The Motherhood Penalty: Working Moms Face Pay Gap Vs. Childless Peers

Not surprised at all. In this economic time, does it really surprise anyone that employers want the people they think will be at work everyday, even work overtime, without worrying about whether the employee has to run out to pick up little Johnny. And when you say they have equal credentials, the employer then has the right to hire whichever is the best fit for their needs, so too bad if Mommy isn't what's best for them.

Dan, your logic would be perfect if only children would raise themselves. Someone took the (considerable) time to raise us, right?

No surprise at all. I wonder, though if it took into consideration that a working woman often doesn't take a few years off and working mothers often do to care for infants. Did these women have the exact same qualifications? Comparing apples to apples would mean that the mom would have to be slightly older to compensate for lost time.

Mary Ellen Walsh
founder of www.daughtersandmoms.com

My pay gap is huge: used to charge $250/hour as a consultant, now I get NUTHIN and poopy diapers to boot. Whose idea was this?

Two stupid youth questions: Do parents really reference having kids on a resume? And does it always come up during interviews?

I don't think a child count should be on any mothers resume.

I think Dan poses a very good question. Employers are legally not permitted to ask about family during an interview - it's one of the questions that can get a company in trouble, and a candidate would be able to enter into litigation against said company if asked.

However, if a resume shows a significant gap, then the interviewer has the right to ask the applicant to explain it - and if the applicant volunteers the information, the prospective employer is not liable.

I doubt that a parent would directly reference a child on a resume, however there might be an obvious gap in employment. As for the interview, asking a candidate if they are a parent could set the company up for a discrimination lawsuit if a childless person is picked--however, if you volunteer that information during an interview then do so at your own risk. Where I work, everyone is paid (by the hour) based on their position and the number of hours they have worked at the company. Some parents with less flexible schedules get less hours.

So that's the data but why are mother's discriminated against? Also curious who the hiring managers were? men or women? parents vs. non-parents? what were the ages? seems like a lot of potential overlap for other biases."

This sounds like a red herring to me.... let's pit women vs. women rather than address the real inequality...

Several of you have raised questions about this study and how it was conducted. I emailed Shelley Correll with Mary Ellen Walsh's questions, and here is what she wrote back:

This was an experimental study (not interviews), so I compare how the EXACT same woman is rated but half of raters do not know she is a mom, the other half do.

When she is presented as a mom, she lists that she is an officer in a elementary school PTA on her resume. That is the ONLY difference between her and the non-mom version. Yet the non-mom gets called back by employers 100% more often.

Since adding the slight info about being a mom is the only difference between the two resumes, we can be sure it is simply being a mom that is producing the negative effects.

I will be interviewing Correll next week, so if you have any additional questions, please let me know.

Thanks for the interesting conversation! Lauren

In an ideal world:
1. government took care of the kids, even when they are sick for 2+ days per month on average;
2. mothers always gave birth to perfectly healthy babies even when you worked 14 hours days throughout your pregnancies, like your bachelorette coworkers whenever client or boss asks you to, travel red-eye internationally should the need arise.
3. government pays mothers for their pregnancies, labors, kids sick days off, kids' therapies, time spent on PTA lessons, at mothers own rate, and give mothers promotions

But we don't live in an ideal world. Government already mandated some maternity leave, could/should even increase it. but don't cry if businesses discriminate against family oriented women, wanting to treat them like everyone else, equal pay for equal amount of work.

I should have the "right" to have a dozen children....work less than 40 hours a week....miss work constantly because of sick kids....and make the same amount of money as my childless girlfriend who works 60 hours a week and hasn't missed a day of work in 8 years.

I should have the "right" to have a dozen children....work less than 40 hours a week....miss work constantly because of sick kids....and make the same amount of money as my childless girlfriend who works 60 hours a week and hasn't missed a day of work in 8 years.

I work for a publicly traded company that is regularly ranked high in Working Mother magazine's best places to work.

Prior to the recession, I used to keep an informal attendance log of the 30 or so people in my group. Without fail, the working moms were out once, twice, or even three times a month. Other folks were usually out a three days all year.

What was particularly annoying was that some of the working moms scheduled dental and doctor appointments during office hours. (These were women who were on the "Mommy" track and only working three days a week, mind you.)

It was quite obvious that when there was a child-care crisis (nanny didn't show up, kid sick so he couldn't be taken to day care), the burden of calling in sick fell on the shoulders of my working mom colleagues, not their husbands. It's a tough situation, no doubt about it.

I have seen through my own eyes and measured quite rigorously that working moms had a higher level of absenteeism that single men and women and working dads. Does that mean they should be paid less for the same job? Of course not.

Now that nationwide unemployment is over 9%, no one ever calls in sick at my office, BTW.

Wow - does everyone here think all of us working mothers miss tons of work?

I usually go in at 6 am and leave the same time as everyone else that comes in at 8. I always make up sick days on evenings or weekends, which is do-able since I am in science. I do this because of my work ethic, not because I have something to prove. But I suspect my status as a mother weighs heavily on decisions involving my career path.

