- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 2
-
Sparkle (0)
I've been jazzed about Obama's plans to invest in infrastructure, which will not only create safer roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, and schools, but also lots of jobs. And I'm fussy when it comes to creating jobs. I don't pat myself on the back when I read that a new Wal-Mart or McDonald's opens, creating new jobs with minimum wages and no benefits. I get excited when I hear about jobs that actually enable people to afford a safe place to live, food to eat, and all those "luxuries."
So, I've been jazzed about enacting a stimulus plan that has lots of decent jobs. As the New York Times reported on Dec. 7, Obama's plans would generate 40,000 jobs for every billion dollars spent. Hurray!
Except that, for the most part, the plans leave out women.
For all my excitment about investing in infrastructure (which I still think is vital), I hadn't really considered what that meant in terms of creating a gender disaparity in the new jobs. Then, last Friday, I had lunch with some awesome women from the American Association of University Women (AAUW), and they kindly (but firmly) plucked me off of Construction Cloud 9 with two facts: 1. Female headed households saw a stiffer decrease in income than those headed by men; and 2. Women make up less than 3% of the construction workforce. Oh. Shit.
A Male Feminist Blog is all over this:
According to Randy Albelda, a professor of economics and senior fellow at the Center for Social Policy at University of Massachusetts-Boston, the Obama stimulus package might as well be called “the macho stimulus package.” [The Boston Globe, Nov. 28, 2008]
She says that jobs in construction, and those that come with green investment, often pay beneficial wages. The problem is just that the majority of those working in these sectors and thus receiving the pay check will be men. This will do no good to the almost 25% of households with children under 18 years that are provided for by women.
Albelda goes on to encourage Obama to invest in the caregiving sectors, fields in which women are disproportionately represented. The AAUW is advocating for the same thing, particularly investments in universal health care and universal pre-k, which benefit lots of people (and women workers) the way investing in infrastructure and green technology is good for everyone. But, that brings me back to the pay problem. Women working in caregiving fields are barely paid living wages.
On the flip side, Zuzu at Kindly Pog Mo Thoin makes me think that women need not be left out entirely by the plan as it is:
Are there plans to ensure that a substantial portion of the construction jobs go to women and women-owned businesses? Are there plans to ensure that women don’t face discrimination on the job while employed with these infrastructure projects?
And while we’re asking, what about unions and prevailing-wage laws? Are there plans to ensure that the stimulus plan will strengthen rather than weaken these?
The law of the land requires that companies receiving federal construction money hire a work force that is at least 9% female. While this is hardly a huge number, it is more three times better than the industry level of 2.7%. And if the Obama administration actually enforces these laws (unlike what the Bush folks did for the past 8 years), this would be an improvement. Courtney at Feministing also points out that we should pay as much attention to why certain fields are dominated by women and what that says about how we value work as we should about calling for investments in those fields:
But we must not lose sight of the fact that caretaking, teaching, and wellness roles have been traditionally both imposed and embraced by women. Sometimes women have authentically been drawn to these fields; I certainly have female friends who love teaching, social work, and other caretaking professions. But some have been pressured into these professions along with traditional gender roles. When my grandmother was growing up, she could be either a teacher or a nurse. When my mom was growing up, she thought she might be a secretary because she heard if you got your work done really fast, you could read all day. Although young women today rarely have the same kind of social conscription when it comes to their career choices, many are still
