U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–484 PDF 2003

WOMEN IN MANAGEMENT: ARE THEY BREAKING

THE GLASS CEILING?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY,

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 22, 2002

Serial No. 107–170

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

JUSTIN PAULHAMUS, Clerk

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 22, 2002 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Robertson, Robert E., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, accompanied by Lori

Rectanus; Eileen Appelbaum, Ph.D., professor and director, Center for

Women and Work, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers

University; Christine Stolba, senior fellow, Independent Women’s

Forum; and Judy H. Mello, founding member and vice chairwoman,

the Committee of 200 ................................................................................... 9

Schieffelin, Allison K., former principal, Morgan Stanley, accompanied

by Wayne Outten, attorney at law; Renuka Chander, research manager, Office of Membership and Meetings, American Association for

the Advancement of Science; Susan Ness, Annenberg Public Policy

Center, former Federal Communications Commission Commissioner;

and Marie C. Wilson, president, the White House Project ........................ 95

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Appelbaum, Eileen, Ph.D., professor and director, Center for Women

and Work, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 56

Chander, Renuka, research manager, Office of Membership and Meetings,

American Association for the Advancement of Science, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 105

Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 76

Mello, Judy H., founding member and vice chairwoman, the Committee

of 200, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 72

Ness, Susan, Annenberg Public Policy Center, former Federal Communications Commission Commissioner, prepared statement of ................... 110

Robertson, Robert E., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of ........ 12

Schakowsky, Hon. Janice D., a Representative in Congress from the

State of Illinios, prepared statement of ...................................................... 6

Schieffelin, Allison K., former principal, Morgan Stanley, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 99

Stolba, Christine, senior fellow, Independent Women’s Forum, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 66

Wilson, Marie C., president, the White House Project, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 130

(1)

WOMEN IN MANAGEMENT: ARE THEY

BREAKING THE GLASS CEILING?

MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, New York, NY.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the New

York State Assembly Hearing Room, Room 1923, 250 Broadway,

New York, NY, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee)

presiding.

Present: Representatives Horn, Schakowsky, and Maloney.

Also present: Bill Perkins, deputy majority leader, New York

City Council, Ninth District.

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief counsel;

Bonnie Heald, deputy staff director; Justin Paulhamus, clerk; and

David McMillen, minority professional staff.

Present from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney’s staff: Ben

Chevat, chief of staff; Minna Elias, New York chief of staff; Phil

Craft, New York deputy chief of staff; Orly Isaacson, senior legislative assistant; and Jessica Fox, director of constituent services.

Present from Assemblyman Sheldon Silver’s staff: Yvonne Morrow, director, constituent services.

Mr. HORN. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental

Relations will come to order.

This subcommittee has a broad and, thus, diverse jurisdiction.

We have examined an array of issues from child support and

childcare to computer security and medical privacy. Today, we are

here to examine an issue that affects families and the productivity

of this Nation.

More than 2,000 years ago the Greek philosopher Plato wrote,

‘‘Nothing can be more absurd than the practice that prevails in our

country of men and women not following the same pursuits with

all their strengths and with one mind. For this the state, instead

of being whole, is reduced to half.’’

When I was acting chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights for the period 1969 to 1982, we had our colleagues fully support the Equal Rights Amendment. And as you know, it was only

missed by one or two votes in the States. Indeed, we are a Nation

that is strengthened by our belief in equal opportunity for all

Americans; yet, despite the efforts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the

1965 Voting Rights Act, yet despite those efforts, a number of reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:03 Mar 28, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85484.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

cent studies have found that women are still being paid less than

men, even though they are performing equivalent jobs.

I welcome our witnesses today, each of whom will discuss this

troubling disparity.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]

3

4

Mr. HORN. I now ask the ranking member, Ms. Schakowsky, the

ranking member from Chicago—and we are delighted to have her

here today. Chicago has the wind, New York has the rain.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I would really like to also thank Congresswoman Maloney—

I am assuming that she will be here soon—for her tireless leadership on behalf of women’s equality and for putting together this report, along with Congressman Dingell, which refocuses our attention on these important issues. I very much look forward to this

prestigious panel made up of people who are doing such wonderful

work, and some very good friends of mine.

I wanted to acknowledge that on September 11th the brave

women of the New York Police Department, the New York Fire Department and the Port Authority rushed to the rescue of their fellow New Yorkers, women and men. They demonstrated their commitment and their skill. These women made us all proud. It is fitting that we are here in New York today to discuss the welfare of

women throughout our Nation.

Ours is a country founded on the principles of freedom and

equality. Our Constitution begins, ‘‘We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal.’’ Nearly 100 years later

President Lincoln quoted those words at Gettysburg, saying ‘‘our

fathers brought forth upon this continent a new Nation, conceived

in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created

equal.’’ Nearly 100 years later President Kennedy quoted those

same words and went on to say, ‘‘The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.’’

Ours is also a history of struggle to make those principles a reality for all people, men and women, all men and women. That

same Constitution had embedded in it the principle that slaves

would be counted as three-fifths of a person, part human, part

property. It was not until after the death of President Lincoln that

we undid that disgrace through the ratification of the 14th amendment. It took another 50 years before we ratified the 19th amendment and franchised women and another 50 years after that before

we seriously addressed the political and social equality of the races.

The last quarter of the 20th century was one of wide-ranging social, economic and political change. Even as we fought for equality

and civil rights, we had yet to adequately address equality of the

sexes.

As with most fights for equality, the first step was to get those

in power to recognize that there was a problem. When experts like

those we will hear from today pointed out the problems of pay equity, the establishment was quick to rationalize those differences

with explanations like attachment to the labor force and human

capital. Undeterred, advocates and academics joined to dispel those

excuses and show that pay equity was real and unjust.

Today, our facts are irrefutable. Our evidence is plentiful. We

have before us a report that shows women still make less for the

same work and often are blocked from board rooms. Ours is a fight

for social justice and a fight against an insidious and pervasive system that undervalues women and their work.

Change will not come about through labor economics, but

through the same paths as past social change. We must be firm

5

and insistent that this injustice will not be tolerated in a Nation

that defines itself in terms of social justice. We must repeat the

evidence again and again until everyone knows the facts and

knows right from wrong. We must draw in our colleagues in every

walk of life, wherever we have the opportunity, and make our case

to our brothers, our sons, our sisters and our daughters.

At the same time, we must remember that change is happening.

We only have to look around this room to see that progress has

been made during our lifetime.

As we struggle to make the world a more equitable one for our

children, we must also make sure they recognize our progress.

Today, there are more women in key positions than ever before and

they serve as role models for those who come behind us, making

it easier for them to earn their own place in business or government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky follows:]

6

7

8

Mr. HORN. We will now move to the presentations. I am sure Ms.

Maloney will be here soon. We will have her statement when she

arrives.

But panel one and panel two—let me mention our order. We are

going to ask you, and if your assistants are going to answer questions, to take the oath. This is an investigatory committee, and so

we take this very seriously.

When your name is called, under the rules of the subcommittee,

your full statement is with the reporter and automatically put in

the hearing record. We would like you to take 7 or 8 minutes to

talk from the heart and give us a summary of your statement as

we have already looked at the written statements, which are very

fine. So, it is important to hit the main points.

We will start now with the—first, we’re missing—I think Eileen

Appelbaum is missing. Let’s see, we have Mr. Robertson, Ms.

Stolba, Ms. Mello, so if you will rise——

Mr. ROBERTSON. Could we add Lori Rectanus, too?

Mr. HORN. Yes, and all your assistants.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note that all have affirmed, in addition

to GAO’s backup. May I say that we are very glad that the General

Accounting Office can be here. We always like to have them either

at the beginning or the end.

You work for the legislative branch and you do wonderful work.

And, of course, the General Accounting Office is not what it

seems there. They are programmatically not simply in accounting,

but they are programmatically reviewing all government activities.

And the chief person involved, the Comptroller General of the

United States, Mr. Dave Walker, has a 15-year term. So nobody

can intimidate him. He is there more than Presidents, more than

Members of Congress; and he is doing a great job, and they have

fine, wonderful people.

We would like—after they finish their summary, we would like

to have you sort of sum up where we missed something with the

witnesses. We will obviously go with each witness, 8 or so minutes,

8 or 10, and then we will—once they are all done on panel one, we

will go to questions and answers in a round of 5 minutes on each

side. We treat everybody in the majority and the minority the same

way.

So we will now start with Robert E. Robertson, Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office.

Mr. Robertson, we are glad to have you here.

9

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT E. ROBERTSON, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S.

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY LORI

RECTANUS; EILEEN APPELBAUM, Ph.D., PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR WOMEN AND WORK, SCHOOL OF

MANAGEMENT AND LABOR RELATIONS, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY; CHRISTINE STOLBA, SENIOR FELLOW, INDEPENDENT

WOMEN’S FORUM; AND JUDY H. MELLO, FOUNDING MEMBER

AND VICE CHAIRWOMAN, THE COMMITTEE OF 200

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, Representative Schakowsky,

thank you very much for inviting us to be part of these hearings.

Today, I am going to be talking about a report that we issued

in October that provided perspective on women in management. As

I indicated earlier, I am fortunate to have Lori Rectanus with me;

she is the person that led that work. The report was based on an

analysis of the Department of Labor’s current population survey. I

am going to talk about that survey a little bit later.

The report’s analysis was basically structured within three broad

areas. And as a concession to age, I am going to have to put my

glasses on now, or who knows what words may come out of this

mouth.

The first area we looked at was a comparison of key characteristics of women and men managers, including their levels of education, age, part-time work status, and marital status.

The second area we looked at was women’s representation in

management positions compared with their representations in all

positions within particular industries.

And finally, we analyzed the salary differentials between men

and women in full-time management positions, using a statistical

technique that allowed us to control for the effects of education,

age, marital status and race. This morning I am going to walk you

quickly through those three areas of findings.

But first, as I said earlier, I would to talk just a little bit about

the Current Population Survey, or the CPS, data base that we

used. The CPS is basically a monthly survey of 50,000 households

that contains key labor force data such as employment, wages, and

occupations. Our analysis of the data base focused on 10 cities

which, according to CPS, accounted for about 70 percent of all wage

and salary positions that were filled by women in 2000.

Now, for the purposes of our analysis, we defined managers as

individuals with CPS occupation titles that included the words ‘‘administrator,’’ ‘‘director,’’ ‘‘manager,’’ or ‘‘supervisor.’’ So our definition cut across a wide swath of different types of managerial responsibilities.

The CPS data has several limitations you should be aware of.

For example, the data does not contain some of the key information

that would be necessary to fully identify causes for salary differentials, such as years of experience or job responsibility. Also, the

CPS data are self-reported by respondents and are not independently verified.

Having given you the setup, let me quickly walk through the results of the findings in each of the three areas.

In summary, starting with the comparison of key characteristics

of women and men managers, we found that women managers in

10

the 10 industries we examined generally had less education, were

younger, were more likely to work part-time and were less likely

to be married than male managers. We have charts and graphs to

illustrate these differences. You can either follow along with the

poster boards we have up front, or if you look at the illustrations

that are in my prepared statement, I think they start on page 3.

Or you can do a combination of both.

Starting with Figure 1, dealing with education, let me give you

a general orientation. You will see at the bottom of that graph all

of the 10 industries that we examined listed. The dark bars on that

graph represent the percent of women managers with college degrees or greater, and the lighter bars represent the same information for men managers. As the chart shows, women managers were

estimated to have lower educational levels than men in all 10 industries, and these differences were statistically significant in five

of the industries.

Now, if we move on to Table 1—we haven’t practiced this, so we

hope the charts stay up there—if we move to Table 1, we find that

female managers in most of the industries that we examined were

younger than their male counterparts. Hospitals and medical services was the only industry where female managers were older than

male managers.

Now, if we move to Figure 2, that shows that female managers

were more likely to work part-time than male managers in most

of the 10 industries that we examined. For example, in professional

medical services, female managers were an estimated four times

more likely than male managers to work part-time. In finance, insurance, and real estate there wasn’t really a significant difference

between the percent of male and female managers working parttime. Both of those were around 13 percent.

And finally, the final characteristic we looked at, Figure 3, you

will see that female managers were less likely to be married than

their male counterparts across the 10 industries that we examined.

Now, if we move to the second broad area of our analysis, which

is the representation of women managers in the 10 industries, I

would ask you to look at Figure 4, which I think is on page 7 of

the prepared statement. This graph shows there is no statistically

significant difference between the percent of industry positions

filled by women and the percent of management positions filled by

women for five of the industries we examined. In contrast, the percent of industry positions filled by women was significantly different from the percent of management positions filled by women

in the other five industries. Let me put this in English.

In the educational service area, in retail trade, finance, insurance

and real estate, and hospital and medical services, women were

less represented in management positions than they were in all positions. In professional medical services, which is the last bar there,

the opposite was true. Women were represented to a greater degree

in management positions than they were industry-wide.

Now, if we move to the last of three areas of our analysis, which

talks about the salary differentials between men and women managers, these data are captured on table 2. What we found here was,

after controlling for education, age, marital status, and race, fulltime female managers earned less than male managers in both

11

1995 and 2000 within all 10 industries. For 2000, we found that

the full-time female managers earned an estimated low of 62 cents

for every $1 earned by full-time male managers in the entertainment and recreation services, compared to an estimated high of 91

cents in the educational service area.

Now, as I indicated earlier, I would caution you to remember

that the analysis of the wage differences did not consider certain

factors to help explain the differences, such as years of experience.

You also have to be careful in interpreting the 2 years as a trend.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement, and I’ll

answer questions at the appropriate time.

Mr. HORN. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Mr. HORN. And our second witness on panel one has just arrived,

Dr. Eileen Appelbaum, professor and director, Center for Women

and Work, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers

University.

Ms. APPELBAUM. Thank you very much for inviting me here, and

I apologize for being late.