I hope a serious look is taken at this issue - and am thrilled to see it brought forward. Businesses need experienced, competent people and losing or holding back a good chunk of your workers due to groundless prejudices is not the way to get our economy back on track.

Some mothers do work a lot of hours, but you have to wonder why they choose to have children when they are basically hiring someone else to raise them.

It is obvious from these comments just how bad the prejudices are against working mothers! Let me get this straight:

1. Working mothers are irresponsible for taking time off for sick kids
2. Working mothers are irresponsible for working, because they should be with their kids.

There are a lot of talented people that are working mothers. Many European countries actually do "get it", and support working families as part of a long term strategy for a strong economy (imagine not thinking only in terms of quarterly goals!).

BTW Pam - maybe you never heard of this - but there are other important people in most children's lives called "fathers" (some fathers don't work the same hours as the mother). Some children are even luck enough to have grandparents in their every day lives. Think outside the box, Pam, and you won't have to worry about all those awful working mothers so much!

Fellow blogger Cathy Arnst here. I actually find myself far more efficient and productive now that I'm a mother because I no longer procrastinate--I know I have to leave the office by 6 pm or pay my sitter overtime, so I get my work done by 6, whereas pre-child I would schmooze with colleagues or dither about, and often stay in the office until 8 pm or later. Not only does the American workplace have to get over its prejudice against working mothers, but it must also get past the idea that productivity should be measured by time in the office, instead of output. I think the most successful companies probably get this. As Helen says, in today's global economy, we cannot afford to disregard huge groups of capable workers because they chose to raise the next generation of workers.

I have this great new invention that will solve all of these problems! It's called a "Father" and it takes responsibility for 50% of all of the child-rearing responsibilities! Anyone want one?

Seriously though, this sheds light on the fact that mothers often sacrifice far more than fathers and are judged in every direction.

Take time off work to tend to a sick child? Bad worker!
Don't take that time off work? Bad mother!
Take time off work to stay home with the kid? Bad worker!
Get a divorce and want that sacrifice accounted for in alimony payments? Money-grubbing biyatch!

So ladies, stay home! Squeeze those babies out! Stay in the kitchen! If you get a divorce, live like a pauper and don't complain because You Should Have Known Better!

To respond to BusinessWeek blogger Cathy Arnst, working as a reporter or editor is different from working in a group situation, say like a call center.

If your child is sick and you can't come to work, the story you're writing will get postponed. It's unlikely that your colleagues will have to pitch in extra and work harder because you're not there the way they might at a call center or a restaurant.

I think these concerns have become intensified as companies have cut staffing levels to the bone. At my job, if someone is out sick, we're all working harder that day.

I take a little bit of offense that women that have kids don't give just as much as women that do.

I am not a single mother, but have many friends that were raised in families where the mother was alone, or the only bread-winner. I have seen these women working 2 to 3 jobs so that they can bring home enough money to support the family. They were paid a portion of what they deserved, and on average they had to do overtime because they were not getting paid as much as other people around them.

Mothers that work do it for 2 reasons, just like everyone else that works. One, they have to. Or Two, they want to.

Overtime aside. You sign up to work a specific amount of hours. If you can work those amount of hours just as well as someone else, why would you get paid less?

For those of you who are complaining about working moms, who do you want to have kids? The heroin addicted 18 year old on probation? Sure, she isn't in a position where some cold soulless b*tch who couldn't get a boyfriend will take her job, but ....

I feel like a lot of time the people who discriminate against working moms are the "childless by choice" ladies, that is to say, women that no men want.

Also, interestingly enough, the people who miss the most work in my office are 1. a guy who likes to party and 2. a girl who has a dog that takes up a lot of her time (vet appts, training appts, etc)

Being a working mother is not easy. The work force is not always fair. However, when I go to work I get to feel successful and fulfilled as a professional adult, even though I make almost 10% little less than my predecessor who didn't have kids. When I come home, I get hugs and cuddles from two sweet kids who beg for stories and kisses at bedtime, even though they had to go to daycare for 9 hours. I feel pretty lucky!

I recently was "let go" from my job when my child hit a major medical crisis and my employer decided to replace me with someone male, younger, able to travel and work 70+ hr weeks. All because I asked to work a 40 hr week for a few weeks to be able to help (my husband, child, family) get things in order.

Prior to this "problem" I was an executive who worked 60-80 hrs a week and traveled at least 2 weeks out of a month. I made my company serious $$. One problem in years and I got screwed, big time. They blamed the economy. No kidding.

My family lost more than 2/3 of our income, plus the health coverage that was critical. We are facing losing our house and all that we've worked for in the last 20 yrs.

I've seen male colleagues whose children have medical issues, like cancer, who are given company support and major flexibility, and even weeks of time off without penalty. But this is never extended to the mothers - who, as many have said, are seen as the main caregivers.

It is a shame that companies and the management can't see the big picture. This discrimination explains why I see so many type-A moms dropping out of corp. life to run school and volunteer groups, turning simple parties into large productions.

