立即打开
美国女性劳动力参与率大幅下降,该如何破解?

美国女性劳动力参与率大幅下降,该如何破解?

Tami Forman 2022-02-08
数以百万计的女性在疫情之初离开了有酬劳动力队伍,且至今尚未恢复就业。

由于在家庭中不同性别扮演的角色不同,在疫情期间额外增加的照顾子女的负担,主要落在了女性身上。

图片来源:Dania Maxwell —— 盖蒂图片社

从美国各地的学校和日托中心因为疫情关闭至今已过去两年时间,许多人已经重新回到工作岗位,但女性的劳动力参与率并没有恢复。

事实上,1月的就业报告发现,上个月有27.5万女性离开劳动力队伍,导致女性的劳动力参与率只有57%,从1988年到疫情爆发之前从未有如此低的女性劳动力参与率。整整一代人取得的进步在短短两年内便成了泡影。

现在想要(或者需要!)重新进入有酬劳动力队伍的女性面临三方面的阻碍:雇主对于长期服务缺口的偏见、基于性别角色的家庭劳动关系的惯性,以及夫妻双方对于积极支持女性从事有酬就业缺乏紧迫感等。结果是女性职业道路中断的时间更长,这将导致女性承受更多不利影响。

有数以百万计的女性在疫情之初离开了有酬劳动力队伍,且至今尚未恢复就业。对于她们而言,两年的职业中断影响深远。一旦职业中断两年,重新回到劳动力队伍的难度将增加。事实上,一项研究发现,随着职业中断的时间从两年变成三年,获得面试机会的概率将下降超过50%。

雇主的偏见并非女性重新从事有酬就业需要克服的唯一障碍。异性夫妻中根深蒂固的性别角色安排,可能更容易将女性挤出劳动力队伍,并增加她们重回劳动力队伍的难度。

社会学家杰西卡·卡拉克发表的一篇论文中发现,面对因疫情增加的子女抚养义务,异性双职工夫妻的解决方式几乎都是不平等的,改变了之前夫妻双方更加平等的关系,甚至对母亲造成了负面影响。这种传统的性别安排,在母亲更方便远程办公的情况下可以说是出于“实际性”考虑,但如果远程办公的可行性较低,可以说母亲是“更天生的”子女看护者。换言之,母亲多承担照顾子女的义务是“合理的”,即使不合理,母亲也更擅长这项工作。

所以,异性夫妻对于女性失业和男性失业的态度截然不同,这并不令人意外。早在2020年疫情没有成为影响因素之前,社会学家阿利亚·哈米德·拉奥曾在她的《紧要关头》(Crunch Time)一书中写道,她发现异性夫妻对于男性和女性失业的态度不同,即使女性收入水平与男性相当甚至更高的情况下也是如此。女性失业不被视为当务之急,而且夫妻并不会让女性避免承担额外的无偿劳动,使她有更多求职的时间。

当然,这三个因素早在疫情之前就已经存在。因此,女性的劳动力参与率在上世纪90年代持续低迷。

女性离开劳动力队伍,不只会对女性造成经济上的影响。如果女性被迫离开劳动力队伍,在想重回劳动力队伍的时候却无法重新就业,或者她们因为需要在每个工作日下午3点去学校接孩子而得不到晋升,我们都将蒙受损失。她们的时间和才能没有被用于为经济发展做贡献和解决人类社会面临的问题。

要想阻止儿童看护危机扼杀女性的职业,我们需要美国公司清醒地意识到,他们是问题的一部分,并且他们需要认识到并且解决超出他们控制的其他障碍。雇主需要消除对于职业中断的偏见,尤其是因为照顾子女出现中断的情况,并欢迎人们重新从事有酬工作,无论她们的职业中断了2年还是20年。她们需要执行带薪休假政策和灵活办公计划,使家长和其他看护者在日常以及因重大挑战影响职业/子女看护平衡时,可以保证工作和照顾家人两不误。

公司领导者不能再认为医疗基础设施与己无关。疫情证明事实并非如此:当学校和日托中心关闭时,雇主失去了宝贵的员工,随后出现了人手不足问题。公司领导者应该提供私人医疗福利为员工提供支持,并倡议可以让所有人受益的公共解决方案。

最后,公司领导者需要更习惯于家庭中和办公室中存在的性别动态,并认识到这种动态的影响。家庭内部不平等的劳动分工让一些员工获得更大的竞争优势。领导者应该评估公司的薪酬和晋升制度,了解是否有员工利用这种不公平优势获得升职加薪。必须为男性提供带薪休假和灵活办公安排,并且领导者应该鼓励团队中的男性休假,让人们认识到男性作为看护者同样有责任也有能力。

