Understanding the Gender Pay Gap
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Budgetary Effects of the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 February 2021
The Budgetary Effects of the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 FEBRUARY 2021 If enacted at the end of March 2021, the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 (S. 53, as introduced on January 26, 2021) would raise the federal minimum wage, in annual increments, to $15 per hour by June 2025 and then adjust it to increase at the same rate as median hourly wages. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill’s effects on the federal budget. The cumulative budget deficit over the 2021–2031 period would increase by $54 billion. Increases in annual deficits would be smaller before 2025, as the minimum-wage increases were being phased in, than in later years. Higher prices for goods and services—stemming from the higher wages of workers paid at or near the minimum wage, such as those providing long-term health care—would contribute to increases in federal spending. Changes in employment and in the distribution of income would increase spending for some programs (such as unemployment compensation), reduce spending for others (such as nutrition programs), and boost federal revenues (on net). Those estimates are consistent with CBO’s conventional approach to estimating the costs of legislation. In particular, they incorporate the assumption that nominal gross domestic product (GDP) would be unchanged. As a result, total income is roughly unchanged. Also, the deficit estimate presented above does not include increases in net outlays for interest on federal debt (as projected under current law) that would stem from the estimated effects of higher interest rates and changes in inflation under the bill. -
Equality Works
EQUALITY WORKS The Global Health 50/50 2019 Report The Global Health 50/50 initiative is hosted by the University College London Centre for Gender and Global Health. Global Health 50/50 was co-founded by Professor Sarah Hawkes1 and Dr Kent Buse.2 It is staffed with a dedicated team of researchers, strategists and communications experts working on a largely voluntary basis: Clara Affun-Adegbulu, Emily Blitz, Charlotte Brown, Tiantian Chen, Mireille Evagora-Campbell, Mairi Jeffery, Mikaela Hildebrand, Ruth Lawlor, Rebekah Merriman, Anna Purdie, Artricia Rasyid, Geordan Shannon, Ashley Sheffel, Sonja Tanaka and Laure-Anais Zultak. To minimise the potential for conflicts of interest, collective members affiliated with organisations reviewed by GH5050 are not engaged in reviewing or coding any institutional policies. The initiative is guided by a diverse independent Advisory Council3 to whom we are deeply grateful. Thanks to Ann Keeling for comments on the pay gap section, to Salvador Buse for support on statistical analysis, to Arjee Restar for research support, to Blossom for graphic design and Global Health Strategies for communications support. This report was supported by a grant from the Wellcome Trust [210398/Z/18/Z] ‘Global Health 50/50: Towards accountability for gender equality in global health’ #GH5050 @GlobalHlth5050 #GH5050AtWork www.globalhealth5050.org [email protected] [email protected] 1. Director, Centre for Gender and Global Health Institute for Global Health, University College London, UK 2. Chief, Strategic Policy Directions, UNAIDS, Switzerland 3. https://globalhealth5050.org/advisory-council/ EQUALITY WORKS The Global Health 50/50 2019 Report A review of the gender-related policies and practices of 198 global organisations active in health, with a special focus on gender equality in the workplace Contents Foreword 6 A word from the GH5050 collective 9 About this report 15 Glossary 18 PART I. -
Minimum Wage, Official Workweek, and Overtime Compensation
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION POLICY NUMBER HR Division of Human Resources HR 1.84 POLICY TITLE Minimum Wage, Official Workweek, and Overtime Compensation SCOPE OF POLICY DATE OF REVISION USC System July 26, 2021 RESPONSIBLE OFFICER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Vice President for Human Resources Division of Human Resources THE LANGUAGE USED IN THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT CREATE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE FACULTY, STAFF, OR ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA. THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT CREATE ANY CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OR ENTITLEMENTS. THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVISE THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART. NO PROMISES OR ASSURANCES, WHETHER WRITTEN OR ORAL, WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THIS PARAGRAPH CREATE ANY CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT. THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE UNIVERSITY’S HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES. PURPOSE In accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the State Human Resources Regulations, the University of South Carolina has established the following policy on minimum wage, the official workweek, and overtime compensation. DEFINITIONS Call Back Pay: Call back pay is pay for a non-exempt employee to report to work either before or after normal duty hours to perform emergency services. Compensatory Time: Leave time granted to an employee in lieu of overtime pay, subject to limits established in the FLSA. Exempt Employees: Employees of the University of South Carolina who are exempt from both the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to employment in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional or outside sales capacity. -