Some of us really are better suited to being working parents.

@Cathy, I agree with you completely on productivity/output. Punching a clock often has nothing to do with real success.

So, what's an under-compensated woman to do? I, for one, am likely going to switch careers. I look forward to the follow-up blog posts on this topic :)

Jen, u scare me with your "Govermment" references. Ikes!

As a child-free woman of child-bearing age surrounded by male and female colleagues of the same general age demographic, half of whom are parents and half of whom aren't, I see this "discrimination" is a fair shake in at-will hiring practices and determining equal pay for equal work.

My colleagues each take between 3 and 6 months of time between the Family Medical Leave Act, their accumulated time off, and the adjusted flexible work schedule determined by our company. This is perfectly appropriate, with expectations well set for everyone in the department. Responsibilities are shifted, temps are hired as necessary, and work goes on. But while new Moms and Dads are taking their deserved and appropriate time off, those of us without children are stepping up to the plate and accepting additional responsibilities, leading projects, covering the gaps. When those Moms and Dads come back to work, they don't often slip right into their old roles -- they take several weeks to get back into the rhythm of work, tracking a learning curve to re-establish themselves within the organization. Considering that gap can take anywhere between 3 and 9 months, it's appropriate that when annual review time rolls around, those Moms and Dads who are doing their jobs but not exceeding expectations are passed up for raises or promotions, and those childfree workers who are putting in the extra hours on "above and beyond" projects are being recognized for that work. Let that happen twice, and you've got a significant wage gap between a woman with two kids and her childfree female colleague.

As for Lauren's comment about PTA membership/leadership being included, I disagree that the only thing that detail offers is information about whether or not the applicant is a Mom. As a hiring manager I routinely pass by candidates who list volunteer roles as part of their employment record if a detailed explanation of how the experience of that role makes the individual a stronger candidate. Example: a woman who "chaired the fundraising campaign committee" on her PTA and lists that role as an employment precursor to a Project Management or Income Development position is noting relevant experience; a woman who "was a member of the PTA" in chronological order without notation about educational or experiential detail seems to be padding her resume with filler -- when looking through hundreds of resumes for a single position, I have zero tolerance for fluff.

As a child-free woman of child-bearing age surrounded by male and female colleagues of the same general age demographic, half of whom are parents and half of whom aren't, I see this "discrimination" is a fair shake in at-will hiring practices and determining equal pay for equal work.

My colleagues each take between 3 and 6 months of time between the Family Medical Leave Act, their accumulated time off, and the adjusted flexible work schedule determined by our company. This is perfectly appropriate, with expectations well set for everyone in the department. Responsibilities are shifted, temps are hired as necessary, and work goes on. But while new Moms and Dads are taking their deserved and appropriate time off, those of us without children are stepping up to the plate and accepting additional responsibilities, leading projects, covering the gaps. When those Moms and Dads come back to work, they don't often slip right into their old roles -- they take several weeks to get back into the rhythm of work, tracking a learning curve to re-establish themselves within the organization. Considering that gap can take anywhere between 3 and 9 months, it's appropriate that when annual review time rolls around, those Moms and Dads who are doing their jobs but not exceeding expectations are passed up for raises or promotions, and those childfree workers who are putting in the extra hours on "above and beyond" projects are being recognized for that work. Let that happen twice, and you've got a significant wage gap between a woman with two kids and her childfree female colleague.

As for Lauren's comment about PTA membership/leadership being included, I disagree that the only thing that detail offers is information about whether or not the applicant is a Mom. As a hiring manager I routinely pass by candidates who list volunteer roles as part of their employment record without a detailed explanation of how the experience of that role makes the individual a stronger candidate. Example: a woman who "chaired the fundraising campaign committee" on her PTA and lists that role as an employment precursor to a Project Management or Income Development position is noting relevant experience; a woman who "was a member of the PTA" in chronological order without notation about educational or experiential detail seems to be padding her resume with filler -- when looking through hundreds of resumes for a single position, I have zero tolerance for fluff.

Pam,

Speaking as a working mother who may or may not be "informally" monitored by non-parent coworkers:

I leave work each day after 9 hours, because I need to pick up my son from daycare. However, I frequently put in 1-2 hours at home after my son has gone to bed. Like many other working parents, I maximize my time at the office (no lunch, no chatting, no time spent commenting on businesweek.com)so that I am achieving my goals.

I remember my attitude at work before kids, thinking that parents somehow got off easy. That is a joke. Maybe our parents were lucky enough to live in a time when one salary was sufficient to comfortably raise a child. That is no longer. I assume someone raised your preciousness, and now the parent of this generation generally need to work full time to do the same.

Oh, the work hours you're wasting to "informally" log other people's work hours? Wasteful. A working parent would never do that.

Does anyone have questions for Shelley Correll? I'll be talking to her this week.

"In this economic time, does it really surprise anyone that employers want the people they think will be at work everyday, even work overtime, without worrying about whether the employee has to run out to pick up little Johnny."