Mr. HORN. We will have to swear you in since you weren’t in the

earlier group.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. HORN. We will note Dr. Appelbaum has affirmed.

Ms. APPELBAUM. Well, I wanted to speak about two things today,

both of which I know are familiar to people. But I wanted to comment on the implications of them for both what I call private policies, policies that companies can engage in today and that unions

can engage in today, and public policies, the kinds of policies that

require some sort of government action.

As we begin this century, there are two salient facts about

women and work that I think are really important to make. And

perhaps I am repeating some of what has been said; I apologize

again.

The first is the dramatic increase in the employment of women

over the last century, which I think we are all aware of. But what

people may not be quite as aware of is the tremendous increase in

the employment of mothers of young children. The employment

rate of mothers of young children is now 70 percent. Seventy-two

percent of women with children younger than 18, and 65 percent

of those with children younger than 6 are in the work force.

On average, these women work pretty much full-time hours.

They are working 35 hours a week, on average, so they are really

fully occupied. The result of this is that we do not have a situation,

as we had in the 1950’s and the 1960’s, in which there was a fulltime adult at home to deal with all of the care and other responsibilities.

The second salient fact is the persistent gap in earnings between

men and women. This gap has persisted, despite the fact that

today women are as likely as men to have a college degree. In fact,

at the bachelor’s level, they are more likely to have a college degree. And yet the wage gap has not disappeared; it has narrowed.

If we go back to the 1970’s, we would find that women were earning 62 cents for every $1 earned by a man, and this gap did narrow

over the 1980’s, but it has stagnated in the second half of the

1990’s and it is widening again.

So I want to talk about these two points and what their implications are, and say a few words about where the treatment of

women managers and professionals come into play.

You know, sometimes it is argued that there has not been much

change; if you look at hours that people are working, they haven’t

changed much over the last 20 years, and full-time workers rarely

work more than 40 hours a week. But this really does not get at

the heart of the question, because if you go back to the 1960’s or

even 1970, what you find is that, for the most part, women stayed

at home. You had one full-time worker.

If you take a look at the 1970’s into the 1980’s, the hours of work

of married-couple families begin to rise; and by the middle of the

54

1980’s, we have this situation where family hours of work are the

equivalent of one full-time and one part-time job.

But by the time we get to the 1990’s, married-couple families

with children at home, with young children at home, families in the

middle of the income distribution are now working 3,900 hours a

year. This is equivalent to two full-time jobs. So the time squeeze

comes not because individual workers are working so many more

hours, but because families are providing so many more hours of

work to the labor market. And so we have this huge squeeze in

terms of time that needs to be taken into account.

If we look at the wage gap and ask ourselves, why did it narrow

during the 1980’s and why is it stagnating now and ever widening,

what we see are two things. In the 1980’s, women’s wages did rise

as a result of the fact they had better education and as a result

of the fact they were spending more years in the work force.

But the other big piece of that puzzle is that men’s wages were

falling during the 1980’s, and so a lot of the catch-up had to do

with the fact that the men were leveling down, not only that

women were leveling up. But that’s what took place through 1993

or 1994.

And if we look today, we see that the wage gap has stabilized

and has begun to widen again.

The reasons are several fold. If we look at women without a college degree, what we find is that, as a result of welfare reform and

the strong labor market of the 1990’s, many single mothers entered

the work force. Welfare reform got these women off the welfare

rolls, but it did not get them out of poverty; and they moved into

extremely low-paying jobs. The result is that the gap between men

and women with a high school degree or less widened as these

women entered into the work force and found their opportunities

very limited.

The second thing that happened is, if we take a look at men and

women with a college degree, we find that women are increasingly

not found in the information technology areas in which wages have

risen so rapidly in the 1990’s. So if you look at 1986, you find that

women made up 35 percent of the systems analysts and the computer programmers, but if you look at the present period, you find

they make up only 35 percent. So there has been a decline in women’s share of the very best jobs in terms of pay in the 1990’s for

college graduates.

The third thing that happened is the information that has

brought us all together here today, and that is that the wage gap

for managers and professionals between men and women began to

widen in the mid-90’s, and we find that women in professional and

managerial positions are falling further and further behind.

The numbers that were in the report from Congresswoman

Maloney and Mr. Dingell talked about 10 industries, but if you

take a look at managers and professionals generally, forgetting

about whatever industry they worked in, you would find the same

story. You would find that gap widening for women relative to men

in managerial and professional occupations generally.

One of the big problems with this huge wage gap and the fact

that it doesn’t disappear is, it then has implications not only for

women’s ability to fulfill themselves and to reach their complete poVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:03 Mar 28, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85484.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
55

tential and make their greatest contribution to the economy and to

their families, but it also has an effect on the decisions that men

make with respect to care activities. If you have a wide differential

in pay between a husband and wife, it is difficult for a family to

make a decision that the father should be engaged in the care of

the children. So men miss out on a lot of experiences that they

would like to have because of these inequities.

So I think that we really need, as we look to the future, to think

about policies and practices that will promote work-life integration

for both men and women.

A lot of it, I think, has to do with the ability to control your time

at work. There are many ways in which employers and unions can

negotiate to reach opportunities for flexibility and for workers to

take greater control over their own work time. So I think that the

flexibility and work-time issues are important—I am running out

of time, but they are in my written testimony so I won’t elaborate.

We also need paid family and medical leave. This, I do not think,

can come from employers. This has to be handled the way we handled unemployment insurance, through a fund that is dedicated to

this purpose. If we work on policies like this, I think we have to

amend the Equal Pay Act to cover part-time workers. We are the

last industrialized country in which it is legal to discriminate

against employees on the basis of the fact that they work part-time

rather than full-time hours.

So I’ll just stop there, and thank you very much.

Mr. HORN. Well, thank you, and we’ll get to a lot more things

in the question period.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Appelbaum follows:]

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. HORN. Our next presenter is Christine Stolba, senior fellow

at the Independent Women’s Forum.

You might tell us a little bit about the Independent Women’s

Forum.

Ms. STOLBA. I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of

the subcommittee. I am honored to have the opportunity to testify

about ‘‘Women in Management: Are They Breaking the Glass Ceiling?’’ I am Christine Stolba, Senior Fellow at the Independent

Women’s Forum, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization

dedicated to research and public policy issues on women, particularly women in the work force. We accept no government funds, so

we are—pursuant to House Rule XI, we don’t accept any government funds.

I want to talk briefly about the issue of both the wage gap and

the glass ceiling, and then point to a few specific problems that I

had with the Maloney-Dingell report.

The existence of a wage gap and a glass ceiling are often cited

as evidence of discrimination against women in the labor market,

but the statistics and arguments to not withstand careful scrutiny.

In 1999, the average annual full-time wages of women were 73 percent of those of men, but this average figure fails to consider crucial determinants of wages, including major variations between

men and women in factors such as hours worked, education, age,

part- or full-time status, experience, number of children, and most

importantly, consecutive years in the work force. When these factors are considered, economists find an adjusted wage gap far

smaller than the 73 percent figure, with academic studies ranging

from 88 to 99 percent on the male dollar.

For example, tenure and experience are two of the most important factors in explaining the gender wage gap. According to the

U.S. Bureau of the Census, women on average spend a far higher

percentage of their working years out of the work force than men

do. As many empirical studies have demonstrated, this means that

when women return to work, they will not earn as much as their

male or female counterparts who have more uninterrupted experience in the workplace.

In many studies, when all relevant factors are considered, the

wage gap virtually disappears. For example, University of Maryland Professor Judith Hellerstein found that women in the banking

and miscellaneous products and plastics industries made 99 percent of what men did. A recent study by the Employment Policy

Foundation analyzed March 2001 Current Population Survey data

and found that single women who never married, live alone and

have a full-time job earn more than their male equivalents by 28

cents per hour.

Misleading rhetoric can also characterize discussions of the existence of a glass ceiling, which is the supposedly impenetrable barrier that prevents women from advancing in the corporate world.

The 1995 report issued by the Glass Ceiling Commission revealed

that only 5 percent of senior managers at Fortune 1000 and Fortune 500 service companies were women, and implied that systemic

discrimination against women was the cause. Yet the Glass Ceiling

Commission report suffered from several methodological flaws.

64

Typical qualifications for corporate senior management positions

include both an MBA and 25 years of work experience.

Logic would suggest that the Commission made comparisons

among the qualified labor pool of men and women to determine if

discrimination was hampering women’s advancement. But the

Commission instead compared the number of women in the total

labor force without reference to experience or education with the

number wielding power at larger corporations, and this gave them

the 5 percent figure.

A cursory glance at the history of professional school degrees reveals that few of the graduates of the 1950’s and 1960’s, who today

would be at the pinnacle of their professions, were women. This

suggests a pipeline theory where women are moving their way

through pipeline into top corporate jobs. As well, evidence from organizations such as Catalyst suggests that this pipeline itself

might be leaking, because women are leaving these jobs in the corporate world to take employment elsewhere often because they

want flexible work arrangements and, also, often because they

want to start their own businesses.

And herein, I think, lies the crucial oversight of those who continue to claim that a glass ceiling is holding back American women.

These are women’s own choices and decisions about their careers,

which are never factored into the equation.

Studies of workplace behavior have found a clear difference in

behavior and attitudes toward work between men and women, including that women are less willing to work long hours and to relocate and more eager for part-time work arrangements. Logging

long hours and relocation are both routes to future promotion in

corporate America. Ultimately, the only ceiling that exists in corporate America is a gender-neutral one, and it prevents those who

choose to devote more time to their personal lives from advancing

at the same rate as those who devote more uninterrupted time to

the workplace.

Of course, unfortunately, discrimination does still exist. But I

would point out that we have two important laws on the books that

should continue to be enforced, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So I feel, although Representatives Maloney and Dingell are to

be commended for their interest in the issue of women’s advancement in the workplace, their report suffers from several methodological flaws that render suspect its conclusions about the existence of discrimination against women in management.

First, the report concedes that the data it used from the Federal

Current Population Survey do not account for two important factors for determining salary levels—years of experience and level of

managerial responsibility. The exclusion of these important variables, both of which are crucial determinants of compensation and

workplace advancement, raise questions about the report’s conclusion about discrimination in wages.

To make a finding of discrimination, any comparison of men’s

and women’s salaries must take into consideration age, education,

and consecutive years of experience and the sizes of the businesses

or firms being compared. Only after holding these factors constant

can we make determinations about the existence of discrimination.

65

As noted above, academic studies of the wage gap have found far

lower disparities in wages than those found in the report. For example, Professors Marianne Bertrand at the University of Chicago

and Kevin Hallock at the University of Illinois, writing in the October 2001 issue of Cornell University’s Industrial and Labor Relations Review, found that women’s earnings at the top of corporate

America were not significantly different from men’s when all relevant factors, such as age, education, and experience were taken

into account.

Moreover, between 1992 and 1997, woman nearly tripled their

presence in the top executive ranks and strongly improved their

compensation relative to men. Similarly, a 1999 National Science

Foundation study of 1.5 million engineers concluded that female

engineers make 98 cents on the dollar earned by their male counterparts.

Second, the report concedes that women managers are more likely to work part-time than their male counterparts. This means that

we can and should expect that women managers’ salaries will be

lower than their male and female counterparts who do not work

fewer hours per week.

Third, the report is merely a snapshot of 10 industries. Broader

evidence reveals that women continue to make gains in the labor

market and experience faster wage growth than men.

Finally, and most importantly, I sense the underlying tone of the

report suggests that equality for women means statistical parity

with men in all fields. By this definition women will have achieved

success only when they are half of all corporate CEOs earning exactly the same average wages as men do. But I believe this is a

misguided standard of success because it fails to account for the

heterogeneity of the female population and the powerful forces of

individual choice.

The assumption that without discrimination we would make exactly the same choices as men ignores the available evidence on

women’s preferences and is an assumption that many women find

demeaning, for it suggests that we’re incapable of making choices

for ourselves and of bearing the consequences of those choices.

Thank you.

Mr. HORN. Thank you. That’s a very good perspective to hear.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stolba follows:]

66

67

68

69

Mr. HORN. And the last presenter on panel one is Judy H. Mello,

a founding member and vice chairwoman of the Committee of 200.

You might tell us a little bit about the Committee of 200.

Ms. MELLO. I will. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and the congressional hearing committee. My name is Judy Mello, a founding

member and the vice chairman of the Committee of 200. For those

of you not familiar with it, the Committee of 200 is a professional

organization of preeminent businesswomen leaders and the premier organization of its kind in this country. The Committee of 200

is focused on actively promoting women’s success in business both

as entrepreneurs and as corporate leaders.

We recently conducted the first-ever comprehensive study to

measure women’s clout, if you will, in the business world. Our goal

was to define how real women’s progress has been, to demonstrate

where woman actually stand in the big picture, and to identify

areas where women are either closing the gap or possibly losing

ground.

The study is called the C200 Business Leadership Index. I think

you have a copy in front of you, and I will refer to it in a minute.

It will be conducted and published annually as a measure of American businesswomen’s progress toward parity with their male counterparts.

The Business Leadership Index measures women’s progress

against their male counterparts using 10 benchmarks. The results,

which were published this last March—were released in March,

should be of some great interest to the committee.

The index is measured on a 10-point scale where 10 represents

parity with men. Measured as a weighted aggregate of the 10 separate benchmarks measured in the study, the C200 Business Leadership Index for 2002 indicates that 3.95 on a scale of 10 percent

is where the parity sits today for women.

This means that women are less than 40 percent of the way to

equality with men when measured against the following benchmarks: First, women-owned businesses versus men-owned businesses, parity at that point, which is a total parity of 10, women

stand at 5.8. If you refer to page 5 in the folder that I had given

to you, it would be helpful.

Fortune 500 board seats occupied by women versus the number

occupied by men today stands at 2.6 on a scale of 10.

Fortune 500 corporate officers who are women versus men, that

scale is 2.78 on a scale of 10.

