2020年初,在美国出现第一例新冠肺炎确诊病例之前,女性在就业市场上已经跨越了多个重要的里程碑。当时的就业市场一片繁荣。医疗保健、教育等以女性为主的服务行业都在争先恐后地大力招聘。在2020年初表现出色的几个月里,政府数据显示,美国女性有酬劳动力的数量超过了男性。
美国进步中心的一位劳动经济学家迈克尔·马多维茨表示,后来“大好局面毁于一旦”。
新冠肺炎疫情导致职场妈妈们寄放子女的学校和日托中心被迫停业,而且女性员工占多数的许多服务类企业遭遇重创,这种情况至今已经持续了近一年时间。在此期间,疫情导致职场女性退步了超过三十年,女性劳动力参与率下降到1988年的水平。新冠肺炎疫情导致的失业潮冲击到了不同的种族、年龄和行业,从低薪的必要工作者到支持远程办公的公司“知识型”员工都难以幸免。但令人遗憾的是,不出所料,受到最大伤害的是经济上最弱势的黑人和拉丁裔女性。
女性政策研究所的总裁及首席执行官妮科尔·梅森说:“我们失去了太多。我们受到了巨大的冲击。”
统计数据令人震惊:从2020年2月以来,共有540万女性失业,占同期美国净失业人口的55%。约有210万女性彻底退出了有酬劳动力队伍。到2020年9月,职场妈妈的失业人数是爸爸的三倍。
今年年初的统计数据可能最令人绝望:2020年12月,美国经济的就业人数净减少了14万,这是自去年4月以来首次出现如此大幅的下降。而减少的全部是女性。虽然在此期间有个别男性失业,但整体上男性在2020年12月的就业人数增长了16,000。而女性就业人数减少了15.6万,有色人种女性的变化尤其明显。
女性就业受到的冲击可能会持续到新冠肺炎疫情最终结束之后。失业或退出劳动力大军的女性将失去未来的退休金和社会保障收入,以及目前的工资和储蓄。有经济学家预测,最终,这场危机将把性别薪酬差距拉大5个百分点。未来打算重返职场的女性在简历上会留下一段空白期,难以打动雇主。
慈善家梅琳达·盖茨的Pivotal Ventures基金一直致力于实现性别平等。她表示:“新冠肺炎疫情过后,女性能否在经济中重新站稳脚跟,取决于雇主能够承认女性履历出现空白事出有因,还是因为人们无法掌控的现实情况而惩罚女性。”
在线求职平台ZipRecruiter的劳动经济学家朱莉娅·波拉克说:“我有时候确实会产生这样的想法:‘或许我应该放弃。’”她还是两个孩子的妈妈。他们的学校从去年3月开始一直采取远程授课,所以波拉克必须根据孩子们的Zoom日历来安排自己的有酬工作。但至少她的工作岗位非常灵活,所以她可以在晚上8点到午夜孩子们睡着的这段时间里工作,用来“弥补白天损失的时间”。
波拉克表示:“那些收入微薄的女性要想保住工作,就不得不离开家去洗衣店或仓库,所以她们别无选择,只能彻底退出劳动力大军。妈妈们确实首当其冲地受到了这场危机的影响。”
承担家庭义务的是妈妈而不是爸爸,这个事实在2020年9月学校复课时变得一目了然。由于学校采取远程授课、“混合授课”或一些无法预测的组合方式,在9月一个月内就有86.5万女性退出了劳动力队伍,是男性的四倍。
美国人口普查局的首席经济学家米斯蒂·赫格尼斯说:“当所有人被迫回到家中的时候,性别不平等的问题就暴露无遗。家有儿女的女性面临的困境,是她们数十年来从未有过的经历。”
赫格尼斯指出,男性作为父亲和商业领袖,能够“付出更多”,承担照看子女的责任和“积极鼓励其他男性改变行为。”但任何系统性的解决方案都需要联邦政府出台政策,包括围绕妈妈和经济实惠的儿童看护基础设施出台立法,让更多的女性可以继续留在职场。
有多位经济学家和政策专家告诉《财富》杂志,美国总统乔·拜登提出的1.9万亿美元新冠救济计划是一个良好的开端;该计划包括对低收入家庭的儿童税收减免,以及针对陷入困境的美国儿童护理服务提供商发放的250亿美元扶持资金。拜登政府的计划中还包括增加带薪休假;扩大疫苗接种,这项计划能够帮助学校和日托中心更快复工;将联邦最低工资提高到每小时15美元,有倡议人士认为,这项政策将使有色人种女性直接受益,因为她们大部分从事的都是低收入的服务岗位。
当然,这些政策代价高昂,而且民主党在美国国会里的微弱优势将为拜登总统落实这些计划的工作增加变数。在此期间,有一些私人雇主正在尝试带来一些显著的影响,虽然这无法系统性地解决问题。
IBM公司的首席人力资源官尼克尔·拉莫罗表示:“新冠肺炎疫情将带来深远的持续影响。”该企业科技巨头除了增加部分员工福利以外,还扩大了“重返职场”项目的资格。该项目对短暂离开职场的女性进行招聘并提供培训。她说:“这并不是一场短跑,对女性员工和她们的雇主来说,这是一场马拉松。”