Except that it's obviously never occurring to those employers that the people who have to run out to pick up little Johnny might be the FATHERS. This thought process is clearly reflected in almost every single comment on this article. Even Jen's description of an "ideal world" fails to include a suggestion that men assume a higher degree of childrearing responsibilities. So because corporate expects the mothers to be primary caregivers, they're reluctant to hire mothers who, in the face of reduced family income, will stay home to raise the child instead of paying for day care centers, and they also increase the pressure for dads to provide less childrearing and more work hours to compensate for a single family income in a combined family income economy.

@Elizabeth - We aren't complaining about working mom's, no, God bless you all. We're complaining about the hate of working mom's directed towards those of us who are single and successful, as though there's only one slice of pie and we took it. Ehem, that would be you.

So...are you f-ing kidding me!?! "cold soulless bitch that no men wants..." Right. If that makes it easier for you to fake a smile at the water cooler, go ahead and think of us that way. But it's more likely that we are intelligent, know what we're worth, won't settle for less than what we want in a man, and are waiting for the right time to orchestrate a family work balance before starting the munchkin party. I have chosen not to have kids YET for a number of reasons, but trust me, it is not for lack of suitors. "Childless by choice"- what the hell does that mean? You're damn right I have chosen not to have kids until I'm ready. So in the meantime you label me and every other single girl as a heartless unlovable bitch ready to take jobs from the warm fuzzy moms? Get over yourself. I work my ass off. I will take what is mine in promotions based on merit. The 18 yr old heroin addict having babies? That is a far stretch. Try putting some intelligence into your statements instead of insulting people because of your limited insight. You obviously would rather stereotype women who don't have kids, than to open your mind to the fact that we ALL want equality no matter the reason of unfairness. AND that the role of women as breadwinners is becoming stronger, bolstering our contribution to society as professionals as well as matriarchs, rather than downplaying it as simply one or the other, which your statement suggests. Realize that I (and quite possibly all the single "cold bitches") have the same concerns about inequality of compensation for dedicated/meaningful efforts, and intelligent/lasting contributions. We know we can do both, and we don't want to repeat mistakes.

It is so obvious when my teammates who have kids are always unavailable from 3pm onwards during various days of the week. No extra effort needed to "monitor" hours, just the continual "Oh, I missed that meeting", "Didn't see any email s since lunchtime yesterday", "Sorry, I was out to pick up my kids". It's a blanket reason for leaving early, working from home, skipping meetings, or "stepping out" for half a day, that no-one can argue against when there's a deadline looming and 'someone' has to get it done. Meanwhile, if a single person shows up twenty minutes late on a Friday after twittering about happy hour, because of a legitimate flat tire, people wonder if that is an excuse for sleeping in. Don't kid yourself that what goes unspoken is not communicated. Or that it's necessary to over-communicate your family's influence on your work schedule. It might not help to be so forthcoming with details about the carpool kid's latest flu epidemic that caused you to be late again. Rather say that a key objective was missed because you signed up to chaperone a school field trip, or that it is running behind but in the works for completion? Think about it. Cause all the while, the mess of a kid with the hangover gets a big ass cup of coffee and sits at his desk talking to no-one, but diligently answering emails and somehow making it through the daily 4pm conference call...under the radar and *apparently* getting his shit done. You scream that it's unfair but wonder why? You actually can't understand why? Perception is reality, period. Do you want to constantly fight perception, or do you want to be free to get your work done and progress towards your goals? Guess what - we all have the same answer!! You and your kids, me and my ripening uterus, and the guy wishing that last shot of Tequila just wasn't. I know that SOME working parents do make up the time, but like every situation, there are those who make the effort and those who don't, and sooner or later people notice. What they notice is that: Hangover = temporary. PMS comes... and goes. But elementary school is only the beginning.

I am not saying that being a parent is easy - as an active aunt I know otherwise. It's really tough. Exhausting in fact. But I've worked well over 50 hrs per week for the past 8 years alongside people who do more or less their share of "teamwork" due to family obligations, and I'll be damned if someone comes along and gives a half-ass effort that is just as acceptable simply because they've reproduced. THAT is what we are complaining about.

Ok, I get that employers might be hesitant about parents if this was motivated by logic. But its not. Mother's get a hit. Father's get a boost. That's not logic, its sexism. ( I work full time and my husband is a stay at home father, BTY. He hates the presumptions that he can't be the primary care-giver because he's male.)

As usual, any article raising up issues of discrimination between any two groups will stir up lots of interesting discussions.

I'm a working mom who occasionally takes time off to take care of my kids, but try to make up the time at night after they go to bed or early in the morning.

However, something that has not been discussed here is that us parents are making a huge sacrifice when we decide to have children. We need to take time off during the pregnancy and after birth; we invest lots of money and time to raise our kid;, we sacrifice our careers to give them the best, but most important of all, we are contributing (especially in industrilized countries) to the work force who will be paying for ALL OF OUR'S social security checks and medicare coverages when we are old.