Company size of women-owned businesses versus company size

of those owned by men is 3.25.

Venture capital funding for women’s companies versus VC funding for men’s is at 1.1 on a scale of 10.

Line and staff ratio, that is, the women of Fortune 500 corporate

officer positions who hold line positions versus staff positions,

knowing that the line is the faster track to a CEO position, that

scale is 5.6 to 10.

The gender/wage gap, according to our analysis, shows that women’s average weekly earnings as a proportion of men’s in this category is 7.6.

MBA enrollment, the number of women currently enrolled versus

men, is 6.6.

70

And keynote speakers at the top 10 high-profile annual U.S. conferences, meaning the number of women invited to speak versus

men, is 3.8.

Finally, the charity fund-raising chairs, the number of women

asked to serve as honorary chairpersons for one of the top U.S. 10

charities versus men is zero.

The analysis really was to combine these 10 different benchmarks when they are weighted to try to again assess on an overall

basis what the power and influence of women in leadership roles

are in this world. It is important to look not just at the overall

index number, which is 3.8, but also at the individual benchmark

numbers, so that we can see where we need to concentrate our efforts most to improve the opportunities for women in the business

world.

There is a lot of talk about the great strides businesswomen are

making as business leaders in America. The most important—most

powerful women in corporate executive offices have indeed become

household names. And women who have avoided corporate roadblocks by striking out on their own are profiting from record

growth. But let’s consider what the individual benchmark numbers

really indicate.

The number of female corporate officers and board directors at

Fortune 500 companies is still negligible. At the current rate of

growth, women will not reach the halfway mark to parity with men

as corporate officers in Fortune 500 companies until the year 2019.

Neither will women reach the halfway mark in terms of occupying

board seats in those companies until 2027.

Venture capital funding going to women-led businesses is still

minute when compared to the funding going to men-led businesses.

While women are making progress toward parity with men as

measured by enrollment in MBA programs, they still represent 25

to 30 percent of the business student body. Sadly, there are no

women acting as fund-raising chairs at the Nation’s top charities.

And women’s participation as keynote speakers is under the halfway mark at a parity of 3.88.

There is, however, encouraging news. Women-owned businesses,

with an index number of nearly 6, are outpacing the growth rate

of all businesses by 2 to 1. It would seem that women perceive the

greatest opportunity in business as self-employment, doing it their

own way and avoiding the roadblocks that corporate America setsup for them.

The gender/wage gap issue is the closest to parity at 7.6 on a

scale of 10, and that is because this is an issue that has been discussed and addressed by committees like this for many, many

years; but the current rate of growth is still going to take 30 years

to reach parity with men. This is not to say that there are not steps

that women can take to improve their own progress. The Committee of 200 is working especially with younger women to encourage

the kind of educational choices that will lead women toward greater success and provide support and resources to hasten their path.

71

However, a proactive stance on the part of government, corporate

America, and academic institutions is critical to creating a business

environment more conducive to the success of women in business

today.

Mr. HORN. Thank you. That is a helpful statement.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mello follows:]

72

73

74

75

Mr. HORN. Our friend, Mrs. Carolyn Maloney, has joined us; and

if you would like to have your opening statement—or would you

just like to go on to questions?

Mrs. MALONEY. I think we—I’ll put it in the record. I think it is

more important to listen to our important panelists.

Mr. HORN. Without objection, Ms. Maloney’s statement will follow mine and the ranking member’s as if read.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:]

76

77

78

Mr. HORN. Welcome.

So now let’s go to 5-minute rounds. There are three of us here,

and we will just rotate it to get a lot of things out. I will lead with

Ms. Schakowsky, the gentlewoman from Illinois, to start questioning this panel for the first 5 minutes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Ms. Stolba, you make the argument that there

is no wage gap and that there is no glass ceiling for women. You

said, ‘‘Ultimately, the only ceiling that exists in corporate America

is gender-neutral—it prevents those who choose to devote more

time to their personal lives from advancing at the same rate as

those who devote more uninterrupted time to the workplace.’’

Rather than arguing that’s gender-neutral, could not one argue

that the rules of the game are structured in a way that traditionally favor men and that the arguments for the way to help to

change the nature of the workplace would make it more possible

for women to compete equally?

Ms. STOLBA. I do think that’s true. You hear talk of the ‘‘old boys

club,’’ for example, in corporate America. I do think that as women

become, and are now, half the work force, and as they choose to

move throughout corporate ranks, they will begin demanding certain changes.

But I would caution in saying that I don’t think there is a role

for the Federal Government to impose those changes. I think what

we have now with existing antidiscrimination legislation is sufficient as long it is continually and vigorously enforced. I don’t think,

however, that the Federal Government should take the role of telling businesses, private businesses, that you must give a certain

number of weeks of paid leave, paid family leave, for example, and

those sorts of things. I think that is a dangerous thing.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think it is also dangerous—the way I hear

this is, in many ways, to blame the victim. And the use of the

words ‘‘gender-neutral’’ imply that the playing field is precisely

even. And I think that it’s important, whether or not you believe

that government should intervene, or whether voluntarily the

workplace has to accommodate women, to say that it is gender-neutral and that women simply choose to be lesser players, I think increases the burden then on women.

I want to add a couple of questions about this issue of choice. Do

you really believe that the choice that women have to invest in

family is the same as men have? I think that’s what gender-neutral

implies.

Ms. STOLBA. Well, yes, of course. But the point is that we are not

all going to make the same choices. I would add that the feminist

movement in the 1960’s was all about giving women as many

choices as possible; it wasn’t supposed to tell women what to

choose.

And I think when we get into discussions of parity in the workplace, feminist groups and a lot of activists tend to want to ignore

the fact that 70 percent of women in their lifetime have children.

And many women, when polled, if you look at the data of young

woman who are childless entering the work force, they are earning

about the same as their male counterparts. It is once they have

families that they then decide—and this is a private family decision—that the women want to take some more time off work.

79

I think that men who want to do that—and more and more

young men are doing that——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me talk about some women that don’t

have choices.

Ms. Appelbaum talked about, as part of the explanation of the

growing wage gap, the influx into the workplace of women, loweducated, poor women, as a result of welfare reform. This was not

a matter of choice. I think some may argue that the wonderful

choice my daughter has to stay home with her two little children

is not a choice that is offered to those poor women.

Do you feel that we are always talking about a choice to be

home?

Ms. STOLBA. Well, we are talking about choice; but we’re also

talking about, as adults, taking responsibility for our choices, and

that is the issue in the welfare debate.

I would add that the arguments that are made, often invoking

single mothers, particularly ones that have just come off the welfare rolls, point to the fact that we are one of the last industrialized

countries that doesn’t have paid leave, that doesn’t have certain

benefits. But if you compare the U.S.’ economy and women’s participation in it to that of European countries, you will find their

growth rates are much lower. Their wage gaps are wider. So even

with those benefits, it doesn’t guarantee that women will have that

kind of——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I see Ms. Appelbaum shaking her head. I want

you to respond to that. But, in addition, would you consider adding

to your list, when you talk about what government can do, we are

reauthorizing welfare reform, making it—there are even more work

requirements and less educational opportunities, so this issue of

enabling women to diminish the wage gap is limited now.

Could you respond now to Ms. Stolba?

Ms. APPELBAUM. Just very quickly, it’s just not true that all

countries in Europe have less female labor force participation. If

you take a look at a country like Sweden, of course they have the

same trajectory as we have in terms of female labor force participation. They have a much narrower wage gap. They do still have a

wage gap, but it’s much narrower.

But if you take a look at countries like the Netherlands and Germany, which are making a real effort to provide opportunities for

women, what these two countries have enacted is an adjustmentof-hours act which allows any employee, male or female, to request

a reduction in hours of work, let’s say from 40 hours to 30 hours,

for a fixed period of time, and the employer can refuse if there is

a business reason to refuse, but not otherwise. This has enabled

many parents of children to share the responsibility of caring for

their kids and also to remain in the work force, to have the continuity of the work experience, to work 30 hours a week and to continue; not to have that all or nothing choice, you have to be here

or not.

Each parent can take a day off and stay home with the kids, so

that children are in daycare, let’s say, 3 days a week and with a

family member the other four, which I think many families would

find much more possible to manage.

80

Mr. HORN. We now yield 5 minutes to Mrs. Maloney for questioning.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Chairman Horn and Ranking Member Schakowsky very much for coming here. I have served with Mr.

Horn on this committee for many years, and he has elected to not

run for reelection. I think it is a true loss to the Congress of the

United States. He has been an outstanding Member of Congress

and one who has cared about many, many issues.

I just have to mention his strong work on Governor’s Island that

I believe helped force the issue, and the giving of the island back

to the city; all New Yorkers thank you for the leadership that you

played in that important project. And we thank the President of

the United States also.

I do want to thank also Sheldon Silver, the Speaker of the Assembly, and State Senator Martin Connor for allowing us to use

their hearing rooms. We really truly appreciate it.

One of the reasons that I did this study with Mr. Dingell was

that there were so many studies that were coming out showing

women losing ground. Not only is the White House Project that—

we have Ms. Wilson here today from that one—but the Catalyst,

the Annenberg Report that in telecommunications and in media

jobs women hold only 3 percent of so-called ‘‘clout positions,’’ one

from the scientific community stating that women were paid a

third of what male scientists were paid. And we wanted to take a

broader look.

With the great work and cooperation of the nonpartisan, independent GAO, we looked at 10 industries that employed—not, Ms.

Stolba, a small snapshot—but 71 percent of the women in the work

force and 73 percent of women in management. So it was a broad

view. We used census data. And therefore it was not an academic

study in that we generated the questions.

We certainly want to go back and look at qualifications and other

items that you mentioned, but we were using the data that were

available to us.

I continue to hear about more reports. Ms. Mello came up with

her report, and again it is showing that women are not doing so

well. When you say that this is a woman’s choice to go out and

start her own business, when I talk to women who go out and start

their own business—and the Small Business Bureau shows that

the great growth in small businesses is all women-generated—they

will say because they couldn’t stand it. They ran into a glass ceiling

and they couldn’t go any further, so why continue, in their view,

in being discriminated against?

I want to mention that I have started a Web site,

www.equality2020.org, and I’d like to put information up on this

Web site of other reports. Ms. Mello, you cited yours. I don’t have

that; I would like a copy of it.

But I would also like to have Ms. Stolba, for the record, the public policy foundation report that you mentioned; and I’d like to ask

the panelists, all of them, to respond. And you, yourself, to the

statement that you made that this particular study found that single women who have never married, live alone and have full-time

jobs earn more than their male equivalents.

81

You know, as a mother of two, and a very strong proponent for

children and families, in my view, if a woman has to be single and

childless to have parity with men, the majority of whom who are

married and have children, then this simply is not parity.

So first, Ms. Stolba, how do you respond?

And how do you, Ms. Appelbaum, Mr. Robertson, and Ms. Mello?

Ms. STOLBA. Well, I would say that the point of citing that study

was to show that we do have equal opportunity. That is not to

say—first of all, we are talking about cultural differences here as

well. When woman have children, they tend to be the ones, on average, to choose to spend more time out of the work force than men

do.

Now, you might not think that’s a legitimate choice, because it’s

hampering women from advancing. But I would argue that’s their

choice. That’s a personal family choice that women make.

Men make that choice as well. I know many young men these

days who are taking parental leave to spend time with their children, taking a year’s sabbatical to be with a newborn. And that is

just as legitimate, and they won’t advance as quickly.

I do think there are flexible, nongovernmental ways to address

some of these issues—for example, in academia stopping the tenure

clock for men or women who want to take a year or two off to be

with their children; in law firms to have a partnership track where

the partnership track time is slowed for men or women who want

to take that time off.

In certain businesses, however, the demands of being a corporate

CEO, for example, don’t allow for as much flexibility; and most corporations are pyramid shaped. Most people don’t get to the top, and

if you want to get to the top, you do make sacrifices. I think I am

just trying to point out here, not in a Pollyanna-ish way, that there

is not discrimination, but you make tradeoffs in life. And women,

on average, have tended to make different tradeoffs than men.

That doesn’t mean they don’t have equal opportunity.

Mrs. MALONEY. Could you respond, Ms. Appelbaum? Ms. Mello.

Mr. Robertson.

Ms. APPELBAUM. I would just say that women are making the

best choices they can, given the rotten situation that they face. And

in that sense, that is certainly true.

I agree with you that if what we have to do, that in order to have

equality or even earn more—because as we all know, employers

look askance at men who are single, live alone, have no children,

and were never married. These are not considered good employees

if they are male, only if they are female.

And we also know from the data-Ms. Stolba can verify it—that

men with children earn more than men without children, everything else being equal, whereas women with children earn less.

I think it is about opportunity and I think it is about choice. The

question is how do we provide women with the same opportunities?

What has to happen so that the choices they make reflect their own

preferences? Otherwise, I will tell you that the problem is not going

to be that women don’t work and that women don’t earn enough.

The problem is that women don’t have children in large enough

numbers to replace the population. Japan already faces this; they

82

have a shrinking population. Italy already faces this; they have a

severely shrinking population—Germany to a lesser extent.

The United States would be in the same shape as Germany if it

were not for the fact that we have such a large immigrant population. First-generation women continue to have large families; otherwise, we would also be below replacement in terms of children.

If we don’t make it possible for people to combine a career and a

family, we are going to face serious problems, a waste of human

resources as women drop out of the work force or as they take parttime jobs that are way below their qualifications.

One of the things we know about part-time employment in this

country is that half the jobs that are part-time are found in 10 lowwage industry occupation classifications. So if you decide that you

want to cut back on your hours, in general, in this country, you

cannot cut back on your hours as a professional woman in your

current job. You must quit your current employer and take a job

in retail. And sure, you will be paid the same as a man in retail

trade, but you will not be paid the same as a person with your

qualifications and you will not be contributing to this economy everything that you are capable of contributing.