然而,虽然科技公司有丰厚的福利,一些业内大公司在招聘女性方面的口碑却并不理想。相反,一些最大的女性私人雇主是零售公司,它们依赖员工在现场提供服务。
《财富》杂志曾经调查过8家大型实体零售商如何支持女性员工,得到的回应令人喜忧参半。有的公司表示它们没有发现女性的就业遇到任何麻烦。有的公司表示它们扩大了带薪休假,或者提高了新冠肺炎疫情时期的奖金额度。塔吉特的计划最为具体。该公司表示将向全体美国员工提供无限量居家或日托“后备看护”,由公司付费,并且持续到5月。
电信业巨头威瑞森也为如何支持必要员工履行儿童看护义务,树立了良好的榜样。各地封城导致威瑞森关闭了70%的门店,当时该公司安排8,000名受到影响的员工居家电话销售或从事其他远程工作,其中许多是女性。在门店复工之后,威瑞森允许部分员工继续远程办公或转为兼职,并增加了全体员工的儿童护理福利,员工每小时可以领取15美元,每天不超过100美元。
威瑞森的首席人力资源官克里斯蒂·潘比安基称:“对许多家长而言,新冠肺炎疫情打破了他们的工作/生活基础结构。”她将去年威瑞森低于正常水平的人员流动率归功于公司增加的福利,并且她表示,虽然公司为此付出了巨大的代价,但这都是值得的。
潘比安基拒绝分享威瑞森相关计划的具体成本,她说:“我们付出了巨大的代价。但另一方面,人员流动也会产生高额的支出。我们认为,重要的是让我们的员工和全社会知道,我们始终在这里为他们提供支持。”(财富中文网)
本文发表于2021年2月/3月的《财富》杂志,标题为《美国是否将放弃职场女性?》
翻译:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
2020年初,在美国出现第一例新冠肺炎确诊病例之前,女性在就业市场上已经跨越了多个重要的里程碑。当时的就业市场一片繁荣。医疗保健、教育等以女性为主的服务行业都在争先恐后地大力招聘。在2020年初表现出色的几个月里,政府数据显示,美国女性有酬劳动力的数量超过了男性。
美国进步中心的一位劳动经济学家迈克尔·马多维茨表示,后来“大好局面毁于一旦”。
新冠肺炎疫情导致职场妈妈们寄放子女的学校和日托中心被迫停业,而且女性员工占多数的许多服务类企业遭遇重创,这种情况至今已经持续了近一年时间。在此期间,疫情导致职场女性退步了超过三十年,女性劳动力参与率下降到1988年的水平。新冠肺炎疫情导致的失业潮冲击到了不同的种族、年龄和行业,从低薪的必要工作者到支持远程办公的公司“知识型”员工都难以幸免。但令人遗憾的是,不出所料,受到最大伤害的是经济上最弱势的黑人和拉丁裔女性。
女性政策研究所的总裁及首席执行官妮科尔·梅森说:“我们失去了太多。我们受到了巨大的冲击。”
统计数据令人震惊:从2020年2月以来,共有540万女性失业,占同期美国净失业人口的55%。约有210万女性彻底退出了有酬劳动力队伍。到2020年9月,职场妈妈的失业人数是爸爸的三倍。
今年年初的统计数据可能最令人绝望:2020年12月,美国经济的就业人数净减少了14万,这是自去年4月以来首次出现如此大幅的下降。而减少的全部是女性。虽然在此期间有个别男性失业,但整体上男性在2020年12月的就业人数增长了16,000。而女性就业人数减少了15.6万,有色人种女性的变化尤其明显。
女性就业受到的冲击可能会持续到新冠肺炎疫情最终结束之后。失业或退出劳动力大军的女性将失去未来的退休金和社会保障收入,以及目前的工资和储蓄。有经济学家预测,最终,这场危机将把性别薪酬差距拉大5个百分点。未来打算重返职场的女性在简历上会留下一段空白期,难以打动雇主。
慈善家梅琳达·盖茨的Pivotal Ventures基金一直致力于实现性别平等。她表示:“新冠肺炎疫情过后,女性能否在经济中重新站稳脚跟,取决于雇主能够承认女性履历出现空白事出有因,还是因为人们无法掌控的现实情况而惩罚女性。”
在线求职平台ZipRecruiter的劳动经济学家朱莉娅·波拉克说:“我有时候确实会产生这样的想法:‘或许我应该放弃。’”她还是两个孩子的妈妈。他们的学校从去年3月开始一直采取远程授课,所以波拉克必须根据孩子们的Zoom日历来安排自己的有酬工作。但至少她的工作岗位非常灵活,所以她可以在晚上8点到午夜孩子们睡着的这段时间里工作,用来“弥补白天损失的时间”。
波拉克表示:“那些收入微薄的女性要想保住工作,就不得不离开家去洗衣店或仓库,所以她们别无选择,只能彻底退出劳动力大军。妈妈们确实首当其冲地受到了这场危机的影响。”