People who choose to not have children now (and have the right to do so) are actually not only getting away with huge expenses that they are not incurring, but also placing a huge burden on the system later on. We parents should actually be appreciated for not only making enormous sacrifices now, but for investing in the future of all elderly people later on.

And like another posted wrote, Europeans do get it. They invest in their parents, giving them time off, paying for leave and thus encouraging much needed higher birth rates. The US doesn't do that, but maybe they should tax childless adults (who can have kids) at a much higher rate than the current one to pay for their expenses later on.

In my experience in the work place, co-workers close to my age with children do take more time off from work, both planned and spontaneous.

To me the issue is, I have consciously chosen to not have children. My husband and I would prefer to find our satisfaction from our jobs and the activities we are able to do in our free time.

Most people in this country (and I say most because we know there are forced pregnancies out there) choose to have children. This is a CHOICE. With every choice there are benefits and detriments. Each person's choices will cause differences in what they are able to attain in life.

My choice was to not have children and to concentrate on my career and building my personal knowledge and experience base. Some would argue that I have thus chosen to miss out on the experience that children provide. This is true, however I am not complaining about not getting extra tax deductions because my choice doesn't allow that same benefit as those who choose to have children.

Equally, people who choose to have children are receiving benefits that I as a childfree person do not get to have.

So let's call it even, maybe I make more money than my childed co-workers, but the tax deductions and insurance benefits they receive make up for it. (A family insurance plan where I work has the same cost whether your family has 2 members, husband and wife, or whether it has 3+ members, husband, wife, and children)

@LL

I am the author of this study. The study controls for the "Fluff" that you dislike. The non parent is exactly equal to the parent on this "fluff dimension." She listed that she was an office in her neighborhood association on her resume, while the parent listed being an officer in the PTA. Yet, the non parent received 100% more callbacks from employers.

Others asked about who the managers were making these decisions. We sent resumes to folks hiring for jobs through classified ads in a large Northeastern newspaper. So they were people who were actually doing the screening for jobs. I do not know if they were male or female or parents or non-parents. However, my other work shows men and women are equally likely to discriminate against mothers.

I work on Capitol Hill, and although my chief of staff is very understanding of my commitments as a working mother, I find that it is the other co-workers who aren't as understanding. IF I leave at 5 o'clock...I hear smirks but they obviously do not understand that I have an hour commute and must pick up my son on time. They are also not there when I actually walk in the office at 8am. I am always here early because I know that I have to make up for lost time...even though working 8am-5pm is more than 8 hrs a day, on the Hill that is considered not long enough.

One time, a single, childless coworker said "I wish I could leave as early as you..". And then I had to remind her that I wasn't going home to sip on some wine and chill in front of the television--I was going home to work and tend to a 2 yr old...who needs to be fed, bathed read to, etc. In essence, nurturing and prepping not only my kin--but the future of the country! I am not saying that working moms need to praised on a daily basis, but I sometimes wish people would think before they talk. Yesterday - I did a half day at work because my son had his regular preventative care check up. My appt was for 3 oclock...yes that is in the middle of the work day but there were also no other slot available as this Pediatrician is in high demand. I wish I could schedule all my doctor appts after work or on weekends--but unfortunately most doctor offices do not hold those kinds of hours...because hello--they have lives too!

This study did not shock me at all--in a capitalist society--short term gain is critical, but if we were to think long term like our European counterparts we would see how important parenting truly is.

Mariana,

Childless adults already have their income taxed much higher than married people and parents. Take a look at "The Baby Boon" by Eleanor Burkett for an explaination of how the tax system is rigged to skim off childless peoples' incomes and redistribute the money to parents.

And while we're on the topic, all this going on about how parents are raising the next generation of workers is just demographically faulty. Any lack of workers in a capitalist ecomony can be made up for by relaxing immmigration restrictions. If we see too many retirees in our future, all we have to do is allow more immigrants to live, work, and pay taxes, and their children will become the next generation of works. I realize the idea of WASP-descended Americans being replaced by those brown people who don't speak English can really disturb the pro-eugenics crowds, but it really is as simple as that.

@Elizabeth: Way to be divisive and nasty. Infighting is just so great for women everywhere.

I am a "childless by choice" woman, and it is most certainly NOT because no man wants me. I am quite happily married, as a matter of fact. I simply have no desire to raise children. I know a number of other couples who have made the same decision as my husband and I have.
Aside from showing ignorance of my personal situation as a married and happily childless woman and many others' like mine, your comment is remarkably offensive on a number of levels. It implies that 1) all women want to have children, 2) all women desire to "have" a man, 3) the only path to motherhood is via getting a man to want you, and 4) there is something "wrong" with single women in general. I'm sure there are other ways your comment is offensive as well, those are just my personal beefs with it.

I don't begrudge working moms or any other person time off to care for children - someone has to do it. It may mean that I have to work a little harder when they are gone, but the way I see it, it's kind of like paying taxes: we live in a community with other people (including parents and children) and we all have to contribute to taking care of one another in some way. It's unfortunate that this burden still falls primarily on the shoulders of mothers alone, and that we can't all view it as our collective responsibility to ensure that our community's children are cared for.