What we need, I think—it was put out by Ms. Stolba: There is

a view in this country that longer hours equals more productivity.

Longer hours equals more managers who don’t know how to manage. They manage by face time. You spend your time—long hours

in a law firm, long hours in a consulting firm, long hours in a corporate headquarters, and then your manager knows you are a hard

worker.

It takes a lot more to manage by results than it does to manage

by face time. And here is what we have found in those companies

that manage by results—because, in fact, what I study as a researcher is what goes on inside of companies. Those companies—

and there are many in the United States, that do offer flexibility,

that do give people flexible work arrangements—find that the first

thing they have to do is educate their frontline managers, supervisors and line managers to judge by the quality of the work. What

is it this person was supposed to accomplish and did they accomplish it; not, were they here 60 hours doing 30 hours’ worth of

work?

So there are a lot of changes that have to be made. I think, if

we get to flexible work arrangements, we will also get to much better management and better use of our human resources; and we

will have much greater opportunities for women, as well as for

men, to adjust their work lives so that they can also have careers,

be good employees; and do a good job as parents, and as children

responsible for the care of their family members.

Mrs. MALONEY. Ms. Mello? Could she have a chance to respond?

Because I think this is an important question, and I will give my

other time back. I just wonder how the other people respond to it.

Ms. MELLO. I would like to say that, as we have heard today,

there is still a lot of discussion and argument around the statistics;

and I must say that I think this whole issue has suffered from the

fact that the information that we have had has been fragmented

and anecdotal in many ways.

83

The Committee of 200, a group that has been around for 20

years, these are top women CEOs in the country who have gone

through this process in the last 20 years. One thing, when we came

up to do this index, was to create a big picture, to really kind of

create a combined, average global feel for where we really stand

and to create an index that can be published every year so we can

create a benchmark and start tracking it. It is a clout issue. It is

a combination of 10 weighted average indexes all the way from the

sublime to the ridiculous—why aren’t we head of charity fundraiser

balls, but that is significant when you get into it.

The bottom-line is to try to reduce the rhetoric and get down to

specific measures that we can refer to, the purpose of that being

really to begin a conversation about these issues so that people become more aware of the fact that we are not sitting in this valuable

time arguing one statistic against another, but we have a standard

that we can refer to; and from that basis, to make that information

available to people who are decisionmakers both in government

and the private sector.

It will also highlight, for those of us who care about this issue,

when it is time to celebrate. I can remember when pay parity was,

you know, a lot lower; and so I am delighted that it is getting up

there, whether it is 100 percent or 7.8 or whatever.

I do think that these are opportunities, and I second think it is

important to segment where we have concerns and where we need

to focus our attention and understand these issues associated with

hindrances to our success.

There is a lot of discussion about the need for parity and the

need for diversity in the private sector, which is my sector, and I

am sure in the government as well. There is very little done in

terms of trying to help people who are in a position to make a difference know how to go about doing it, how to make these changes

happen.

And I have spent a lot of time with our corporate sponsors and

organizations talking to them about what they are doing internally

to make this happen. And guess what? The reason isn’t only because it is the right thing to do or that they are going to get their

hands slapped, but they are looking at a marketplace where—you

know the statistics better than I do—but at least 70 percent, in the

next 10 years, of their marketplace is not going to represent white

males and they don’t have a clue about what their market is.

So, from the standpoint of business in the private sector, they are

really beginning to get into these issues. The bigger they are, the

harder they are going to fall if they don’t start getting with it.

So we are trying to create an index that people can get a handhold, and from there start conversations and start evolving. I agree

with Ms. Stolba that the private sector needs to move on taking

these initiatives, with the support of the government as well, because the cost to society is too huge. I mean, ultimately, the bottom

line—and this is a personal feeling—is that if we don’t begin to

kind of make this an easier pathway, we are going to lose the most

important 50 percent of our society, where we are going to have our

national leadership. We need good leaders in our country, whether

it is private sector, not-for-profit, government, or whatever; and if

they are hindered because they have to send their kids to school

84

or whatever, and society is not helping them with raising their children, then that is a cost to society and, God knows, we’ll have lots

of problems.

So it is really the loss of leadership opportunity, and second, it

is the responsibility for raising our young children. It is not just

mothers, it is not even just mothers and fathers; but it is society’s

responsibility. And you know the statistics, again, better than I do;

but I would have to say that we as a society have not gotten serious about dealing with these educational issues and support structures for our society.

So, anyway, I think that’s where I would come down. I am less

interested in arguing whether the statistics are here or there. I

would like to get a generally accepted standard by which to measure on an annual basis. We would like to get a lot of publicity and

vision on this so that people can start referring to it.

It is like the Dow Jones in the private sector. If you look at the

C200 Index, you can get a feeling for how we’re doing. That is not

to say that we are good, we’re bad, we’re indifferent, but we know

where we stand.

So I hope this will be a contribution to this discussion, and I

hope that people will take a good look at the index. It is a very

easy read, and I think it is a very important piece of work. Thank

you.

Mr. HORN. I am going to yield myself 8 minutes, which is less

than our colleagues have said here.

I want to ask Mr. Robertson: Your report indicates that in most

industries women managers were less educated, younger, less likely to be married, or more likely to be part-time. How important are

those factors in explaining the pay disparity you found during your

study?

Mr. ROBERTSON. They’re very important. What we do in the last

part of our analysis, the regression analysis, is say, OK, after you

control for each of those, what are the differences in salaries? And

we found, despite controlling for those variances, there are still differences in salaries.

And, of course, I think basically the value of our study is that

we have, in essence, maybe not answered the question of whether

there is a glass ceiling or isn’t there? We have provided some perspectives that bracket that answer. Basically after controlling for

some of these variables, that you would expect to create salary differences there are still some salary differences. Now that could be

explained by some other factors that we did not have access to and

could not incorporate in our model, such as job experience. We have

at least bracketed down somewhat the answer to the question we

were asked originally.

Mr. HORN. Ms. Stolba, you made some interesting observations

about the choices women must make in attempting to balance family obligations and employment opportunities.

Do you see any trends that indicate that young women are aware

of the consequences of their choices and are opting for career advancement rather than family responsibilities?

Ms. STOLBA. Absolutely. I think it starts at the level of education

and having seen various types of polling data of college-age women

85

in the last year, last 2 years, what you find is that when you poll

them, they expect to have a career.

And when you ask them, well, what about your long-term life

span? How do you foresee your work life? What do you see it looking like? And there is where I think they are delightfully pragmatic, because most of those who say that they want to have children—and not all say that they want to have children, but most

do; and those who do, say, well, when I have very young children,

when I have children who are under the age of 5, I will probably

cut back on my work life. Or alternatively they will go into fields

where they feel they will have more flexibility, whether that be the

capability of telecommuting and working from home; and so, keeping up a certain level of work or not.

I think that is a very good sign of—these are the granddaughters

of the sexual revolution; these are the young women who have

watched their mothers and grandmothers go through this struggle,

and I think they are making very intelligent and pragmatic choices

about it. And I think they assume that they will go back into the

work force full-time once their kids are in school.

Mr. HORN. Dr. Appelbaum, in your testimony you discuss the

need for greater flexibility and control over their work schedules,

such as job sharing, shorter work weeks, as well as the need for

publicly financed family and medical leaves.

Wouldn’t that widen the gender pay gap rather than close it?

Ms. APPELBAUM. No, I don’t think it would. What it would do is

enable people to continue to have a continuous work experience.

What I think has to happen, however—I think one of the most

critical things that the Congress can do for working women and

their families is to close that loophole that allows people to be paid

less on an hourly basis when they work part-time than they are

when they work full-time—with the employer, of course, deciding

what is a full-time job and a part-time job.

We had that egregious example, I think you probably all remember, from UPS in which part-time workers were working 35 hours

a week and full-time workers were working 40 hours a week, and

since you are allowed to pay part-time workers less, the pay for

part-time employees was substantially below the pay for full-time

employees. I think we need to eliminate that. I think that will enable men, as well as women, to reduce their hours of work.

Today, if you reduce your hours of work, you open yourself up to

the possibility of far lower pay than a full-time worker gets. If your

family desperately needs that money, you may leave your full-time

job and take a low-paying part-time job just so you can contribute.

If your family can afford it, you may leave the work force altogether. It is certainly not worth it to you as a lawyer, for example,

to take a job as a part-time clerk in a WalMart or something like

that. This situation leads to that break in work experience.

I think that what people are looking for, what women are looking

for, what men are looking for, are greater opportunities to combine

a career and a family and to be successful in both.

Mr. HORN. You said there are a number of large corporations in

this country that give women sufficient flexibility in their work

schedule. Could you give us some examples?

86

Ms. APPELBAUM. Yes, of companies that give employees sufficient

flexibility, because flexibility is not just an issue for women. And

I think it would be a mistake for a company to have a policy to

say, this is only available to women or only available to people with

children.

Men also have responsibilities. Sometimes all they want to do is

finish up their degree; they would like a shorter work week to go

to school—if they are young, or they are taking care of parents if

they’re old and so on.

But Bristol Myers Squibb is a company that immediately comes

to mind, which introduced a range of flexibility options in its payroll department. It allowed for work sharing, it allowed for parttime work, and allowed for compressed work weeks. And prior to

this initiative, this department clocked a lot of overtime because

you needed to have people in the payroll department to deal with

questions early in the day, late in the day and so on. But with the

compressed work week they were able to cover the early hours and

the late hours without overtime; and with job sharing, they were

able to fill in where, with compressed work weeks, there are some

days that are not covered.

They found that in their payroll department they were then able

to offer the flexibility that the employees wanted and have considerable savings in that they no longer have to pay overtime.

The company that allows employees, male or female, to reduce

their work hours to 30 hours a week is Morningstar, another pretty

famous company.

Mr. HORN. Along that line where people can work in the home,

we had a full committee hearing. We also have had various Appropriations—Frank Wolf, for example, has been a real leader in this;

Connie Morella has been a leader in this.

Ms. APPELBAUM. That is another option that I think is very helpful.

Mr. HORN. What I learned out of that, and it came up once here,

is the nervousness of the lower management saying, what is left for

me when everybody is at home?

Ms. APPELBAUM. That is exactly right. And for that, we have to

emphasize training for lower-level managers so that, in fact, they

learn how to supervise the work that is being done and not simply

observe the worker.

Thank you, I think that’s very good.

Mr. HORN. I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Mrs.

Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I wanted to take a personal privilege just to thank the Committee of 200, which is located in Chicago, for this incredibly important report. And I hope that your aspirations are true that it does become the kind of Dow Jones that

we can go back to year after year.

Ms. Stolba, you made a statement again that sort of got me going

here. ‘‘Delightfully pragmatic decisions made by women,’’ young

women. And I wondered, among other things, if as delightfully

pragmatic decisions were being made by young men, that they

might like to put some time into and investment into the home—

and let me say, my premise being that these delightfully pragmatic

87

decisions are based on a stagnant notion of what the workplace is

about.

Women are practical and do make decisions based on realities.

But I guess our intention here is to go beyond the current realities.

Is this the best reality for America, for its children, for its families,

for its economy, as Ms. Mello pointed out?

So I wanted to ask you about young men, and then to say, don’t

we want to think outside the box here?

Ms. STOLBA. I agree we do want to think outside the box, and

I do agree with Dr. Appelbaum on a number of things that she just

raised in her last answer.

The polling data do show that young men have more of an interest in things such as flexible work arrangements than the generation previous. And I’ll just cite a personal example of my own

brother-in-law and sister who are both architects and who crafted

a flexible work arrangement with their employer when my niece

was born so they both were working three-quarter time—actually,

I guess, half-time, but since in architecture you do need a lot of

face time in the office, they worked out an arrangement where they

were coparenting in fact.

And I think there is one point at which the Federal Government

could help us think outside the box on this, and that would be to

amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow for things such as

COMP time and FLEX time. COMP time and FLEX time are the

top two demands of younger workers these days because they want

more control over their work hours.

It is not that they want to work less, it is not that they have notions of wanting to climb the corporate ladder in an old-fashioned

boys club, maybe the way their parents did. They want to have a

feeling of more control over their schedules, and they are also much

more technologically savvy about it, and understand that there is

a lot of their work they can do from home.

So I think encouraging businesses—freeing up, first of all, the old

Federal regulations that prevent businesses from allowing flexible

arrangements such as COMP time and FLEX time are one good

way of doing this. And when we start talking about, isn’t it unfair

that women have to make the pragmatic choices and men don’t,

then we’re starting to talk about social and cultural norm shifting.

And these are seismic changes, and I think we should be careful

about trying to legislate them. They are happening of their own volition.

You should continue to encourage equal opportunity and uphold

the antidiscrimination legislation that we have. But when we start

trying to talk about how do we get more men to change more diapers, then I think we are in a realm that is really not the Federal

Government’s realm.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. On the other hand, advocates who want to

seek parity, who want to create more equality should not then

characterize those choices as ‘‘delightful’’ necessarily. Maybe necessary, but not necessarily the best outcome.

Ms. STOLBA. I am describing their own descriptions of those

choices. And, again, I think the other thing to raise is that we’re

all talking about child rearing and parenting as if it is some burden to success in the workplace. I don’t think most people see it

88

that way. We should get back to talking about balance, because

people take both of those roles seriously, and obviously parenting

much more seriously.

So, again, I don’t like the tone of saying that this is an obstacle

that women have to overcome and, in order to overcome that, we

need Federal regulations and more men changing diapers. So there

is a tone shift that I think needs to happen, which would also, I

think, cool people’s jets in terms of overheated rhetoric that quickly

comes into play in these debates.

Ms. APPELBAUM. I would just like to object to the idea that we

need to change the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow for COMP

time and FLEX time. There are numerous opportunities for flexible

schedules within the Fair Labor Standards Act as it now exists.

People who would be more affected if we changed the Fair Labor

Standards Act are not Ms. Stolba’s architect brother and sister-inlaw—or the other way around, whatever it was. They already have

whatever they want—employers can give them whatever they want

in terms of COMP time. They are not covered by the Fair Labor

Standards Act.