承担家庭义务的是妈妈而不是爸爸,这个事实在2020年9月学校复课时变得一目了然。由于学校采取远程授课、“混合授课”或一些无法预测的组合方式,在9月一个月内就有86.5万女性退出了劳动力队伍,是男性的四倍。
美国人口普查局的首席经济学家米斯蒂·赫格尼斯说:“当所有人被迫回到家中的时候,性别不平等的问题就暴露无遗。家有儿女的女性面临的困境,是她们数十年来从未有过的经历。”
赫格尼斯指出,男性作为父亲和商业领袖,能够“付出更多”,承担照看子女的责任和“积极鼓励其他男性改变行为。”但任何系统性的解决方案都需要联邦政府出台政策,包括围绕妈妈和经济实惠的儿童看护基础设施出台立法,让更多的女性可以继续留在职场。
有多位经济学家和政策专家告诉《财富》杂志,美国总统乔·拜登提出的1.9万亿美元新冠救济计划是一个良好的开端;该计划包括对低收入家庭的儿童税收减免,以及针对陷入困境的美国儿童护理服务提供商发放的250亿美元扶持资金。拜登政府的计划中还包括增加带薪休假;扩大疫苗接种,这项计划能够帮助学校和日托中心更快复工;将联邦最低工资提高到每小时15美元,有倡议人士认为,这项政策将使有色人种女性直接受益,因为她们大部分从事的都是低收入的服务岗位。
当然,这些政策代价高昂,而且民主党在美国国会里的微弱优势将为拜登总统落实这些计划的工作增加变数。在此期间,有一些私人雇主正在尝试带来一些显著的影响,虽然这无法系统性地解决问题。
IBM公司的首席人力资源官尼克尔·拉莫罗表示:“新冠肺炎疫情将带来深远的持续影响。”该企业科技巨头除了增加部分员工福利以外,还扩大了“重返职场”项目的资格。该项目对短暂离开职场的女性进行招聘并提供培训。她说:“这并不是一场短跑,对女性员工和她们的雇主来说,这是一场马拉松。”
然而,虽然科技公司有丰厚的福利,一些业内大公司在招聘女性方面的口碑却并不理想。相反,一些最大的女性私人雇主是零售公司,它们依赖员工在现场提供服务。
《财富》杂志曾经调查过8家大型实体零售商如何支持女性员工,得到的回应令人喜忧参半。有的公司表示它们没有发现女性的就业遇到任何麻烦。有的公司表示它们扩大了带薪休假,或者提高了新冠肺炎疫情时期的奖金额度。塔吉特的计划最为具体。该公司表示将向全体美国员工提供无限量居家或日托“后备看护”,由公司付费,并且持续到5月。
电信业巨头威瑞森也为如何支持必要员工履行儿童看护义务,树立了良好的榜样。各地封城导致威瑞森关闭了70%的门店,当时该公司安排8,000名受到影响的员工居家电话销售或从事其他远程工作,其中许多是女性。在门店复工之后,威瑞森允许部分员工继续远程办公或转为兼职,并增加了全体员工的儿童护理福利,员工每小时可以领取15美元,每天不超过100美元。
威瑞森的首席人力资源官克里斯蒂·潘比安基称:“对许多家长而言,新冠肺炎疫情打破了他们的工作/生活基础结构。”她将去年威瑞森低于正常水平的人员流动率归功于公司增加的福利,并且她表示,虽然公司为此付出了巨大的代价,但这都是值得的。
潘比安基拒绝分享威瑞森相关计划的具体成本,她说:“我们付出了巨大的代价。但另一方面,人员流动也会产生高额的支出。我们认为,重要的是让我们的员工和全社会知道,我们始终在这里为他们提供支持。”(财富中文网)
本文发表于2021年2月/3月的《财富》杂志,标题为《美国是否将放弃职场女性?》
翻译:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
In early 2020, just before the first U.S. patient was diagnosed with COVID-19, women crossed a major employment milestone. The labor market was booming. Health care, education, and other service sectors largely staffed by female workers were racing to hire more people. And for a few shining months in early 2020, government data showed that women outnumbered men in the U.S. paid workforce.
Then “the whole house burned down,” says Michael Madowitz, a labor economist at the Center for American Progress.
