age surrounded by male and female
colleagues of the same general age demographic, half of whom are
parents and half of whom aren't, I see this "discrimination" is a fair
shake in at-will hiring practices and determining equal pay for equal
work.

My colleagues each take between 3 and 6 months of time between the
Family Medical Leave Act, their accumulated time off, and the adjusted
flexible work schedule determined by our company. This is perfectly
appropriate, with expectations well set for everyone in the department.
Responsibilities are shifted, temps are hired as necessary, and work
goes on. But while new Moms and Dads are taking their deserved and
appropriate time off, those of us without children are stepping up to
the plate and accepting additional responsibilities, leading projects,
covering the gaps. When those Moms and Dads come back to work, they
don't often slip right into their old roles -- they take several weeks
to get back into the rhythm of work, tracking a learning curve to
re-establish themselves within the organization. Considering that gap
can take anywhere between 3 and 9 months, it's appropriate that when
annual review time rolls around, those Moms and Dads who are doing
their jobs but not exceeding expectations are passed up for raises or
promotions, and those childfree workers who are putting in the extra
hours on "above and beyond" projects are being recognized for that
work. Let that happen twice, and you've got a significant wage gap
between a woman with two kids and her childfree female colleague.

As for Lauren's comment about PTA membership/leadership being
included, I disagree that the only thing that detail offers is
information about whether or not the applicant is a Mom. As a hiring
manager I routinely pass by candidates who list volunteer roles as part
of their employment record if a detailed explanation of how the
experience of that role makes the individual a stronger candidate.
Example: a woman who "chaired the fundraising campaign committee" on
her PTA and lists that role as an employment precursor to a Project
Management or Income Development position is noting relevant
experience; a woman who "was a member of the PTA" in chronological
order without notation about educational or experiential detail seems
to be padding her resume with filler -- when looking through hundreds
of resumes for a single position, I have zero tolerance for fluff.

LL

June 8, 2009 10:36 PM

As
a child-free woman of child-bearing age surrounded by male and female
colleagues of the same general age demographic, half of whom are
parents and half of whom aren't, I see this "discrimination" is a fair
shake in at-will hiring practices and determining equal pay for equal
work.

My colleagues each take between 3 and 6 months of time between the
Family Medical Leave Act, their accumulated time off, and the adjusted
flexible work schedule determined by our company. This is perfectly
appropriate, with expectations well set for everyone in the department.
Responsibilities are shifted, temps are hired as necessary, and work
goes on. But while new Moms and Dads are taking their deserved and
appropriate time off, those of us without children are stepping up to
the plate and accepting additional responsibilities, leading projects,
covering the gaps. When those Moms and Dads come back to work, they
don't often slip right into their old roles -- they take several weeks
to get back into the rhythm of work, tracking a learning curve to
re-establish themselves within the organization. Considering that gap
can take anywhere between 3 and 9 months, it's appropriate that when
annual review time rolls around, those Moms and Dads who are doing
their jobs but not exceeding expectations are passed up for raises or
promotions, and those childfree workers who are putting in the extra
hours on "above and beyond" projects are being recognized for that
work. Let that happen twice, and you've got a significant wage gap
between a woman with two kids and her childfree female colleague.

As for Lauren's comment about PTA membership/leadership being
included, I disagree that the only thing that detail offers is
information about whether or not the applicant is a Mom. As a hiring
manager I routinely pass by candidates who list volunteer roles as part
of their employment record without a detailed explanation of how the
experience of that role makes the individual a stronger candidate.
Example: a woman who "chaired the fundraising campaign committee" on
her PTA and lists that role as an employment precursor to a Project
Management or Income Development position is noting relevant
experience; a woman who "was a member of the PTA" in chronological
order without notation about educational or experiential detail seems
to be padding her resume with filler -- when looking through hundreds
of resumes for a single position, I have zero tolerance for fluff.

Susanne

June 8, 2009 11:01 PM

Pam,

Speaking as a working mother who may or may not be "informally" monitored by non-parent coworkers:

I leave work each day after 9 hours, because I need to pick up my
son from daycare. However, I frequently put in 1-2 hours at home after
my son has gone to bed. Like many other working parents, I maximize my
time at the office (no lunch, no chatting, no time spent commenting on
businesweek.com)so that I am achieving my goals.