The people who are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act are

those women working at Wal-Mart, working as waitresses, working

in hourly paid jobs who have no supervisory, no managerial, no

independent decisionmaking capacity whatsoever. Otherwise, they

would be exempt and they wouldn’t be affected at all.

For those women, pay is very low. And if they do work overtime,

which—few of them have that opportunity, but if they do work

overtime, they depend on that time-and-a-half pay to pay their

bills, to buy clothing, food, whatever for their children. So it’s, I

think, unreasonable to ask that they give up that extra pay.

And the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act are

the only thing that we have that prevents employers from working

employees as many hours as they want, because we do not have

a maximum-hours work law in this country. All of Western Europe,

as you may or may not know, is subject to a maximum-hours-ofwork law. You cannot require an employee to work more than 48

hours a week in all of Western Europe.

And we do not have such a provision; in this country, you can

be fired for refusing overtime. So the only limit on the employer’s

ability to ask you to work however many hours in the week is the

fact that they have to pay premium pay, and that does tend to

moderate what employers would do. So I think we need to keep

that in mind.

If you want to think outside the box, you want to think about

amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, I’d have a proposal. And

that is that we go to an 8-hour day and a 36-hour week so that,

for example, people would work 5 days 1 week and 4 days the next;

it would average out to 36 hours a week. Employers could handle

it because, with the 8-hour day, it doesn’t change their shift arrangements, and it gives every full-time employee one earned paid

day off every other week. I think that would go a long way toward

helping working families.

They would have that day every other week in which they could

schedule doctors’ appointments, meetings with teachers; you name

89

it, they could take care of it. They could go to banks, do their shopping, when they don’t have to have their kids in tow.

I think of all the ways in which this would relieve the stress on

working families. If you really want to change the Fair Labor

Standards Act, that is what I would propose.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.

I just wanted to say that I think it would be unfortunate if the

effort to create parity in the work force by women is characterized,

then, as a rejection of the notion that women embrace child raising

in a really positive way. So when talking about cooling rhetoric, I

want to caution you about that.

All of the evidence is there that women do, in fact, embrace child

raising. The only issue is, does the workplace accommodate that in

a way that is compatible with the realities of our society and the

desires of women to make those choices.

Let me just read one statement, one conclusion, that I think also

contests some of the criticisms that you had, Ms. Stolba, of the

Maloney-Dingell report. ‘‘In both 1995 and 2000,’’ controlling for

differences in ‘‘education, age, marital status and race, full-time’’—

so that’s part-time versus full-time—‘‘female managers in each of

the 10 industries earned less than’’ full-time male managers. And

whenever we control as much as we can for all the factors, we still

find that the wage gap exists. Thank you.

Mr. HORN. Five minutes for Ms. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Following-up on Jan’s question, even if females

have less education, and even if they have less experience, which

we did not control for because we did not have the data in the census, but they are still doing the same job as their male counterparts, shouldn’t they get the same amount of money?

That is basically what your report showed, Mr. Robertson, that

in all these areas they were doing basically the same job, yet getting less money.

I wanted to ask Ms. Stolba, your comment that you don’t believe—you said it is a misleading term, indicating that you don’t

believe it is there. But how do you explain a 1998 study, done by

Harvard University and the Washington Post, which stated that 43

percent of men polled believed that a major reason why women

don’t move to management positions is simply because and purely

because men don’t want them to?

Does anyone want to comment on that besides Ms. Stolba?

You first, but anyone else too. I was just using your words but

it is a question to the whole panel. But you can start first.

Ms. STOLBA. I would certainly not deny that, again, there are

cultural norms that still exist in a lot of these big corporations that

we need to change. But I would caution, when we talk about attitudes, first of all, this is not the same as gathering statistics and

hard data. These are opinion surveys which are ambiguous at best

and difficult to base strict factual conclusions on.

The reason I challenge the ‘‘glass ceiling’’ phrase is that I think

it is deliberately misleading. It is not an argument that there is no

discrimination, that we don’t need the protections of antidiscrimination legislation. But people’s choices matter also, and choices

have consequences inside the workplace, outside the workplace;

and those choices start very early. It is a matter of what you choose

90

to get an education in, the kind of job you choose to go into, how

hard you want to work.

Mrs. MALONEY. But I don’t think women choose to get paid less,

which is what this report showed.

Ms. STOLBA. This report, with all due respect, does not consider

what academic economists consider one of the most important factors in terms of wage and compensation—consecutive years of work

experience. That is a very important factor. And if, even holding

these factors constant, there is still a gap, that might be caused by

discrimination. Perhaps.

But I am just arguing that the broader claims about societal discrimination in the workplace that are being made here today,

based on this report, are overly broad. They’re not—the evidence

that was gathered can’t hold up those kind of broad conclusions.

Mrs. MALONEY. But even if a woman took 10 years off to raise

children, which is the average that they take off, the numbers are

astonishing.

Quite frankly, I was absolutely stunned that during 1995 to

2000, when we had great prosperity in this country, women

slipped—we did not spread the wealth, the disparity grew—and I

am concerned that now we’re going into, and are, in a recession,

what these numbers are going to mean for women.

Ms. Mello.

Ms. MELLO. Just a comment on that. I think the women who do

make the choice to become the CEOs, that do make those choices

and sacrifices and accommodations within their lifestyle are still

not making it, OK? You look at the compilation of the figures that

we gave you; the women in our organization are the leading CEOs

in this country, and let me tell you, we are a small bunch.

Back 20 years ago, we couldn’t find 200 of us. And today they

represent—it’s still negligible, the women that have made those

choices, the sacrifices, have the education, have the commitment,

have the drive, have the leadership capabilities, the numbers are

negligible in terms of who they are on the corporate Fortune 500

or 1000, even.

Mrs. MALONEY. To add to your comments, many women have

told me that they consciously made the choice not to have children

because the society could not support them with adequate daycare,

and they are very bitter now because they did not get the job and

they did not get children. And I think—why don’t we have any

women’s charity chairs? Why would you say?

Ms. MELLO. The reason they don’t is they are not viewed as having the power and the influence and the ability to draw in the

money. They don’t have the contacts. They don’t sit on the corporate boards. They can’t draw in their favors in the same way

that men do because they don’t have the platform.

Mrs. MALONEY. I’ve just got to say, anyone who says there isn’t

a glass ceiling or discrimination, I think you are living on another

planet. Just yesterday, I had a staff member come to me who is in

school, an intern in my office. And her supervisor was sexually

harassing her, giving her all kinds of trouble in a major university.

The response of the university is, don’t bother us, go into court.

Now how in the world is a kid going to go into court with no

money and what kind of message does that send to our young peoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:03 Mar 28, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85484.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
91

ple? That people don’t support them when they feel that they have

been wronged in whatever way.

And to sit there and to say, it is not a problem, when you have

Ms. Mello’s report, Ms. Appelbaum’s report, Mr. Robertson’s report,

the Harvard report, all of these reports coming out. It could say

that maybe it’s 1 or 2 percentage points off, but it is not 26 cents

off. It is not whatever adjustment for whatever factor was not

there. Granted, we used existing data; to generate our own, it

would have been far more expensive. We used the data that every

researcher in the country uses, the Census Bureau data. But to say

that it is not a problem, I think you are an ostrich with your head

in the sand.

And I just want to thank all the panel. We have other panelists

coming, but if you would like to respond to any point, to some of

the points that we have been making—Mrs. Appelbaum, you had

your hand up.

Ms. APPELBAUM. I wanted to respond to this question of continuous work experience and your point of the widening gap after 1995.

There is no evidence that women worked less in the second half of

the 1990’s than they worked in the first half of the 1990’s. If anything, every statistic showed increasing labor force participation,

increasing continuity, increasing education, increasing preparation

for high-level jobs as professionals or managers.

So the explanation for the widening gap that you found, whether

the widening gap would be narrowed a few percentage points, as

you pointed out, if you add education in, but the fact that it is widening speaks against this idea.

I would like to put in the record, because I would like to find it,

the studies that have continuous years of work experience in them.

Most have only years of work experience, and I don’t know exactly

where the data on continuous years of work experience comes from.

Mr. HORN. Without objection, your exhibit will be put in the

record at this point.

[NOTE.—The information referred to may be found in subcommittee files.]

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Horn.

And to followup with Mrs. Appelbaum quickly, men take time off.

They take time off to go into the service. They often take time off

with midlife crisis, to study or whatever, or just because they want

to take some time off. And then they go back into the work force,

and they don’t fall behind dramatically. I think that is another

point.

Again, I think a lot of these studies bring more questions than

answers, that we need to look at. But men take time off, sometimes

substantial time off. Many people go into government to work at

great personal loss of income to help the country, and then they go

back and they are not penalized in their careers.

Is there any comment on that? It seems like the women take

time off and, baby, you can’t get back in. The man takes time off,

you are a hero. You went and did something great for your country.

You served government, not the private sector, but government.

You served in the military. You did a great job.

But women take time off, and it is like, forget your career, we

want you to be on the factory floor.

92

Would somebody like to comment on that? I think it is a noble

thing to take time off to raise children. It is an important contribution to the country, one that should be valued, one that brings back

understanding that could help the work force, I would say and

argue.

My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Horn. As always, you are a generous, wonderful gentleman.

Mr. HORN. I know. You are so right. It is a real lovefest here.

Mr. Robertson, you have heard a lot of discourse. What do you

want to say about that?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity.

Many of the questions that have been raised this morning go obviously way beyond the scope of the work that we did. But just

making a couple of observations, to me—we have experts sitting

here to my left and some out in the audience—the questions raised

just show how very, very complex the issues are. And I would like

to go back to something Ms. Mello said earlier on in the conversation, which I think was very important and, I hope, wouldn’t get

lost.

She said something to the effect—and this is not a direct quote—

there are a lot of statistics going to be thrown around, and different

people can interpret the same statistics a different way. And I

think where she is coming from in terms of if there can be some

agreement, how to interpret certain statistics or what statistics we

should be using, I think that would go a long way to help everybody talk a common language. And this committee, the subcommittee, is doing exactly the right thing bringing different views together, because this is an important public issue. And out of that,

hopefully some of this common language will come about and we

will make progress.

Mrs. MALONEY. I think GAO is just the body to do it in.

Point of personal privilege, Mr. Horn. Could I introduce a distinguished guest, Bill Perkins, who is with us, the deputy majority

leader of the city council from the Ninth District, representing Harlem and the Upper West Side, who has a great interest in this and

who has come to join us.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Perkins.

Mr. PERKINS. It is my pleasure.

Mr. HORN. Welcome.

Mr. PERKINS. Thank you.

Mr. HORN. Dr. Appelbaum mentioned an idea of the 8-hour day

bill. I’d like to know from the rest of you what your thinking is,

if there are any policies that are currently on the books that ought

to be different. And I’d just like to go down: Did the GAO have any

thoughts on any changes in the law, labor laws, one way or the

other?

Mr. ROBERTSON. No. That is beyond the scope of our work.

Mr. HORN. Anything?

Ms. APPELBAUM. The Equal Pay Act needs to be amended so that

we don’t discriminate against part-time workers. I’d like to see the

36-hour week. I know it’s a long way off, but I have a lot of ideas

around that one.

I’d like to see paid family and medical leave. I do not think that

employers should have to pay, because I think that would end up

93

putting an undue burden on employers, depending on the age distribution of their work force. But I think we need something along

the lines of unemployment insurance that would allow for paid

family and medical leave.

Mr. HORN. Ms. Stolba.

Ms. STOLBA. I am a big fan, again, of amending the Fair Labor

Standards Act to allow for FLEX time and COMP time, mainly because these low-wage workers, when polled, say they would love to

exchange overtime pay for time home with their families. So that

is something they desire even if they are not architects.

And the other thing I would raise, we need to consider economic

growth when we’re talking about Federal mandates with regard to

36-hour work weeks or federally mandated, paid leave. These

things cost money, and one of the enviable things about the American economy has been its incredible growth; and if we start

issuing new mandates, that growth could be threatened. So I think

that is just something that we need to consider when we look at

these kinds of policies.

Ms. MELLO. Well, my focus has been a little different. I would

love to see the 8-hour day, having come from a 12-hour day and

a 14-hour day in my career. But keeping that aside in terms of the

whole work force moving in the direction of parity, that would create opportunity for society to be more supportive of the issues of

education and supporting children and leadership within our organizations, would be—to the extent that is supportive of that, I

would definitely feel that would be recommended for your consideration.

Mr. HORN. Thank you. And do we have any more questions here?

Because we need to go to the next panel.

Mrs. MALONEY. No. Thank you all. You have all given us a great

amount to think about, and we will be in touch with you, and certainly working with you in the future on this important issue.

Mr. HORN. Well, if you can stay with us after panel two, and you

are worried about what they might say, why we would welcome

any thoughts you would have. This is a dialog.

But thank you very much for all you have done. These are excellent written statements, and I think the question period brought

out a lot of important information.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might just take a

quick question because of a specific concern that I and members of

the Council have. We are looking at this matter, and we will be

having our own hearings on this at the end of the month.

One area of my particular focus is the impact on women of color

where the problem seems to be even more so. And I am wondering

if you have any thoughts about that and how that can be overcome.

Anybody?

Ms. STOLBA. Well, I would just point out that actually the wage

gap issues, because rates of education among African American

women, in particular, compared to rates among African American

men, is higher. They are doing better in the work force and they

actually have always—they’ve always worked much more so than

white women, if you look at the history of women in the labor force

in America.

94

But I do think that there are—race, I know, was factored into

the equations of this report; and I would cede to Mr. Robertson in

terms of seeing those impacts. But I would point out that educational achievement of African American women is actually quite

a positive story. So the hope would be, once they are in the work

force, that they stay in the work force, that would be a point.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Our study didn’t look to see the impact of race.