It’s been almost a year since COVID-19 closed the schools and day cares working mothers rely on for childcare, and battered many of the service-oriented businesses with majority female workforces. And in that time, the pandemic has set working women back by more than three decades—to levels of labor force participation last seen in 1988. The resulting employment conflagration has spread across race, age, and industry, from low-paid essential workers to “knowledge” employees in remote-friendly corporate roles—although it has, predictably and awfully, done the most damage to the Black and Latina women who were already the most economically vulnerable.
“We’ve lost so much ground. It’s astronomical,” says C. Nicole Mason, president and CEO of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
The numbers are shocking: 5.4 million women’s jobs gone since last February—55% of all net U.S. job losses in that time period. Almost 2.1 million women vanished from the paid labor force entirely. By September, three working mothers were unemployed for every father who had lost his job.
Then, early this year came perhaps the bleakest statistic yet: In December, the U.S. economy shed a net 140,000 jobs, the first such downturn since April. Jobs lost by women account for the entirety of that number. While individual men became unemployed during that period, men as a group gained 16,000 jobs for the month. But women as a group—especially women of color—lost 156,000.
The damage to women’s employment is likely to endure beyond the pandemic’s eventual end. Women who have lost jobs or left the labor force are missing out on future retirement and Social Security income as well as current wages and savings. Ultimately, some economists predict, the crisis will increase the gender wage gap by five percentage points. And women who try to return to the labor force in the future will do so with a yawning hole in their résumés.