I remember my attitude at work before kids, thinking that parents
somehow got off easy. That is a joke. Maybe our parents were lucky
enough to live in a time when one salary was sufficient to comfortably
raise a child. That is no longer. I assume someone raised your
preciousness, and now the parent of this generation generally need to
work full time to do the same.

Oh, the work hours you're wasting to "informally" log other people's
work hours? Wasteful. A working parent would never do that.

Lauren Young

June 8, 2009 11:18 PM

Does anyone have questions for Shelley Correll? I'll be talking to her this week.

Diana

June 9, 2009 03:06 AM

"In
this economic time, does it really surprise anyone that employers want
the people they think will be at work everyday, even work overtime,
without worrying about whether the employee has to run out to pick up
little Johnny."

Except that it's obviously never occurring to those employers that
the people who have to run out to pick up little Johnny might be the
FATHERS. This thought process is clearly reflected in almost every
single comment on this article. Even Jen's description of an "ideal
world" fails to include a suggestion that men assume a higher degree of
childrearing responsibilities. So because corporate expects the mothers
to be primary caregivers, they're reluctant to hire mothers who, in the
face of reduced family income, will stay home to raise the child
instead of paying for day care centers, and they also increase the
pressure for dads to provide less childrearing and more work hours to
compensate for a single family income in a combined family income
economy.

Regina

June 9, 2009 03:23 AM

@Elizabeth
- We aren't complaining about working mom's, no, God bless you all.
We're complaining about the hate of working mom's directed towards
those of us who are single and successful, as though there's only one
slice of pie and we took it. Ehem, that would be you.

So...are you f-ing kidding me!?! "cold soulless bitch that no men
wants..." Right. If that makes it easier for you to fake a smile at the
water cooler, go ahead and think of us that way. But it's more likely
that we are intelligent, know what we're worth, won't settle for less
than what we want in a man, and are waiting for the right time to
orchestrate a family work balance before starting the munchkin party. I
have chosen not to have kids YET for a number of reasons, but trust me,
it is not for lack of suitors. "Childless by choice"- what the hell
does that mean? You're damn right I have chosen not to have kids until
I'm ready. So in the meantime you label me and every other single girl
as a heartless unlovable bitch ready to take jobs from the warm fuzzy
moms? Get over yourself. I work my ass off. I will take what is mine in
promotions based on merit. The 18 yr old heroin addict having babies?
That is a far stretch. Try putting some intelligence into your
statements instead of insulting people because of your limited insight.
You obviously would rather stereotype women who don't have kids, than
to open your mind to the fact that we ALL want equality no matter the
reason of unfairness. AND that the role of women as breadwinners is
becoming stronger, bolstering our contribution to society as
professionals as well as matriarchs, rather than downplaying it as
simply one or the other, which your statement suggests. Realize that I
(and quite possibly all the single "cold bitches") have the same
concerns about inequality of compensation for dedicated/meaningful
efforts, and intelligent/lasting contributions. We know we can do both,
and we don't want to repeat mistakes.

It is so obvious when my teammates who have kids are always
unavailable from 3pm onwards during various days of the week. No extra
effort needed to "monitor" hours, just the continual "Oh, I missed that
meeting", "Didn't see any email s since lunchtime yesterday", "Sorry, I
was out to pick up my kids". It's a blanket reason for leaving early,
working from home, skipping meetings, or "stepping out" for half a day,
that no-one can argue against when there's a deadline looming and
'someone' has to get it done. Meanwhile, if a single person shows up
twenty minutes late on a Friday after twittering about happy hour,
because of a legitimate flat tire, people wonder if that is an excuse
for sleeping in. Don't kid yourself that what goes unspoken is not
communicated. Or that it's necessary to over-communicate your family's
influence on your work schedule. It might not help to be so forthcoming
with details about the carpool kid's latest flu epidemic that caused
you to be late again. Rather say that a key objective was missed
because you signed up to chaperone a school field trip, or that it is
running behind but in the works for completion? Think about it. Cause
all the while, the mess of a kid with the hangover gets a big ass cup
of coffee and sits at his desk talking to no-one, but diligently
answering emails and somehow making it through the daily 4pm conference
call...under the radar and *apparently* getting his shit done. You
scream that it's unfair but wonder why? You actually can't understand
why? Perception is reality, period. Do you want to constantly fight
perception, or do you want to be free to get your work done and
progress towards your goals? Guess what - we all have the same answer!!
You and your kids, me and my ripening uterus, and the guy wishing that
last shot of Tequila just wasn't. I know that SOME working parents do
make up the time, but like every situation, there are those who make
the effort and those who don't, and sooner or later people notice. What
they notice is that: Hangover = temporary. PMS comes... and goes. But
elementary school is only the beginning.