What it did was basically controlled for race. And so from that

standpoint, I really can’t address the question.

Ms. APPELBAUM. Well, I do think that they’re well-known leadership problems that affect black women in terms of their ability to

rise in organizations. If white women run into a glass ceiling, I

think the effect is equal, if not stronger, with respect to black

women. They have fewer mentors in the workplace, they have few

people that they can model themselves after. They have fewer people that look out for them and so on. So we certainly have that

issue.

And if the comparison is between black women and black men,

then Ms. Stolba is certainly right. But if the comparison is between

black women and white men, then there is quite a distance left to

go.

Ms. MELLO. I can only say that race was not an issue and not

a focus of our analysis. I can tell you within our organization of 441

leading CEOs in the corporate and the entrepreneurial sector in

this country and in the world, I have to say that the African American women, black women, around the world are a very small percentage of our organization, which I think is representative of leadership positions within our country on boards, etc. I mean, we are

a good cross-section for that. It is nothing we are particularly proud

of, but that is anecdotally what the statistics would tell you.

We have a lot of—several outstanding women who are African

American on our committee, but they are a small percentage to the

441. I don’t know if that is helpful.

Mr. PERKINS. Thank you. It has been.

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your work that

you have done, and it will be well used.

So we will now have Panel Two: Ms. Allison Schieffelin, Ms.

Renuka Chander, Susan Ness and Marie Wilson.

This is an investigatory subcommittee, so if you would all rise

and put up your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note that their assistants behind

them—and we will get their names—and they took the oath also.

So on Panel Two, we will start with Allison K. Schieffelin, former

principal of Morgan Stanley.

95

STATEMENTS OF ALLISON K. SCHIEFFELIN, FORMER PRINCIPAL, MORGAN STANLEY, ACCOMPANIED BY WAYNE

OUTTEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW; RENUKA CHANDER, RESEARCH

MANAGER, OFFICE OF MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE;

SUSAN NESS, ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER,

FORMER FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION COMMISSIONER; AND MARIE C. WILSON, PRESIDENT, THE WHITE

HOUSE PROJECT

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. Thank you very much. Good morning Chairman Horn, Ranking Member Schakowsky and Congresswoman

Maloney. Thank you for inviting me to speak on this important

topic. Because I am in pending litigation, I’d like to point out that

there may be questions that I can’t answer and I will defer to my

attorney, Wayne Outten.

I am not being flippant when I respond with a flat no to your

query: Are women breaking the glass ceiling? The glass has not

broken at all, but rather has proven extremely durable and harder

to see than ever. But I’m not here to present academic or scientific

proof of gender discrimination because the existence of real boundaries to women’s advancement have already been proven.

I am here to try and demonstrate why and how, despite our better understanding of the problems, discrimination is still a substantial impediment to women in the workplace. In fact, I cannot imagine, especially after hearing this morning’s testimony, what more

could possibly be needed to prove that the glass ceiling exists. Numerous important and independent studies have yielded the same

conclusions.

The General Accounting Office report that prompted this hearing

lays out the data on pay disparity at the highest levels of corporate

America. The chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cari Dominguez, was an author of the glass ceiling report and

led the Labor Department’s glass ceiling initiative prior to her appointment to the EEOC just last year. As an aside and as an indication of Chair Dominguez’s conviction about the problem, the very

first press statement of her administration was here in New York

when she announced that the EEOC was filing a lawsuit against

my former employer, Morgan Stanley for pattern and practice discrimination against me and other women and for Morgan Stanley’s

subsequent retaliation against me for coming forward. I am a coplaintiff in that case.

Professor Susan Estrich’s book, ‘‘Sex and Power’’ contains a cogent and thorough study of many more studies. She includes the

scientific work of Dr. Virginia Valian of Hunter College, the statistical proofs of discrimination produced by the Catalyst organization, and the groundbreaking MIT study which documented gender

disparities at the highest levels of academia.

In a conclusive and poignant statement, Professor Estrich wrote:

‘‘There are lots of reasons that any individual, male or female,

doesn’t reach the top of his or her profession. They may lack the

skills, the ability, even the luck. They may be lousy politicians or

not care enough or not want it badly enough. But those are traits

one would expect to find if it is an equal world and a level playing

field in both men and women. It is true that not all men succeed.

96

But some do. On a percentage basis, it’s rather stunning. Twentyfive years ago, graduating business school classes included 20 to 25

percent women. As of 1999, 99.4 percent of the CEOs and 97.3 percent of the top earners are men. That is not what a random distribution of success looks like by any measure.’’

I believe my case demonstrates what a real glass ceiling looks

like today. I graduated from the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University in 1986 and was recruited

into the associate MBA training program at Morgan Stanley that

same year.

Like many young women coming into the business in those years,

I had no reason to believe that gender discrimination would ever

be an issue. After all, I had worked in group settings equally with

my male peers throughout my academic career, had been recruited

by a top Wall Street firm, and most importantly I had been told

that I was part of the ‘‘next generation of women.’’

I assumed that my civil rights had already been won, and I did

not have any personal experience of gender discrimination.

After a year of training, I took a position in the Institutional Equity Division on the trading floor at Morgan Stanley. The cat-calling, the pin-up posters and suggestive remarks, struck me as typical locker room banter and I thought I could be just ‘‘one of the

guys.’’ I laughed and joked and worked like hell. I loved the excitement and the pace of the business and I jumped in with both feet.

Morgan Stanley included me in all of their recruiting events for

MBAs, and I frequently attended women’s events as a spokesperson for the firm. I was also invited to participate on the gender

task force. As an associate, I listened to the complaints of more

senior women who had hit the glass ceiling, woman who were denied promotions and pay commensurate with their male colleagues.

I heard about women who were pregnant and felt they needed to

hide their pregnancies until in a bid to get extra money at year

end. Still I thought that I would be impervious to the problems

they faced because this was all being addressed and remedied and

I was that ‘‘next generation.’’

In the meantime, my productivity and my responsibilities increased. I was doing very well at Morgan Stanley by any objective

measure.

I loved my job, and at every stage of my career I made my ambitions clear: I wanted to be a managing director at Morgan Stanley.

Nevertheless, and genuinely surprising to me, the glass ceiling inevitably blocked my advancement. I was repeatedly passed over for

promotion to managing director without explanation while many

men less qualified with respect to tenure, productivity, and overall

firm contribution were promoted ahead of me.

In 1998, I reluctantly filed a charge of discrimination with the

EEOC. At the time I filed my charge of discrimination, there were

only three female managing directors out of about 50 in the Institutional Equity Division. They were amongst the lowest paid and

least powerful managing directors. Two out of the three women

managing directors were just promoted at the end of 1997. Two out

of the three women were assigned ‘‘off-line’’ or nonrevenue producing divisions. Each of those women had career experience of more

97

than 15 years in a division in which a man could achieve managing

director in less than 10 years.

When I filed my charge of gender discrimination, I never anticipated the degree to which I put my career at risk and unalterably

changed my life. Chair Dominguez put it best when she said ‘‘kiss

your Wall Street career good bye.’’

The retaliation is far worse than the discrimination. Morgan

Stanley, with its unlimited resources, feels no risk at striking out

against an individual woman who speaks up.

I was methodically stripped of responsibilities and was quietly

but pervasively maligned. I was finally fired on October 24, 2000,

for what Morgan Stanley called ‘‘insubordinate and inappropriate

conduct.’’ In truth, it was the type of conduct that is typical on

Wall Street trading desks. The reality is that they fired me simply

because I had the ‘‘audacity’’ to speak out about gender discrimination.

And I’m going to go over 1 minute with your permission, Mr.

Horn.

Mr. HORN. Certainly.

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. Morgan Stanley destroyed my career. They destroyed everything I had put my heart and soul into for almost 15

years. And the retaliation has had the effect, and I believe the intent, not only to punish me, but also to send a loud message to

women that if they come forward, their careers can also be easily

destroyed.

In fact, the law specifically states that complaining about gender

discrimination is protected activity under Title VII, but the time,

money spent and risk to my career that has accrued over the past

31⁄2 years since I filed my charge plays directly into the hands of

Morgan Stanley. I have to emphasize the incredible financial burden that accompanies my legal battle. I’m not crying poverty. I’m

just pointing out that the money I earned on Wall Street allows me

to bring a serious problem to a forum that no average professional,

either at Morgan Stanley or any company in America, could ever

afford. When, as in this case, the corporate defendant delays and

delays a fair resolution, that alone serves to deter even the most

resolute plaintiffs.

So I understand that I may not have the profile of your typical

victim of discrimination, but I am the one that you see here today

because I can afford to be here. Glass ceiling discrimination is everywhere on Wall Street. The high price has strengthened my

moral conviction that it is my right, and in fact my obligation, to

seek relief for myself and other women.

It’s obvious to me now why women in high-ranking jobs that

earn a lot of money are loathe to put it all on the line, even though

they are very much aware that there is a substantial disparity in

pay and promotion between men and women. And as one of my

former colleagues put it, ‘‘women who have made it this far and

want to stick it out make accommodations in their own minds

about what they can expect and create justifications for the discrimination rather than take action which might jeopardize their

careers.’’

I am now extremely sympathetic to those fears and I understand

why so many of the women at Morgan Stanley sought me out in

98

the Morgan Stanley ladies room, cafeteria, or nonwork setting rather than public setting—I’m just to going to skip over some of this

and read you my conclusion.

I know that this case is being closely watched not only by other

investment banks, but also by other professional organizations like

law firms and accounting firms. We must win this case. And I believe that we will win this case. I believe in the power of the law.

I believe that the democratic process and the dedication of our public officials can overcome even the most monied and powerful corporations. I want to thank you for any action that you might take

for the women who are fighting this battle. I don’t want another

generation of women to have to go through this.

Thank you. I’m sorry for going over.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schieffelin follows:]

99

100

101

102

103

Mr. HORN. Thank you. Now we have Ms. Renuka Chander, and

we are glad have you here.

Ms. CHANDER. Thank you, Chairman Horn, and good morning to

the congressional committee.

I am Renuka Chander and I’m a research manager at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Our principal

product is Science Magazine, and we conducted a study of 19,000

life science members in June 2001. The report that—the sample

that I’m reporting on was 8,692, which is a 46 response rate. We

sent out a fairly long questionnaire asking traditional questions on

current income, previous year salary, total professional income as

well as attitudinal questions to describe how scientists view their

jobs, what motivates scientists, and what their future plans might

be regarding their careers.

As we all know, there is a gender gap in life scientists’ salaries. Males earn a median of $94,000, whereas women scientists earn a

median of $72,000. The findings of this study are remarkably close

to the studies that have already been done in different fields. The

difference is explained in part by the fact that males are further

in their career cycles, have worked longer and more of them are in

the high-income field of medicine. More females also work in academic settings where the pay rate is lower and they have had less

time in the workplace.

A gender gap is widest among the top jobs level. Among academic administrators where the gap is the largest, admittedly our

sample had a low number of observations. However, for full professors there is a difference of 14 percent in salary between men and

women.

Similarly in industry, there is a gender gap in the top positions.

In nonacademic positions, women earn—in senior management,

women earn 22 percent less than men and among physicians,

women earn 31 percent less.

Male directors and managers also earn significantly more than

their female counterparts, 19 percent and 18 percent, respectively.

There is very clear evidence in this study of some systematic

male-female differences in pay. For more research-oriented positions we found that the pay gap was less, but in terms of the administrative positions, the pay gap was much larger. Only in one

job category did we find that women earned as much as men if not

more, and that is on the job of principal investigator. There, the average was $97,000. Men earned $95,000 and women earned

$97,000 but only in that particular job.

The second point I would like to make is about job satisfaction,

because we think it is very important. Males are more satisfied in

their jobs than females. In part, this may be related to females

being less advanced in their career cycle and the fact that they

hold lower level jobs, since high-level positions have higher job satisfaction.

We measured specific aspects of job satisfaction and we found

that males are more satisfied with their job than females on many

aspects, including some aspects that are very important to females.

The aspects on which males rate their job as statistically significantly better include salary and compensation, job security, promotion opportunities, hours worked, opportunities for sabbatical,

104

autonomy, opportunities for collegial exchange and recognition and

prestige.

Women don’t rate their jobs as better on any aspect evaluated,

and they rate their jobs as significantly worse than males on a

number of aspects, and on aspects that are important to females.

The third and last point that I’d like to make is about the effect

of marriage on female scientists’ careers as well as time taken for

personal issues. The career paths of female life scientists suffer

more from marriage and dual careers than the career paths of male

life scientists. This is not new, but I am giving you the statistics

that apply to life scientists. In part, this is because female scientists are more likely than males to have highly educated working

spouses, and a spouse that is also a scientist.

About a third of men, male scientists say that their career has

been affected by their wife’s career. But two-thirds of female scientists say that their careers have been affected by their spouse’s

career.

And the last point has to do with taking time off. Female scientists are more likely than their male counterparts to have taken

6 months or more as time off work for personal, medical, or family

reasons. Nearly a fifth of female scientists have taken this type of

personal leave—about 18 percent—compared to only 3 percent of

males.

Now, we found—this is based on questioning of these people,

males report a higher rate of being accommodated upon their return to leave than females. 47 percent of males were accommodated; only 30 percent of females were. And maybe this is because

males return to the same employer more often, 55 percent, than females, 41 percent.

That concludes my testimony on this issue, and I thank you very

much for the opportunity to testify.

Mr. HORN. Thank you. The evidence you have is going to be very

helpful.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chander follows:]

105

106

107

108

Mr. HORN. Our next presenter is the Honorable Susan Ness,

Annenberg Public Policy Center, former Federal Communications

Commission Commissioner.

Ms. NESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, distinguished members of the subcommittee, Congresswoman

Schakowsky and Congresswoman Maloney, for convening the hearing and inviting me to testify today. I am currently a visiting professor of communication at the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, and also serve as the director of information and society at the Annenberg Public Policy

Center.