Gender Pay Gaps
Equality and Human Rights Commission Briefing paper 2 Gender pay gaps David Perfect Gender pay gaps David Perfect, Equality and Human Rights Commission © Equality and Human Rights Commission 2011 First published Spring 2011 ISBN 978 1 84206 351 4 Equality and Human Rights Commission Research The Equality and Human Rights Commission publishes research carried out for the Commission by commissioned researchers and by the Research Team. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. The Commission is publishing the report as a contribution to discussion and debate. Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Commission research reports, or visit our website: Research Team Equality and Human Rights Commission Arndale House The Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3AQ Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0161 829 8500 Website: www.equalityhumanrights.com You can download a copy of this report as a PDF from our website: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/ If you require this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Communications Team to discuss your needs at: [email protected] Key findings Men working full-time continue to have higher average (mean) hourly, weekly and annual earnings than women. Across the United Kingdom, the mean full-time gender pay gap (the difference in percentage terms between the average earnings of women and men working full-time) in 2010 was 15.5 per cent for hourly earnings excluding overtime and 21.5 per cent for gross weekly earnings. The gap was wider in weekly than hourly earnings, since men tend to work longer weekly hours than women and are also more likely to receive additional payments, such as overtime. -
Equal Pay Legislation and the Gender Wage Gap
A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Polachek, Solomon W. Article Equal pay legislation and the gender wage gap IZA World of Labor Provided in Cooperation with: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Suggested Citation: Polachek, Solomon W. (2019) : Equal pay legislation and the gender wage gap, IZA World of Labor, ISSN 2054-9571, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn, Iss. 16v2, http://dx.doi.org/10.15185/izawol.16.v2 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/206575 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten -
COVID-19: Unemployment Compensation Benefits Returning to Work and Refusal to Work - Information for Employers
FACT SHEET #144C JUNE 2020 COVID-19: Unemployment Compensation Benefits Returning to Work and Refusal to Work - Information for Employers Michigan’s unemployment insurance law and the Federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act requires individuals collecting unemployment benefits to be available for suitable work and accept an offer of suitable work. When an employer makes an offer of suitable work to an employee or makes an offer for an employee to return to their customary work, the employee can possibly lose unemployment benefits if he/she refuses. Wages, workplace safety, and other factors are considered in determining whether work is “suitable.” Suitable work includes that workplace conditions must be safe o Employers must follow current state and federal requirements and guidance to maintain a safe workplace in general and due to COVID-19. o State and federal requirements and guidance on COVID-19 include information from the following sources (as of date of publication): . Michigan’s Stay Home, Stay Safe orders . Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA): . Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) . Michigan Safe Start Plan Check with each government entity for up-to-date guidance and regulations. Work is not considered to be suitable if the employer is unable or unwilling to provide a safe workplace as required by current state and federal law and guidance. Employers have the burden to prove that workplaces are safe and -
Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Response And