I am not saying that being a parent is easy - as an active aunt I
know otherwise. It's really tough. Exhausting in fact. But I've worked
well over 50 hrs per week for the past 8 years alongside people who do
more or less their share of "teamwork" due to family obligations, and
I'll be damned if someone comes along and gives a half-ass effort that
is just as acceptable simply because they've reproduced. THAT is what
we are complaining about.

A Zachary

June 9, 2009 08:13 AM

Ok,
I get that employers might be hesitant about parents if this was
motivated by logic. But its not. Mother's get a hit. Father's get a
boost. That's not logic, its sexism. ( I work full time and my husband
is a stay at home father, BTY. He hates the presumptions that he can't
be the primary care-giver because he's male.)

Mariana

June 9, 2009 09:46 AM

As usual, any article raising up issues of discrimination between any two groups will stir up lots of interesting discussions.

I'm a working mom who occasionally takes time off to take care of my
kids, but try to make up the time at night after they go to bed or
early in the morning.

However, something that has not been discussed here is that us
parents are making a huge sacrifice when we decide to have children. We
need to take time off during the pregnancy and after birth; we invest
lots of money and time to raise our kid;, we sacrifice our careers to
give them the best, but most important of all, we are contributing
(especially in industrilized countries) to the work force who will be
paying for ALL OF OUR'S social security checks and medicare coverages
when we are old.

People who choose to not have children now (and have the right to do
so) are actually not only getting away with huge expenses that they are
not incurring, but also placing a huge burden on the system later on.
We parents should actually be appreciated for not only making enormous
sacrifices now, but for investing in the future of all elderly people
later on.

And like another posted wrote, Europeans do get it. They invest in
their parents, giving them time off, paying for leave and thus
encouraging much needed higher birth rates. The US doesn't do that, but
maybe they should tax childless adults (who can have kids) at a much
higher rate than the current one to pay for their expenses later on.

Cynthia Shepherd

June 9, 2009 11:31 AM

In
my experience in the work place, co-workers close to my age with
children do take more time off from work, both planned and spontaneous.

To me the issue is, I have consciously chosen to not have children.
My husband and I would prefer to find our satisfaction from our jobs
and the activities we are able to do in our free time.

Most people in this country (and I say most because we know there
are forced pregnancies out there) choose to have children. This is a
CHOICE. With every choice there are benefits and detriments. Each
person's choices will cause differences in what they are able to attain
in life.

My choice was to not have children and to concentrate on my career
and building my personal knowledge and experience base. Some would
argue that I have thus chosen to miss out on the experience that
children provide. This is true, however I am not complaining about not
getting extra tax deductions because my choice doesn't allow that same
benefit as those who choose to have children.

Equally, people who choose to have children are receiving benefits that I as a childfree person do not get to have.

So let's call it even, maybe I make more money than my childed
co-workers, but the tax deductions and insurance benefits they receive
make up for it. (A family insurance plan where I work has the same cost
whether your family has 2 members, husband and wife, or whether it has
3+ members, husband, wife, and children)

Shelley Correll

June 9, 2009 11:43 AM

@LL

I am the author of this study. The study controls for the "Fluff"
that you dislike. The non parent is exactly equal to the parent on this
"fluff dimension." She listed that she was an office in her
neighborhood association on her resume, while the parent listed being
an officer in the PTA. Yet, the non parent received 100% more callbacks
from employers.