The study that I’m going to talk about today: Progress or No

Room at the Top? The role of women in telecommunications broadcast, cable and e-companies, was released last year under the direction of Dean Kathleen Jamieson as a result of the request that I

had made based upon the experience that I had during the 7 years

that I served as a commissioner at the FCC. Basically, during that

time, I saw a dearth of women in the top echelon positions at communications companies. Indeed, as I went from convention to convention, virtually no women were there as keynoters or as members of the super panels other than government representatives

who were women.

Indeed, as the Annenberg study documents, only 9 percent of the

board of directors of telecommunications, media and e-commerce

companies are women. Only 13 percent of a total of 757 executives

are women. And more strikingly perhaps, only 3 percent of those

who have achieved the position of executive vice president and

above are women. Those are positions that Catalyst calls ‘‘clout positions.’’ Not one of the 25 largest media conglomerates listed in

Broadcasting and Cable Magazine, and that represents hundreds of

billions of dollars of revenues and enormous clout, not one of them

has been headed by a women in the 7 years that I served as Commissioner. Not one.

I would have expected better results to have occurred from the

e-commerce companies, companies that were established subsequent to the resurgence of the women’s movement 30 years ago.

One would expect that they would not have established practices

that might have been based on outdated views of women in business. But, no. The researchers found only 6 of 147 e-commerce company board members were women, and only 4 percent of the executive vice presidents and above were women. These are in the ecommerce companies.

Well, what does this suggest? First of all, it suggests that the

passage of time alone is not going to be effective in increasing the

representation of women on boards and in the executive suites of

communications firms or in any industry for that matter. You can

go across the board, lawyers, school administrators, scientists, you

name it, all documenting similar results.

It’s also been documented that when companies have a fully integrated work force at all levels of the enterprise, these companies

see improvement in their bottom line. It stands to reason, communications companies are seeking to win as many consumers and

viewers as they possible can. They should not be undervaluing the

109

opinions and experiences of 50 percent of the population. I believe

Ms. Mello made that point on the earlier panel as well.

More importantly, when companies fully integrate family friendly

policies into their corporate culture, they have a happier, more productive work force and they are better able to attract and retain

not just women, but also family oriented men. That has a significant benefit in reducing costs, reducing the costs of new hires, new

trainees, etc. There are tangible benefits to be had for corporations

willing to address the matter of inclusion of women beyond token

members on the board of directors or in the top-line executive succession.

Ironically, in the wake of the Enron debacle, some predict that

more women will be selected to fill nonexecutive vacancies on the

boards of corporations. Why? Because women score very highly on

the credibility and integrity scales, qualities today that are very

much in demand.

The Annenberg Report suggests several concrete steps that can

be taken to increase the number of women. Among them, companies should conduct a self assessment to determine whether their

corporate culture and policies are impeding their ability to attract

and retain women. These efforts have to be initiated from the very

top. They should ensure that there are qualified women included

in any applicant pools for vacancies—and I want to underscore that

minority women are very important in this whole discussion—they

need to be in all of the applicant pools and any job advancement

for managers should be tied to better outcomes.

Mentoring is also vitally important. It should be encouraged to

steer women along the paths better destined for top leadership and

not dead-end positions. In filling executive or board positions, corporations should engage search firms with a track-record of locating qualified women.

Finally, trade associations should seek out and publicize women

as keynoters and plenary session panelists.

Access to capital remains a stumbling block for many female entrepreneurs wanting to buy communications companies. Congress

should consider establishing a viable tax certificate program for female and minority first-time purchasers of communications firms.

So in conclusion, women are woefully underrepresented on corporate boards and in the executive suits of top communications

companies. This is not going to change based on passage of time

alone. You need to have real efforts underway to accomplish that.

The inclusion of women beyond token numbers in boardrooms and

at all levels of the enterprise can create positive tangible results to

the bottom line, but it takes a sustained commitment from the top

to make this happen. And hearings, such as the one you are having

today, go a very long way by shining the light on this issue and

encouraging the private sector to do what needs to be done to get

there. Thank you all very much.

Mr. HORN. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ness follows:]

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

Mr. HORN. And we now come to our last presenter in panel two.

That is Marie C. Wilson, President of the White House Project. And

you might tell us a little bit about the project.

Ms. WILSON. Well, the White House—I’m Marie Wilson President

of the White House Project, a national nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing women’s leadership by enhancing

public perceptions of women’s capacity to lead and fostering the

entry of women in positions of leadership, including the U.S. Presidency.

I’ve worked on this issue in one way or another for 24 years and

find this fascinating. It’s really interesting. I continue to work on

it in another capacity as president of the Ms. Foundation for

Women where we work on it all across America, across race and

class. And this Thursday the Ms. Foundation will be celebrating 10

years of Take Our Daughters to Work. A third of American adults

have participated. So if a third of American adults have been that

concerned about their children, we are right to be here and concerned ourselves.

Today I want to focus on one thing alone, and that is perception.

So I am so glad to follow Susan Ness, the Commissioner, because

perception—having gone at this every way that I can think of in

24 years, one of the ways that the White House Project has approached most recently is to look at the media and to look at what

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the dean of Annenberg has instructed me

to, how do we normalize this whole area of women across race leading in America and how do we change the culture so that we

change this permanently?

So I thank you for pulling the data together, Congresswoman

Maloney, this has been a great help. And all of you who have

worked on this, Ms. Schakowsky, very much.

Mrs. MALONEY. And like-minded men, Mr. Horn and Mr. Dingell.

Ms. WILSON. I thank you like-minded men, Mr. Horn and Mr.

Dingell, who is not here and I hated to call attention to that.

At any rate, I do want to say that we looked at something that

is a little bit parallel to your studies. In the White House study,

we were looking at how many women appear on the Sunday morning talk shows. Because, like your study, we are finding that they

are in no way appearing in proportion to their representation. Even

though they are not in enough leadership positions, they are not

even appearing in the ones in proportion to the ones they are. We

called it ‘‘Who’s Talking’’ and we can say with absolute certainty

that women are neither seen nor heard on Sunday morning talk

shows.

And I want to say a minute’s worth on why those shows are important. Those shows have an agenda sitting effect in this country.

That is agreed by communications scholars. They tell us what is

important. They tell us what is not important. And more to the

point, they have an authority setting effect. They tell us who we

should listen to, who the experts are. They tell us who should lead,

and who will continue to lead and they profile leaders every Sunday morning.

Before I give you the numbers I just want to say something

about September 11th, because after September 11th, you will find

that the data really changed on these shows and that’s when peoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:03 Mar 28, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85484.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
128

ple in our country turned to television and said who do we listen

to and who did they hear? Well, they didn’t hear women and they

did not hear women in spite of the fact that three women Senators

chair the three most important subcommittees on terrorism in the

U.S. Government.

And I think, particularly in this setting, when it was a war that

dealt with an incredible position of women in Afghanistan, to not

hear women’s views was outstandingly bad.

We studied we studied this week, ABC; Face the Nation, CBS;

Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN; Fox Sunday News, Fox; and

Meet the Press, NBC. And of course these have tens of millions of

viewers. We did not count by the way the interviewers, we counted

the guest appearances on those shows because that is what we are

looking at. They are the ones that are to be seen.

We studied it over a period of 18 months from January 2000 to

July 2001. Just to summarize the findings, men outnumbered

women 9 to 1. There were 245 repeat guest appearances by male

U.S. Senators, only eight by female U.S. Senators. You know, if

they had invited a few back, they could have changed every statistic. Women represent only 6 percent of all appearances by elected

officials. And as you well know, women comprise 14 percent of the

House and 13 percent of the Senate. Women spoke fewer words

then men by 10 percent—I heard that chuckle—were slightly more

likely to be less prominent and in the later segments of the shows.

That did surprise us. And in every category of speaker on every

topic, women were underrepresented according to the pool they represented.

So after September 11th, men outnumbered women 13 to one in

the 7 weeks, a drop of almost 40 percent in women’s representation

compared to men. You can see that when it came to different issues

like war and terrorism, we were not ready to look at women.

The impact of this has something to do and is formidable in

terms of the priorities of our Nation, whether women were setting

those priorities and whether women have an opinion to give and

whether that opinion is important.

Two things I’d like to add that I think are important. First of all,

these shows are intimate. Television is an intimate thing and when

people come into your living room, when they are there every Sunday, when they are the leaders, you get connected to them. You

build constituency if you are on them. You get voted for if you are

on them. They are not without power.

The second thing, if only when only a few women are on them

the corollary happens, then you start to say, oh, there are only a

few women who are competent in America. So tokenism has a terrible price here. I’d like to summarize a couple of things, and we

can talk about them if you are interested. One of the things we

found, just for an example, is that the former heads of the Republican and Democratic Senate campaign committees were on the

shows 24 times, and 16 times in those 18 months while the current

chair of the Democratic senatorial campaign, who is a woman, was

never on.

We have several examples that have to do with intelligence after

September 11th where they had to reach underneath Senator Feinstein to actually bring some men on those shows after September

129

11th. Likewise with Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Nancy Pelosi, people who have expertise that was relevant but did not get on.

Again, I just want to say what these do, they bring voice, they

tell constituents of the women that are sitting up front whether

your constituencies know that you are there or doing a good job.

Rosy Galar mentioned that when we brought it to Congress.

The White House study has put light on this. We will continue

it. We think that we will continue to make women visible, of

course, as much as possible. But we think the political parties need

to be promoting the women in those parties. We think the talk

shows and the producers need to be telling the bookers that they

need to bring the women in. And we are glad that you are continuing to attract people to this work and have them hear it because

they need to. I want to remind you that I think our country thinks

it is a fair country. They want to believe that things are fair and

we have this done. But it is far from done and your report will help

us get there and to be a real democracy.

I would like to submit my report but I would like to also tell people further they can go to www.theWhiteHouseProject.org and see

it again. I thank you and I look forward to answering questions.

Mr. HORN. Thank you.

[NOTE.—The publication entitled, ‘‘The White House Project,

Who’s Talking? An Analysis of Sunday Morning Talk Shows,’’ can

be found in subcommittee files.]

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]

130

131

132

133

134

Mr. HORN. I yield myself 5 minutes to start the questioning.

Ms. Schieffelin, could you describe the scope of your responsibilities while you worked in sales and trading at Morgan Stanley, and

is it a highly competitive job? I know you have a problem that you

might not want to——

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. No, I was just giving myself a second to think.

The incredible growth in the securities industry over the last 15

years, in part because of the outrageous bull market, has created

an incredible demand for young professionals, and in fact, young

males rose in that time from very junior administrative posts to

the most senior managing director levels in short periods of time.

That’s not to say that there’s not a very competitive environment

for these jobs. All of the business school applicants applied to jobs

on Wall Street. And in fact, the percentages out of every business

school out of the last 15 years that applied to Wall Street versus

consulting or product management or communications rose because

the most profitable jobs and the stories and anecdotal evidence of

these young Wall Street high fliers were tremendous. So there was

incredible competition.

My particular job responsibilities were very broad because I

worked in a very specialized area of the industry called convertible

securities that involved the sale and trading of derivative instruments and complex swaps. It also involved working with every department of the Equity Division: in equity trading, in options trading, in initial underwritings. We raised billions of dollars, particularly for some e-commerce companies that I’m sure Morgan Stanley

doesn’t want to submit the research reports to today. But the responsibilities that I had were very far-reaching, both with respect

to primary issuance of securities and day-to-day secondary trading

of securities, including very complex securities.

Mr. HORN. How many women held similar positions in Morgan

Stanley? Were you it? The typical token?

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. For most of my career, I was the only, or one

of under three women in the convertible department. But the better measure is of the entire institutional equity division. And if you

look at the entire pool of applicants that you look at for men that

went through the ranks of promotion, so you are looking at associates, vice presidents, principals, and managing directors, you will

see that there were plenty of applicants, but that mysteriously, I

guess now predictably, since you all know what I’m going to say,

that at each successive level of pay and promotion, that pool of applicants looked less and less like the pool of total applicants.

So it’s not that there is a dearth of women who are interested

in finance or who have studied finance and, as was pointed out earlier, there are plenty of women in my graduating glass out of Kellogg and all of our partner business schools. There are tons of

them. But even though many of my women colleagues from Kellogg

have achieved great success, I’m certain very few achieved that

success on Wall Street, not because, again, because of lack of interest, but because of lack of advancement opportunities on Wall

Street.

Mr. HORN. Have you looked at data on the schools of business

administration versus the schools of law? As I remember, law is

now about 50–50. What about the schools of business?

135

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. When I looked at Ms. Estrich’s data in the Sex

and Power book, she talked about very low percentage, 25 percent

in the 1970’s. I believe that my graduating class was much closer

to 50 percent, and having had the experience anecdotally to be conducting employee interviews and super Fridays where we invited

male and female applicants to come into the firm, and having

hosted cocktail receptions for MBAs and women’s dinners, I can tell

you that the women applicants coming out of the business schools

are far more numerous, and many more of them—that’s such a bad

word—than in the 1970’s have skills and proficiency in math and

sciences and the quantitative areas, and yet still they don’t end up

in the line positions, rather revenue producing positions. The aggressive, trading floor positions—working it out everyday positions

that the men attain much more easily, even without the advanced

degrees.

Mr. HORN. Well, for the other three presenters, based on your

studies, were you able to determine whether the women have lost

or gained ground compared to men between 1995 and the year

2000?

Ms. CHANDER. Ours was not a longitudinal study it was just a

‘‘one of’’ study. So I can’t answer that question.

Ms. NESS. The Annenberg Center is conducting a yearly study to

update the statistics to be able to answer that question. And those

results should be out within the next couple of weeks.

Mr. HORN. Ms. Wilson.

Ms. WILSON. We don’t have a longitudinal study either, but what

I think you can see from our study that would say we have gained

some ground is that even though there were only a few appearances by Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright, the fact that

we had two women in the area of foreign policy each of these

women are in is actually progress, but that would be the progress

that I could document.