Why is the value of an employee based on the number of hours put in at the office? What about the quality of the work? If someone can do the same job (or better) in less time than the next person, who cares if they're in the office less than their colleagues? That's why comments justifying higher pay based solely on the number of hours put in at the office are ludicrous. It's the outcome of an employee's efforts that make the bottom line.

My there are some hate-filled comments directed at working mothers here. Let's think about professions in which working mothers are the norm - nursing and teaching. I've been in one of those professions as both a childless person and as a parent and I can honestly say there was no difference in my attitude, approach or time spent at work. None. Now I work in the office - as a parent - and things are still the same. In fact, the person in the company who takes the most sick days is a single woman with no children who has constant sinus infections.

I have a quibble with the way this result is being presented in this post and a blog that referred me to it: that moms were 100% less likely, etc.

That would suggest that zero or close to zero moms were recommended etc. which sure made my eyes pop. However I think the auther of the study has indicated here that, rather, non-parent women were 100% more likely to be recommended, etc.

That means that moms were 50% less likely, not 100%. 50% is plenty significant, it's far short of the shcking 100%.

I've worked in many offices, and offer my observations:

1. Balance is always the key to a good working environment. Too much estrogen or testosterone is never ideal.

2. The ONLY way we're going to achieve equality for all working men and women (parents or not) is by raising your sons and daughters to not assume the man is the breadwinner and woman is caretaker.

3. Educated women also need to stop "opting out," in droves because it makes the rest of us look bad...

4. and consequently, anyone in a hiring position who assumes a 30-something is going to pop out a baby in 9 months can suckit.

5. I've noticed the most badass, dedicated workers are single parents.

6. While I have absolutely nothing against workplace dads, they really do receive the benefit of the doubt due to the aforementioned "assumed breadwinner status" (not to mention the high-fives they receive if they take part in some form of the child care rituals).

7. I'm actually cool with parents taking a half day once in a while for doctor visits or other issues. Just ASK! Don't ASSUME I'm going to cover you. Also, please don't say, "I'll be available by phone or IM" when you clearly will not be. If I need to be covered in a certain situation, I might offer to buy lunch for the other person.

8. Yes, I recognize you are raising the next generation of workers. I'm also contributing to your children by not having any, and in essence preserving the environment so that their children can continue to enjoy the earth. Are we even?

9. Elizabeth, Sweetcheeks, I can assure you men (especially my boyfriend) find me quite appealing. How old are you, four?

I am a single, working mom that spent the first 13 years of my "career" as a "childless by choice" working woman.

I climbed to the top of the ladder in a dot-com economy, then changed careers post-9/11. After climbing the ladder for awhile in a new career, I embraced the happy accident that was my pregnancy. I expected it to mean a HUGE shift in my priorities and my career path. But over and over, I watch my male child-having counterparts neglect their families to do the social networking necessary to get ahead, when I have to weigh not only the cost of a sitter, but the amount of time away from my child and the big-picture impact attending or not attending outside-of-the-office events will have.

I've also seen non-parent coworkers "milk" the clock, spending up to half of their work day standing by the water cooler, smokers pole, etc -- or sitting in their cubicles snoozing or surfing the web. So, is that hung over coworker really sitting quietly at his desk, diligently answering e-mails, or is he flipping back and forth between Outlook and Facebook, secretly b*tching about his aching head and how much he doesn't want to be at work today???

I had a coworker at my last company who consistently logged 60-80 hour work weeks, but never seemed to get his work done CORRECTLY. And then ended up having to take nearly 3 weeks off as a result of acute gout due to his excessive drinking. And *I* was the one penalized by being laid off, because I cost the company more money as an employee... my insurance benefits cost them more, and I actually took sick days (though I never once took a sick day for MYSELF, for fear that taking more than one sick day every 2 months WOULD result in venom from coworkers). I was the one picking up slack when the aforementioned coworker fell down on the job as a result of his own issues. And yet he's managed to survive at this company for 15 years... and I was laid off the second it looked like they were not going to make their projected profit margin for the year.

I think if you're logging the hours put in, you need to contact your IT department and take a look at who's dialed in at night actually working, and who's spent half their day in the office surfing the web. There's a lot more to the bottom line and profitability of the company than number of hours logged on the clock. I think you'll find that working moms are FAR less likely to job-hop, and are usually bending over backwards to make up for time NOT spent in the office.

@G: I guess you missed Elisabeth's lovely little post?

So many of the comments here seem to assume that childless workers live in some sort of vacuum where they have no other obligations or family connections. Parents may take time off to deal with their children, but what about the coworker whose father is dying, or whose wife has surgery, or who have their own health issues? Not having children does not make one a more dedicated employee. Nor does being in the office 40 hours a week.