Others asked about who the managers were making these decisions. We
sent resumes to folks hiring for jobs through classified ads in a large
Northeastern newspaper. So they were people who were actually doing the
screening for jobs. I do not know if they were male or female or
parents or non-parents. However, my other work shows men and women are
equally likely to discriminate against mothers.

Hill Staffer

June 9, 2009 11:56 AM

I
work on Capitol Hill, and although my chief of staff is very
understanding of my commitments as a working mother, I find that it is
the other co-workers who aren't as understanding. IF I leave at 5
o'clock...I hear smirks but they obviously do not understand that I
have an hour commute and must pick up my son on time. They are also not
there when I actually walk in the office at 8am. I am always here early
because I know that I have to make up for lost time...even though
working 8am-5pm is more than 8 hrs a day, on the Hill that is
considered not long enough.

One time, a single, childless coworker said "I wish I could leave as
early as you..". And then I had to remind her that I wasn't going home
to sip on some wine and chill in front of the television--I was going
home to work and tend to a 2 yr old...who needs to be fed, bathed read
to, etc. In essence, nurturing and prepping not only my kin--but the
future of the country! I am not saying that working moms need to
praised on a daily basis, but I sometimes wish people would think
before they talk. Yesterday - I did a half day at work because my son
had his regular preventative care check up. My appt was for 3
oclock...yes that is in the middle of the work day but there were also
no other slot available as this Pediatrician is in high demand. I wish
I could schedule all my doctor appts after work or on weekends--but
unfortunately most doctor offices do not hold those kinds of
hours...because hello--they have lives too!

This study did not shock me at all--in a capitalist society--short
term gain is critical, but if we were to think long term like our
European counterparts we would see how important parenting truly is.

Mezosub

June 9, 2009 12:07 PM

Mariana,

Childless adults already have their income taxed much higher than
married people and parents. Take a look at "The Baby Boon" by Eleanor
Burkett for an explaination of how the tax system is rigged to skim off
childless peoples' incomes and redistribute the money to parents.

And while we're on the topic, all this going on about how parents
are raising the next generation of workers is just demographically
faulty. Any lack of workers in a capitalist ecomony can be made up for
by relaxing immmigration restrictions. If we see too many retirees in
our future, all we have to do is allow more immigrants to live, work,
and pay taxes, and their children will become the next generation of
works. I realize the idea of WASP-descended Americans being replaced by
those brown people who don't speak English can really disturb the
pro-eugenics crowds, but it really is as simple as that.

KB2

June 9, 2009 12:20 PM

@Elizabeth: Way to be divisive and nasty. Infighting is just so great for women everywhere.

I am a "childless by choice" woman, and it is most certainly NOT
because no man wants me. I am quite happily married, as a matter of
fact. I simply have no desire to raise children. I know a number of
other couples who have made the same decision as my husband and I have.


Aside from showing ignorance of my personal situation as a married and
happily childless woman and many others' like mine, your comment is
remarkably offensive on a number of levels. It implies that 1) all
women want to have children, 2) all women desire to "have" a man, 3)
the only path to motherhood is via getting a man to want you, and 4)
there is something "wrong" with single women in general. I'm sure there
are other ways your comment is offensive as well, those are just my
personal beefs with it.

I don't begrudge working moms or any other person time off to care
for children - someone has to do it. It may mean that I have to work a
little harder when they are gone, but the way I see it, it's kind of
like paying taxes: we live in a community with other people (including
parents and children) and we all have to contribute to taking care of
one another in some way. It's unfortunate that this burden still falls
primarily on the shoulders of mothers alone, and that we can't all view
it as our collective responsibility to ensure that our community's
children are cared for.

Sam

June 9, 2009 01:23 PM

Why
is the value of an employee based on the number of hours put in at the
office? What about the quality of the work? If someone can do the same
job (or better) in less time than the next person, who cares if they're
in the office less than their colleagues? That's why comments
justifying higher pay based solely on the number of hours put in at the
office are ludicrous. It's the outcome of an employee's efforts that
make the bottom line.