Ms. CHANDER. May I just—I just remembered something. Our

entire membership, which is made up of life sciences and all the

other disciplines, is 80 percent men and 20 percent women. Among

the life sciences we have some of the younger members, the female

member percentage is 28 percent, so I guess you could call that

some kind of progress.

Mr. HORN. Has science got the data in terms of the various

science majors in the United States for the Ph.D. which you have

to have, really, if you’re going to be in most research? And as I remember in the schools of engineering, chemical engineering is almost 80 to 90 percent women and very few men. So I’m just curious what people have looked at. It’s very easy to get that data.

Ms. CHANDER. Right. Right.

Mr. HORN. Maybe science wants to look at that. I don’t know if

they have before.

Ms. CHANDER. I know that the American Chemical Society does

an annual survey, and their statisticians have concluded that there

is no significant wage gap between men and women. And I think

I heard a quote about an engineering survey that suggested that

there was no wage gap. But in our study, whichever way you

looked at it, there was a significant wage gap, even when you held

certain factors constant.

136

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. Mr. Horn, can I add something? I think you

are really talking about the pipeline issue. Are there enough

women that are coming through, where are they coming from? And

the fact is that at least on Wall Street, I believe that the pipeline

issue has absolutely no merit, and I’ll tell you why.

In part, because as I referred to, there has been a ton of growth

over the last several years in the securities industry. But more important, unlike in industrial companies where you see that the average career span required to reach a level of senior authority

would be 25 to 35 years, men in the securities industry can achieve

the highest levels of management in as little as 7 years. And commonly under 10 years. So while you might say that they just

haven’t come up yet, in fact in the last 20 years we’ve had many,

many, many generations of people coming through the pipeline. So

that pipeline question——

Mr. HORN. Thank you for that clarification. We’ll now yield 5

minutes to the ranking member, Ms. Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I really want to thank this panel for their testimony and the last panel as well. Ms. Wilson talked about perception and I wanted to refer to the first two, and is it Schieffelin?

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. Schieffelin.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I want to at least thank you for your courage

to take on your employer and also acknowledge what you were saying, that you had the wherewithal to do that, and you are doing

it in many ways on behalf of all those women who can’t, and maybe

they are the next generation that you will pave the way for. But

math and science, one of the perceptions is that women just aren’t

that good at it and aren’t going to achieve. And what you’re telling

me is that in some ways, that stereotype is reinforced by barriers

within the workplace itself. That even for those women who have

achieved the heights in terms of academic achievement and professional achievement, those barriers are there.

And I think really for all of the panelists, the question is why?

What are those employers, what are those institutions, what are

they saying is the reasons? I noted in your written testimony, there

was no answer for why you were not promoted. What at least on

paper are they telling us about why women aren’t on the talk

shows why they are not advancing in the communications industries and in science and in the securities industries? What are we

hearing?

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. It’s very interesting, because in my entire career at Morgan Stanley, despite the annual 360-degree thorough

review process, that at not one point was I ever told by my management that I lacked leadership or interpersonal skills. In fact,

there were no major criticisms of my skills in any of my reviews

going back to 1995.

So I have to point to Ms. Wilson’s argument and tell you that

after the fact, Morgan Stanley said that even though I probably did

not know it because I had never been told that I lacked leadership

and interpersonal skills, even though I ran the MBA program and

I ran a bunch of initiatives for them in computer development, all

of a sudden there is a perception out of nowhere that women are

not leaders. And that’s the only thing I can think of because it

137

struck me so hard when Ms. Wilson presented that in our perceptions of men versus women.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Ms. Chander, why? What’s the explanation

when challenged? And your report has now been out for a while.

Is there any excuse given?

Ms. CHANDER. No, I have not personally challenged anybody

about this, but I have spoken anecdotally to various persons and

I don’t know what to make of it, but there was expressed surprised

from many men that the wage gap was that significant.

I can only conjecture on my personal belief that I think women

accept these lower levels of pay and they continue with their work

life.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And maybe for the reasons that Ms.

Schieffelin said that, challenging is risky. And that would add to

maybe part of the answer. Is it unconscious? Is there a level of on

which this kind of what turns out to be discrimination is unconscious? I leave that as an open question, too, Ms. Ness?

Ms. NESS. Part of it is tied to cultural aspects so it is not perceived as discrimination. If an executive just picks from among his

friends to fill the highest level position, it’s not a question of academics. It’s not a question of experience. It’s not a question of leadership skills. It is really who your buddies are and who they are

in those circles when the time comes to expand or to be promoted.

An example of progress: After the study, we met with the heads

of several of the major trade associations. As a result of that meeting, NCTA, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which had no female members on its board of directors, revised its bylaws because there are no women who are the CEOs of

the multiple system cable operators [MSO]. The bylaws previously

required board members to be a CFO and an MSO, so it was not

possible for the NCTA to have a woman on its board based on its

own bylaws. NCTA has changed its bylaws and now CEOs of programming companies who are members of the NCTA are now eligible. There are now two women on the NCTA board.

It does make a difference, but it only happens because people

talked about it, and met on it, and raised the issue.

Last, the notion that you can’t have kids and be the head of corporations is just bunk. Within the communications arena——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If you are a woman.

Ms. NESS. If you are a woman. Exactly right. Within the communications arena, I can point to many, many CEOs who are extremely successful CEOs and extremely successful parents. It can

be done.

Ms. WILSON. I just wanted to followup on this whole business of

are we looking at stereotypes? Is it conspiratorial? How does this

happen? We also went to meet with the executive producers of the

Sunday shows because I think all of us are not into reports to beat

and punish; we’re into reports to move things along. And we went

to—I sat with some women who are incredibly astute, thoughtful,

who were the producers and who were very upset to find that these

Sunday shows were not reflecting women because they were

women.

The first meeting we had—I won’t name the show—the woman

said, it’s only because women are not in these leadership positions

138

that they are not there. And every time you can show us, we have

gone through your study and they’re just not there. And so we said

we called attention to this piece that I mentioned about the Intelligence Committee, and we showed them how often they had to dip

under the women who were underneath the ranking member or the

chair of the committee to go over Feinstein. They were shocked because I don’t think they meant to dip under her.

I think it’s that whole business that if we are not attentive all

the time to this, and also not vigilant and also not held accountable

that you do think, oh, it is intelligence, it’s war, we forget the number of women who are into this, not just at the national level, not

just in the military, but in the State levels who are kind of risk

management opportunities.

And so it is a matter of the people at the top, the people who

are heading up the parties saying we want these women seen, and

it is also a matter of the bookers looking beyond, that is their job.

And since then, I have talked to people who have booked on these

shows and they said yes, it is a matter of looking beyond, because

they are there.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I watched for a difference since the release of

your report. I haven’t really seen any. I saw Hillary Clinton was

on after the weekend after you had released it, but I haven’t seen

much since. Are you keeping track?

Ms. WILSON. We’re keeping track, absolutely. And we will release

a report soon so we can tell you whether anything happened. I can

only tell you that at least in talking to one woman that has sometimes been on the talk shows, she said to me when I was managing—it was Donna Brazile who told me when she was managing

Gore’s campaign, that she hardly had been on at all, but she had

been on three times since the report came out. So she thought it

might have made some difference. But I do think that calling attention to things makes a difference, and we’ll be providing the

names of people as well. So——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You ought to put Nancy Pelosi on the list as

the highest ranking woman, and since Mrs. Maloney has released

‘‘Woman After Woman,’’ she ought to be on the list too.

Ms. WILSON. People thought we did this to promote Pelosi, but

that is not why we did this.

Mr. HORN. Mrs. Maloney for 5 minutes.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of our

panelists. I believe all of you have made a tremendous difference.

One of the reasons that I did our report was because of your report

that prompted me to think more about the subject and want a

broader view of it. I keep my own count. I think you have made

a difference on TV, Ms. Wilson. I think they have changed it a little

bit. All of your reports are very important.

One of the things that you said, Ms. Ness, that mirrored what

Ms. Mello had said earlier, you stated that passage of time alone

is not enough to get women in the top positions. Quite frankly, I

have talked to firms in my area and they have noticed that women

at the top have decreased since the 1970’s and 80’s. There are

fewer and they don’t know why.

139

What needs to be done to get women into these clout positions?

And I ask all the panelists if they would like to share their views

on it.

Ms. NESS. Certainly, the visibility that you are providing today,

the visibility by virtue of the discussion on the talk shows makes

a difference in waking people up to the fact that there is a huge

disparity. Mentoring at the highest levels is extremely helpful to

make sure that women are taking the right steps that will lead to

positions of power and leadership succession and not into more

dead-end, more traditional jobs, where women typically end up.

The studies have demonstrated that where there are women who

are EVPs, the women often are in the public affairs position or in

human resources, but not in management positions. So getting

women to understand those pathways is vitally important and

doing it both at the top levels and also early in their careers. And

these concepts should come from top down. That is very important,

because unless it is a commitment at the top it doesn’t happen.

And we heard story after story, where women were at the top of

these companies, you ended up with a more balanced board of directors, you ended up with more female executive vice presidents

and the like.

So it does matter. Shining the light on this issue makes a big difference. Focusing on family friendly policies is vitally important. I

can’t underscore that enough. One consulting firm found that it

was not able to retain women, and after they examined the problem, they found that some of their managers were calling meetings

at 5 o’clock in the evening for 7 o’clock that same night. These were

not emergencies. A lot of women who take primary responsibility

for picking up their children at day care couldn’t do it. If they had

had a day’s notice, they might have been able to attend.

So the policy at that company changed. Instead of managers

being valued for working really late and calling late meetings,

those managers were criticized for not managing well. And as a result, little by little, the policies changed. Those policies became

much more family friendly, and the firm was able to do a better

job retaining and promoting women to partnership.

Mrs. MALONEY. Would anyone else like to comment on this question?

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. I have to add something, which is that in the

line positions when you talked about the difference between line

and staff positions, it is incredibly important on Wall Street. Because in the line positions on a trading desk a woman, in order to

be successful, has to be as aggressive and as outspoken and as demanding of the trader’s time and attention as the men are. But

those are not traits that are appreciated in women, although they

are absolutely requisite for success in a trading environment.

So I see that women were pushed off of line positions into staff

functions that are less promotable in part because the aggressiveness is bitchiness or snippiness when it comes from a woman. That

same behavior is so revered in men in line positions on Wall Street.

Ms. WILSON. I want to add one more thing to this that I think

is very interesting. In a Deloitte and Touche poll and confirmed by

a Roper Starch poll, that close to 79 or 80 percent of women for

women to be seen as competent leaders in business, they have to

140

be seen as a leader in politics because that is the front end of

where people see and learn to trust women. And right now, if you

look at where the people of America trust women to lead in politics,

they trust us in Congress, they trust us in city council——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Not enough, 14 percent.

Ms. WILSON. They don’t trust us enough to get more of us in

there. Let me say they trust us because men and women vote

equally for them. I should put that as the indicator of trust. And

they are just as likely to vote for a women as a men in those positions, but when you get into the mayors of large cities, when you

get to actually the Governors, when you get to the Vice President

or the President, that gap widens.

And so we really have to—that’s why to have women who are at

the very top be seen is important, not just political women, not just

for the women in politics, but women up and down the line and

having done focus groups with men and women of different races

and classes around this issue, they feel until they we have women

in those positions, they do not feel respected in their daily lives.

Mrs. MALONEY. Since you say that women politicians are important for moving women forward in this country, when you look at

language that the press uses to describe women politicians—in the

last fight for the $20 billion that the President promised us, male

members who spoke up and fought for it and issued reports that

we were not giving the $20 billion were called effective, I was

called extremely shrill in continuing to point that out. And when

I was elected to Congress, one of the major papers attributed my

election to my ‘‘puppy dog enthusiasm.’’ I don’t think any male politician in Congress has ever been called puppy dog in their entire

careers.

I think it is unusual to have Ms. Schieffelin here. I think your

courage speaks for all women. And that every woman is standing

on your shoulders. How do you respond to the arguments made

earlier that women choose to work less hours and are therefore especially less likely to advance? Did you say that women were working less hours in your competitive positions that you were in?

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. Absolutely not. In fact, quite the opposite.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. Very, very briefly. I know you

worked much, much more. I hate to ask a personal question, I wonder if you would share with us, do you have children?

Ms. SCHIEFFELIN. I am single and I have no children.

Mrs. MALONEY. So therefore, your alleged discrimination we

heard a lot that if women had children, they can’t handle it, I

would argue that they are better capable of handling it. I thank

you all for doing this. Especially the chairman, for coming to New

York for a field hearing. I am deeply appreciative as are the people

of my district and across the country. And Ms. Schakowsky.

Mr. HORN. I thank both you and Jan. And a hearty thank you

to the staff, J. Russell George a New Yorker, and he is the chief

counsel staff director. Dan Moll, our deputy chief of staff for the

full committee was here. I don’t know if he is back here or not.

Bonnie Heald to my left is the deputy staff director, and Justin

Paulhamus is the majority clerk. There he is.

Now we get to the minority staff, David McMillen, professional

staff member. And we have also many people to thank on Mrs.

141

Maloney’s staff in particular, and that’s Orly Isaacson, senior legislative assistant to Congresswoman Maloney; and Ben Chevat, Mrs.

Maloney’s chief of staff, Minna Elias, that’s the New York chief of

staff; Phil Craft, the deputy chief of staff for Mrs. Maloney; Jessica

Fox, director of constituent services for Mrs. Maloney. I am beginning to think she has as many assistants as the President of the

United States.

Mrs. MALONEY. No, the whole staff is working on this because we

think it is important.

Mr. HORN. Yvonne Morrow, director of constituent services for

the Speaker of New York State Assembly, Stanley Silver, we thank

very much for the use of this room in particular. And our faithful

court reporter who has to untangle all of what I have said, Joe

Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Strickland, and we appreciate all of

your work. And with that, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