My employer is dealing with a planned but serious surgery for his daughter. His wife, the vice president of the company, is taking an extended leave to be with her while she recovers and he is leaving the office earlier and taking lots of time off to deal with it. Another principal has been taking extensive time off to deal with her father's deteriorating health (and as of today, his death). Another coworker, single without children in her early 20s, has been missing work extensively for doctor's tests to correctly diagnose an illness no one is quite sure of.

And we all pitch in. We work extra hours and pick up the slack not only because we're dedicated to the company, but because its the humane thing to do. One day, we may need that understanding and that time off, even if its just to take a vacation.

As for Pam, allow me to offer an edit of your comment:

Some FATHERS do work a lot of hours, but you have to wonder why they choose to have children when they are basically MARRYING someone else to raise them.

Yeah. Pretty offensive, right?

The cattiness and frank stupidity of some of these comments is what's most shocking about this post.

The bottom line is that discrimination in any form -- whether pitting childless women against moms or men against women is degrading to all.

And not seeing this problem as an issue for all working people, only working moms, is also the problem -- workplaces miss out on creative, committed talent when they discriminate in this fashion, and society misses out on the dual contribution working moms can make.

Clear discrimination should be offensive to all, and should be illegal.

Hear Hear to About-To-Be-A-Mom

I have never spent that much time trying to plot the movements of my co-workers, but I do know that we as humans are very bad at objectively assesssing the work of our peers without throwing on layers of stereotypes and presumtions. We are hardwired to validate our own opinions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictably_irrational

For year the argument was made that women in general, not just mothers, were rightly underpaid becase of factors in how they worked (or didn't) etc. But, its been recently been pretty conclusively shown that women's work is undervalued, solely because its done by a woman http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1847194,00.html

This is not about parents or presumptions regarding parents: fathers get treated better. This is about presumptons about women, and women alone.

It seems to me that the childless commenters should be just as upset at the study as everyone else because a catagory of parents, fathers, are seeing a positive rise in their income over the childless. Is it okay that the childless are being discriminated against as long as someone else (mothers) are being discriminated against more?

That is truely counter-productive infighting.

This is eye-opening. I have two small children, but need - and want - to work. I put my career on slow motion by taking a lower paying, less demanding job just four blocks from home (and two blocks from my kids' school.) I often assumed that the pay gap between moms and not-moms had to do, at least in part, with similar voluntary choices. (Not taking the promotion, etc.)

The real issue though, isn't moms versus non-moms. It's a worklife culture that doesn't leave any of us breathing room. I can only assume that even singletons sometimes need to take care of a parent, a friend or a sibling. Until we're birthed in factories a la Brave New World, there has to be some space in our professional lives to remain human.

The generalizations made in these comments bother me tremendously. In my professional experience (10 years childless, 4 as a parent), I have worked with both childless workers and parents who were dedicated, highly productive employees. They knew how to manage time, work effectively and flexibly with others, and consistently delivered high quality work. I've also worked with both parents and and childless employees who were complete slackers.

I think Abby has nailed the critical issue, however. Balance. We all need it. Whether it is the singleton who wants to train for a marathon or spend more time with friends, or a parent who needs to leave on time to pick up a kid from daycare or help with homework, we all need to find ways to work smarter rather than longer. I fear we are headed for nationwide burnout if we don't find ways to get home at a decent hour, turn off our blackberries, connect with family and friends, and pursue outside interests.

And to the poster who wants educated women to stop opting out... I ask that you instead ask employers to provide more flexible options for parents who want to have both a career and a family. I am one who opted out. And I promise you it was not an easy decision. In addition to weighing impacts to my family and career, I was deeply concerned about the impact my decision would have on attitudes in my company toward other twenty- and thirty-something women. However, to have stayed would have meant to continue working 60+ hours a week, traveling 75% of the time, and, in effect, outsourcing the raising of my children.

I would love to have a fulfilling career and be an active parent. I'd be happy to take the requisite pay cut for a flexible schedule or job sharing situation. The option just wasn't there -- I was in an all or nothing situation. I fear that many professional, educated women face the same obstacle. We don't have the infrastructure, policy framework, or societal pressure in this country to do otherwise. And so I don't believe that women are opting out in droves for any reason other than not having the opportunity to opt in to both career and family.

I think that the pay differential reflects the advantage that the employer holds over the exploited worker who has an obligation to raise a family. It is no penalty, rather it is a worker at a discount for those who drive a hard bargain.

Wow there is some real hostility here. Regina get over yourself and your ripening uterus. You being an "active Aunt" is bullsh*t. My wife is a new mother and a young attorney, I watched her go back to work after six week, commute an hour and a half each way, get beat up by assh*ole senior partners and still manage to read the same stories over and over to our happy daughter. Have some respect, you think that you have some control over your life, wait for the curve ball. You are alone I get that but you need to understand that those "mothers" you are talking about so negatively "are" taking what they deserve just like you, so they are not so different. Mothers like my wife pay a higher price than you currently know, they do it so their children don't suffer. My wife and I were going to wait to have children but our hip new low dose birth control failed. In a recent news report it was recommended that if having a child would be a complete disaster, don't take newer low dose hormones. I can tell you it wasn't a disaster. But what would you have done? Panic I suspect. These women are paving the way for you or not--- maybe you'll end up a dried up B*itch, I suspect the latter.