只有着手解决这些系统性挑战,我们才能真正释放所有人的创造力,无关性别,或者他们在看护子女中承担了什么责任。(财富中文网)

本文作者塔米·福曼现任Path Forward公司执行董事。

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

由于在家庭中不同性别扮演的角色不同,在疫情期间额外增加的照顾子女的负担,主要落在了女性身上。

从美国各地的学校和日托中心因为疫情关闭至今已过去两年时间,许多人已经重新回到工作岗位,但女性的劳动力参与率并没有恢复。

事实上,1月的就业报告发现,上个月有27.5万女性离开劳动力队伍,导致女性的劳动力参与率只有57%,从1988年到疫情爆发之前从未有如此低的女性劳动力参与率。整整一代人取得的进步在短短两年内便成了泡影。

现在想要(或者需要!)重新进入有酬劳动力队伍的女性面临三方面的阻碍:雇主对于长期服务缺口的偏见、基于性别角色的家庭劳动关系的惯性,以及夫妻双方对于积极支持女性从事有酬就业缺乏紧迫感等。结果是女性职业道路中断的时间更长,这将导致女性承受更多不利影响。

有数以百万计的女性在疫情之初离开了有酬劳动力队伍,且至今尚未恢复就业。对于她们而言,两年的职业中断影响深远。一旦职业中断两年,重新回到劳动力队伍的难度将增加。事实上,一项研究发现,随着职业中断的时间从两年变成三年,获得面试机会的概率将下降超过50%。

雇主的偏见并非女性重新从事有酬就业需要克服的唯一障碍。异性夫妻中根深蒂固的性别角色安排,可能更容易将女性挤出劳动力队伍,并增加她们重回劳动力队伍的难度。

社会学家杰西卡·卡拉克发表的一篇论文中发现,面对因疫情增加的子女抚养义务,异性双职工夫妻的解决方式几乎都是不平等的,改变了之前夫妻双方更加平等的关系,甚至对母亲造成了负面影响。这种传统的性别安排,在母亲更方便远程办公的情况下可以说是出于“实际性”考虑,但如果远程办公的可行性较低,可以说母亲是“更天生的”子女看护者。换言之,母亲多承担照顾子女的义务是“合理的”,即使不合理,母亲也更擅长这项工作。

所以,异性夫妻对于女性失业和男性失业的态度截然不同,这并不令人意外。早在2020年疫情没有成为影响因素之前,社会学家阿利亚·哈米德·拉奥曾在她的《紧要关头》(Crunch Time)一书中写道,她发现异性夫妻对于男性和女性失业的态度不同,即使女性收入水平与男性相当甚至更高的情况下也是如此。女性失业不被视为当务之急,而且夫妻并不会让女性避免承担额外的无偿劳动,使她有更多求职的时间。

当然,这三个因素早在疫情之前就已经存在。因此,女性的劳动力参与率在上世纪90年代持续低迷。

女性离开劳动力队伍,不只会对女性造成经济上的影响。如果女性被迫离开劳动力队伍,在想重回劳动力队伍的时候却无法重新就业,或者她们因为需要在每个工作日下午3点去学校接孩子而得不到晋升,我们都将蒙受损失。她们的时间和才能没有被用于为经济发展做贡献和解决人类社会面临的问题。

要想阻止儿童看护危机扼杀女性的职业,我们需要美国公司清醒地意识到,他们是问题的一部分,并且他们需要认识到并且解决超出他们控制的其他障碍。雇主需要消除对于职业中断的偏见,尤其是因为照顾子女出现中断的情况,并欢迎人们重新从事有酬工作,无论她们的职业中断了2年还是20年。她们需要执行带薪休假政策和灵活办公计划,使家长和其他看护者在日常以及因重大挑战影响职业/子女看护平衡时,可以保证工作和照顾家人两不误。

公司领导者不能再认为医疗基础设施与己无关。疫情证明事实并非如此:当学校和日托中心关闭时,雇主失去了宝贵的员工,随后出现了人手不足问题。公司领导者应该提供私人医疗福利为员工提供支持,并倡议可以让所有人受益的公共解决方案。

最后,公司领导者需要更习惯于家庭中和办公室中存在的性别动态,并认识到这种动态的影响。家庭内部不平等的劳动分工让一些员工获得更大的竞争优势。领导者应该评估公司的薪酬和晋升制度,了解是否有员工利用这种不公平优势获得升职加薪。必须为男性提供带薪休假和灵活办公安排,并且领导者应该鼓励团队中的男性休假,让人们认识到男性作为看护者同样有责任也有能力。

只有着手解决这些系统性挑战,我们才能真正释放所有人的创造力,无关性别,或者他们在看护子女中承担了什么责任。(财富中文网)

本文作者塔米·福曼现任Path Forward公司执行董事。

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

The additional burden of childcare during the pandemic was disproportionately shouldered by women owing to gendered domestic roles.