G

June 9, 2009 02:25 PM

My
there are some hate-filled comments directed at working mothers here.
Let's think about professions in which working mothers are the norm -
nursing and teaching. I've been in one of those professions as both a
childless person and as a parent and I can honestly say there was no
difference in my attitude, approach or time spent at work. None. Now I
work in the office - as a parent - and things are still the same. In
fact, the person in the company who takes the most sick days is a
single woman with no children who has constant sinus infections.

Josh

June 9, 2009 02:35 PM

I
have a quibble with the way this result is being presented in this post
and a blog that referred me to it: that moms were 100% less likely, etc.

That would suggest that zero or close to zero moms were recommended
etc. which sure made my eyes pop. However I think the auther of the
study has indicated here that, rather, non-parent women were 100% more
likely to be recommended, etc.

That means that moms were 50% less likely, not 100%. 50% is plenty significant, it's far short of the shcking 100%.

m

June 9, 2009 03:02 PM

I've worked in many offices, and offer my observations:

1. Balance is always the key to a good working environment. Too much estrogen or testosterone is never ideal.

2. The ONLY way we're going to achieve equality for all working men
and women (parents or not) is by raising your sons and daughters to not
assume the man is the breadwinner and woman is caretaker.

3. Educated women also need to stop "opting out," in droves because it makes the rest of us look bad...

4. and consequently, anyone in a hiring position who assumes a 30-something is going to pop out a baby in 9 months can suckit.

5. I've noticed the most badass, dedicated workers are single parents.

6. While I have absolutely nothing against workplace dads, they
really do receive the benefit of the doubt due to the aforementioned
"assumed breadwinner status" (not to mention the high-fives they
receive if they take part in some form of the child care rituals).

7. I'm actually cool with parents taking a half day once in a while
for doctor visits or other issues. Just ASK! Don't ASSUME I'm going to
cover you. Also, please don't say, "I'll be available by phone or IM"
when you clearly will not be. If I need to be covered in a certain
situation, I might offer to buy lunch for the other person.

8. Yes, I recognize you are raising the next generation of workers.
I'm also contributing to your children by not having any, and in
essence preserving the environment so that their children can continue
to enjoy the earth. Are we even?

9. Elizabeth, Sweetcheeks, I can assure you men (especially my boyfriend) find me quite appealing. How old are you, four?

Melissa

June 9, 2009 04:00 PM

I am a single, working mom that spent the first 13 years of my "career" as a "childless by choice" working woman.

I climbed to the top of the ladder in a dot-com economy, then
changed careers post-9/11. After climbing the ladder for awhile in a
new career, I embraced the happy accident that was my pregnancy. I
expected it to mean a HUGE shift in my priorities and my career path.
But over and over, I watch my male child-having counterparts neglect
their families to do the social networking necessary to get ahead, when
I have to weigh not only the cost of a sitter, but the amount of time
away from my child and the big-picture impact attending or not
attending outside-of-the-office events will have.

I've also seen non-parent coworkers "milk" the clock, spending up to
half of their work day standing by the water cooler, smokers pole, etc
-- or sitting in their cubicles snoozing or surfing the web. So, is
that hung over coworker really sitting quietly at his desk, diligently
answering e-mails, or is he flipping back and forth between Outlook and
Facebook, secretly b*tching about his aching head and how much he
doesn't want to be at work today???

I had a coworker at my last company who consistently logged 60-80
hour work weeks, but never seemed to get his work done CORRECTLY. And
then ended up having to take nearly 3 weeks off as a result of acute
gout due to his excessive drinking. And *I* was the one penalized by
being laid off, because I cost the company more money as an employee...
my insurance benefits cost them more, and I actually took sick days
(though I never once took a sick day for MYSELF, for fear that taking
more than one sick day every 2 months WOULD result in venom from
coworkers). I was the one picking up slack when the aforementioned
coworker fell down on the job as a result of his own issues. And yet
he's managed to survive at this company for 15 years... and I was laid
off the second it looked like they were not going to make their
projected profit margin for the year.

I think if you're logging the hours put in, you need to contact your
IT department and take a look at who's dialed in at night actually
working, and who's spent half their day in the office surfing the web.
There's a lot more to the bottom line and profitability of the company
than number of hours logged on the clock. I think you'll find that
working moms are FAR less likely to job-hop, and are usually bending
over backwards to make up for time NOT spent in the office.