End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Response and Investigation Part 1: Implicit Gender Bias Heather Huhtanen Contributions by Kimberly A. Lonsway, PhD Sergeant Joanne Archambault (Ret.) November 2017 Updated October 2020 . This project is supported by Grant No. 2016-TA-AX-K010 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, US Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Response and Investigation October Part 1: Implicit Gender Bias Huhtanen 2020 Public Domain Notice Unless something is excerpted directly from a copyrighted source, all the material in this document is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without specifically requesting permission from End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) or the authors. Any direct quotes or excerpts should be properly cited, however. No one may reproduce or distribute this material for a fee without the specific, written authorization of End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI). Electronic Access The publication may be downloaded from End Violence Against Women International’s Resource Library. Recommended Citation Huhtanen, H. (2020). Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Response and Investigation. Part 1: Implicit Gender Bias. End Violence Against Women International. End Violence Against Women International 2 www.evawintl.org Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Response and Investigation October Part 1: Implicit Gender Bias Huhtanen 2020 Authors Heather Huhtanen is currently based in Geneva, Switzerland where she works to promote gender equality in the context of international development, security and justice reform and peace and transition processes. -
•Understanding Bias: a Resource Guide
Community Relations Services Toolkit for Policing Understanding Bias: A Resource Guide Bias Policing Overview and Resource Guide The Community Relations Service (CRS) is the U.S. Justice Department’s “peacemaker” agency, whose mission is to help resolve tensions in communities across the nation, arising from differences of race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and disability. CRS may be called to help a city or town resolve tensions that stem from community perceptions of bias or a lack of cultural competency among police officers. Bias and a lack of cultural competency are often cited interchangeably as challenges in police- community relationships. While bias and a lack of cultural competency may both be present in a given situation, these challenges and the strategies for addressing them differ appreciably. This resource guide will assist readers in understanding and addressing both of these issues. What is bias, and how is it different from cultural competency? The Science of Bias Bias is a human trait resulting from our tendency and need to classify individuals into categories as we strive to quickly process information and make sense of the world.1 To a large extent, these processes occur below the level of consciousness. This “unconscious” classification of people occurs through schemas, or “mental maps,” developed from life experiences to aid in “automatic processing.”2 Automatic processing occurs with tasks that are very well practiced; very few mental resources and little conscious thought are involved during automatic processing, allowing numerous tasks to be carried out simultaneously.3 These schemas become templates that we use when we are faced with 1. -
Downward Nominal Wage Rigidities Bend the Phillips Curve
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO WORKING PAPER SERIES Downward Nominal Wage Rigidities Bend the Phillips Curve Mary C. Daly Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Bart Hobijn Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, VU University Amsterdam and Tinbergen Institute January 2014 Working Paper 2013-08 http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2013/wp2013-08.pdf The views in this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Downward Nominal Wage Rigidities Bend the Phillips Curve MARY C. DALY BART HOBIJN 1 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM, AND TINBERGEN INSTITUTE January 11, 2014. We introduce a model of monetary policy with downward nominal wage rigidities and show that both the slope and curvature of the Phillips curve depend on the level of inflation and the extent of downward nominal wage rigidities. This is true for the both the long-run and the short-run Phillips curve. Comparing simulation results from the model with data on U.S. wage patterns, we show that downward nominal wage rigidities likely have played a role in shaping the dynamics of unemployment and wage growth during the last three recessions and subsequent recoveries. Keywords: Downward nominal wage rigidities, monetary policy, Phillips curve. JEL-codes: E52, E24, J3. 1 We are grateful to Mike Elsby, Sylvain Leduc, Zheng Liu, and Glenn Rudebusch, as well as seminar participants at EIEF, the London School of Economics, Norges Bank, UC Santa Cruz, and the University of Edinburgh for their suggestions and comments. -
Unsafe and Underpaid How Sexual Harassment and Unfair Pay Hold Women Back