As we mark two years since the COVID-19 pandemic closed schools and day-care centers across the country, plenty of people have gone back to work, but the women’s workforce participation rate has not recovered.

In fact, the January jobs report found that 275,000 women left the workforce last month, leaving the women’s workplace participation rate at 57%—a rate that pre-pandemic had not been seen since 1988. An entire generation of progress has been erased in two years.

What we are seeing now is a triple whammy for women who want (or need!) to reenter the paid workforce: They face employers’ bias against long gaps in service, inertia in domestic labor arrangements based on gender roles, and a lack of a sense of urgency within a couple to proactively support a woman’s paid employment. The result could be even longer career breaks, further exacerbating the penalties these women will pay.

For the millions of women who left the paid workforce at the start of the pandemic and haven’t yet returned, the two-year mark is significant. This is the point at which the gap in work history becomes much harder to overcome. In fact, as two years turn into three, one study suggests the chances of getting an interview fall by more than 50%.

Employer bias is not the only barrier that women will need to overcome to get back to paid work. Entrenched gender roles within different-sex couples can push women out of the workforce more readily and make it harder for them to return.

A paper by sociologist Jessica Calarco found that different-sex, dual-earner couples grappled with the increased parenting duties of the pandemic in mostly unequal ways, even when that was a reversion from formerly more egalitarian relationships and even when those arrangements negatively affected mothers. These traditionally gendered arrangements were justified as a matter of “practicality” if the mother could more easily work remotely but also by the concept that mothers are “more natural” at caregiving in situations where it was less practical. In other words, “it just made sense” for Mom to do more, and if it actually didn’t make sense, then, well, she’s just better at it.

It’s not surprising then to find that different-sex couples view a woman’s unemployment differently than they do a man’s. Early in 2020, before the pandemic was even a factor, sociologist Aliya Hamid Rao published a book titled Crunch Time, in which she found that heterosexual couples treated unemployment differently depending on whether it was the man or the woman who was unemployed, even in cases where the woman’s income was equal to or greater than the man’s. Women’s unemployment was not treated as an urgent priority, and couples did not protect her time from additional unpaid labor in order to accommodate for job hunting.

Of course, these three factors were all in place long before the pandemic. This is why women’s workforce participation rates stalled back in the ’90s.

It’s not just the individual women taking the financial hit who suffer. If women leave the workforce when they don’t want to, can’t return when they do want to, or aren’t promoted because they have school pickup at 3 p.m. every weekday, we all miss out. Their time and talents aren’t contributing to our economy and solving the problems of our society.

If we want to stop the caregiving crisis from killing women’s careers, we need corporate America to wake up and realize that they are part of the problem and that other barriers beyond their control need to be recognized and addressed. Employers need to grapple with their own bias around career breaks, specifically those for caregiving, and welcome people who want to return to paid work—whether they’ve been out for two years or 20. They need to implement policies of paid leave and flexible schedules that will make it realistic for parents and other caregivers to work and care for their families, both on a daily basis and when big challenges throw the balance of the career/caregiving dynamic.

Corporate leaders also need to stop treating the infrastructure of care as if it is not their problem. The pandemic made clear this isn’t true: Employers lost valuable employees when schools and day cares closed, and staff shortages ensued. Corporate leaders should provide private care benefits to support their employees and advocate for public solutions that would benefit everyone.

Finally, corporate leaders need to become more attuned to gender dynamics, both at home and in their offices and recognize the impact of those dynamics. Unequal domestic labor confers a competitive edge for some employees over others. Leaders should review pay and promotions to see if some employees have an unfair advantage that they are using to get ahead. Paid leave and flexibility programs must be made available to men, and leaders need to push the men on their teams to take leave so that people can see men are equally responsible and capable as caregivers.

Only when we start to address these systemic challenges will we be able to truly unleash the creative potential of everyone, regardless of gender or caregiving status.

Tami Forman is the executive director of Path Forward.

热读文章
热门视频
扫描二维码下载财富APP