“Whether women regain their footing in the post-pandemic economy depends on whether employers recognize the reason for those gaps or penalize women for a reality they had no control over,” says philanthropist Melinda Gates, whose Pivotal Ventures fund focuses on gender equity.
*****
“There have definitely been days where I’m like, ‘Maybe I should give up,’ ” says Julia Pollak, labor economist for online job marketplace ZipRecruiter and a mother of two young children. Their schools have been remote since March, so Pollak is scheduling her paid work around the kids’ Zoom calendars. But at least her job’s flexibility allows her to “make up for lost time during the day” by working 8 p.m. to midnight, when the kids are in bed.
“It’s lower-wage women, who have to leave the house to go to a grocery store or a warehouse, who have no choice but to leave the labor force entirely,” Pollak says. “It really is mothers who are bearing the brunt of the crisis.”
The fact that moms—rather than dads—are shouldering the bulk of family obligations became vividly obvious in September, when schools resumed. With classrooms remote, “hybrid,” or some unpredictable mix, 865,000 women dropped out of the labor force in that month alone—four times the number of men who left.
“Bringing everyone back into the house exposed the wound of gender inequality,” says Misty Heggeness, a principal economist with the U.S. Census Bureau. “For women with children in their households, the struggle has been real in a way that women haven’t experienced for decades.”
Heggeness points out that men—as fathers and business leaders—could do “a lot more” to take on childcare responsibilities and “to actively encourage change in other men’s behavior.” But any systemic fixes will require federal policy, including legislation that centers on mothers and the affordable childcare infrastructure that would enable more women to remain in the workforce.
President Joe Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan would be a good start, several economists and policy experts tell Fortune; it includes child tax credits for low-income families and $25 billion to support the country’s floundering childcare providers. The Biden administration proposals also include an expansion of paid leave; an increase in vaccine rollouts, which could help schools and day-care centers reopen more quickly; and a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour, an increase that advocates say would directly benefit the women of color disproportionately working in low-wage service jobs.
All of these policies are expensive, of course, and the Democrats’ razor-thin hold on Congress will complicate President Biden’s efforts to enact them. In the interim, some private employers are trying to make a significant, if nonsystemic, difference.
“The lasting impacts of this are going to be far-reaching,” warns Nickle LaMoreaux, chief HR officer for IBM. Beyond expanding some employee benefits, the enterprise-tech giant is widening eligibility for a “returnship” program that hires and trains women who have taken a break from the workforce. “This is not a sprint,” she says. “This is going to be a marathon for female employees—and for their employers.”
But while tech companies are known for their rich benefits, the industry writ large has a shoddy track record of hiring women. Instead, some of the biggest private employers of women are retail companies, which largely rely on their workers showing up in person. When Fortune asked eight of the largest brick-and-mortar retailers about how they are supporting their female workers, the response was mixed. Some said they haven’t seen women struggle to stay in their workforces. Others said they have expanded paid leave or pandemic-era bonus pay. Target offered the most concrete plan, saying it is providing all U.S. employees with unlimited company-paid in-home or day-care “backup care” through May.
Telecom titan Verizon offers another potential example of how to support essential workers with childcare obligations. When lockdowns closed 70% of Verizon’s stores, the company retrained the 8,000 affected workers—including many women—to do at-home tele-sales or other remote jobs. Verizon allowed some of those workers to remain remote or go part-time even as stores reopened—and expanded its paid childcare benefits for all employees, offering to reimburse up to $15 per hour and $100 per day.
“For a lot of parents, this broke their work/life infrastructure,” says Christy Pambianchi, the company’s chief HR officer. She credits these expanded benefits with a lower-than-normal turnover at Verizon last year—and says the not-insignificant price was worth it.
“It is expensive,” Pambianchi says, though she declines to share the exact cost of Verizon’s programs. “But on the other hand, turnover has a high expense. And we think it’s really important that our employees know, and society knows, that we’re here for them.”
This article appears in the February/March 2021 issue of Fortune with the headline, "Is America giving up on working women?"