Unsafe and Underpaid How Sexual Harassment and Unfair Pay Hold Women Back Andrea Flynn PUBLISHED AUGUST 2020 About TIME’S UP Foundation The TIME’S UP™ Foundation insists upon safe, fair, and dignified work for all by changing culture, companies, and laws. We enable more people to seek justice through the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund™. We pioneer innovative research driving toward solutions to address systemic inequality and injustice in the workplace through the TIME’S UP Impact Lab. And we reshape key industries from within so they serve as a model for all industries. The TIME’S UP Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. TIME’S UP FOUNDATION | AUGUST 2020 1 About the Author Andrea Flynn researches and writes about gender, race, health,and economic inequality. She was formerly a fellow and the Director of Health Equity at the Roosevelt Institute, and is the incoming director of the Research and Action Hub at the Institute for Women's Policy Research. She is the co-author of The Hidden Rules of Race (Cambridge University Press, 2017). Her writing on the race and gender dimensions of economic inequality, reproductive health and justice, and health equity has appeared in The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The New Republic, Time, Teen Vogue, and Cosmopolitan. Andrea teaches courses on reproductive and sexual health and economic inequality at the Mailman School for Public Health at Columbia University. She received her MPA and MPH from Columbia University. You can follow Andrea on Twitter @dreaflynn. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Jae Aron, Amy Castro Baker, Jessica Forden, Rebecca Goldman, Amanda Harrington, Matthew Hughes, Angie Jean-Marie, Devan King, Jennifer Klein, LaShawnda Lindsay-Dennis, Rakeen Mabud, and Tina Tchen for their comments, insights, and support. -
Gender Pay Inequality
California State University, Monterey Bay Digital Commons @ CSUMB Capstone Projects and Master's Theses Spring 2015 Gender Pay Inequality J. Elizabeth Campos California State University, Monterey Bay Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes Recommended Citation Campos, J. Elizabeth, "Gender Pay Inequality" (2015). Capstone Projects and Master's Theses. 493. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes/493 This Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ CSUMB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Capstone Projects and Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CSUMB. Unless otherwise indicated, this project was conducted as practicum not subject to IRB review but conducted in keeping with applicable regulatory guidance for training purposes. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Gender Pay Inequality By: J. Elizabeth Campos Advisor: Dr. Juan José Gutiérrez California State University, Monterey Bay Social and Behavioral Sciences Sociology Concentration Spring 2015 Gutiérrez 2 Abstract Equality should be share among individuals in our society. Age, race, ethnicity, sex, or gender should not be a cause for discrimination. The struggle for gender equality has brought many to construct research and movements throughout the world and in history. The question address in this research is why do women get paid less than men. The gender pay gap is a social problem that afflicts women in our society. This research exposes the different factors that contribute to the inequality in pay between men and women, and why it still persist in our society despite the laws and the awareness of social justice among individuals. -
The Effect of Overtime Regulations on Employment
RONALD L. OAXACA University of Arizona, USA, CEPS/INSTEAD, Luxembourg, PRESAGE, France, and IZA, Germany The effect of overtime regulations on employment There is no evidence that being strict with overtime hours and pay boosts employment—it could even lower it Keywords: overtime, wages, labor demand, employment ELEVATOR PITCH A shorter standard workweek boosts incentives Regulation of standard workweek hours and overtime for multiple job holding and undermines work sharing hours and pay can protect workers who might otherwise be Standard workweek (hours) Percent moonlighting required to work more than they would like to at the going rate. By discouraging the use of overtime, such regulation 48 44 can increase the standard hourly wage of some workers 40 and encourage work sharing that increases employment, with particular advantages for female workers. However, regulation of overtime raises employment costs, setting in motion economic forces that can limit, neutralize, or even reduce employment. And increasing the coverage of 7.6 overtime pay regulations has little effect on the share of 4.8 4.3 workers who work overtime or on weekly overtime hours per worker. Source: Based on data in [1]. KEY FINDINGS Pros Cons Regulation of standard workweek hours and Curbing overtime reduces employment of both overtime hours and pay can protect workers who skilled and unskilled workers. might otherwise be required to work more than they Overtime workers tend to be more skilled, so would like to at the going rate. unemployed and other workers are not satisfactory Shortening the legal standard workweek can substitutes for overtime workers. potentially raise employment, especially among Shortening the legal standard workweek increases women.