Not surprised but I think it is awful. I am a working mother and if anything, I think I should be praised with my ability to multitask. I took my 8 weeks and went back to work doing 40+ hours. In fact, I have on occasion stuck my daughter in a bouncy chair next to my desk when working weekends. If anything, I work much harder and am much more productive during work hours so that I can leave at a decent time to be home with my children. I agree with those that say it is none of the employer's business about family life, but the fact is that it is often an inquiry at interviews in an effort to learn more about a person and whether the "fit" will be appropriate. I guess my feeling is that employers shouldn't judge a book by its cover.

I have always been amazed by how much senior management relies on "desk time" as opposed to the bottom line end-result. I've seen people who can put in x-amount of required hours per week, but never really get the job done. Mistakes, blame-shifting, lack of accountability...but hey, they put in their time.

At the end of the day the analysis should be about proven results. My best boss, 10 years ago said, "We pay you to think - not sit at a desk following the pack. Don't worry about what anyone else thinks about whether you're in the office or not. You just keep bringing in positive results.". He didn't care if I worked from home, sent emails from the orthodontist office, worked late nights or whatever. He didn't care if I was at my desk or not. He knew the quality of my work was superior, my projects were consistently on time and within budget and he was willing to work with my schedule. As a divorced mom of two young children, I did need to take sick days for the kids, but I always found time for my work also. Late nights, weekends, whatever it took to get the job done.

Too bad many "smart" people don't realize the advantage and huge increase in productivity and ROI by allowing flexibility.

Everyone, please! Can't we all just get along?

If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of this study was awareness of the hidden (or perhaps not-so-hidden) biases against working mothers.

I write as the Orlando Working Moms Examiner for Examiner.com. A few days before Business Week revealed this story, I heard so much griping at the water cooler about moms vs. non-moms and wrote an article offering tips on how working moms can peacefully coexist with their child-free coworkers. (https://feed.examiner.com/examiner/admin/EntryController.cfm?data= U1FJUWVzVGx2STl2eW45Y0p0NHgwUGFrcVFnWUV3am1ZSmx1ZEc1bFVSOD0%3D)

Right or wrong, there is a bias out there. As a working mother (who works outside the home as an analyst for 50+ hours a week and writes articles in the evenings after my son goes to bed), I'm grateful for this information so that I can better position myself in the eyes of others.

Children are a choice. (The act of creating children is also a choice.) I chose to have a child. Some coworkers have chosen otherwise. I respect their choices, just as they (hopefully) respect mine. And perhaps my family is in the minority, but my husband and I share equal responsibility for our son's upbringing, and whomever takes the day off to stay home with him on a given day when necessary is determined by who has a less harried desk than the other.

Let's accept this study for what it is: revelation (surprising or not) of an existing bias within hiring practices. And let's accept this dialogue as a sign that worker equality is a long, long way off.

I think the biggest piece of news in this article was how dad were NOT negatively impacted as moms in hiring situations. Let's talk about that.

I left a Fortune 50 company a year ago to start a children's book series dedicated to explaining the world of work to kids (www.mommytrip.com). The intent is to help not only children understand what mom and dad do every day and why they can't always be around, but also help the parents really ROCK their lives. If mom and dad can build a rich life at home and at the office, then our children are raised in happy homes and the world becomes a better place for everyone. It's that simple.

So why is Dad not penalize and Mom is? This is the problem that seem tangible, measurable and solvable. What ideas do people have here to address this right away? I'd like to also here what are the next steps the author of the study plans to take.

This is nothing more than typical sexist b.s. from the feminist crowd

It's designed to make women look like victims so that the feminists who run the government programs can use it to justify gov grants....grants which provide those feminists a huge paycheck. For "administrating" the programs.

This is nothing more than typical feminist pork at the expense of hardworking taxpayers.

Feminists are pathetic whiny sexists they make all of us REAL women look bad.

Men are never going to fully respect us as long as the most vocal women in society spit out their sexist garbage against men.

Maybe that makes up for the countless number of hours women without children have to spend taking up the slack for mothers when they get time off to have the baby, take time off to take it to the doctor every week/month for checkups, take time off for the kid's parent-teacher meetings, soccer games, recitals, childhood illnesses etc etc etc.
If I got paid for all the extra work I had to do to fill in for all of these things I would have a double salary. I think it's great that woman without kids get paid more because they work more.
Having kids is a choice. It is not something that should be an excuse for special privileges. Yet the time allowed off in the workplace to do the above personal business when it comes to their kids is always given while others are not allowed this same favor to handle their obligations.
I suspect that this affects raises too. If the mother can't work the hours, she shouldn't expect as high a raise in pay as someone who can.

Maybe that makes up for the countless number of hours women without children have to spend taking up the slack for mothers when they get time off to have the baby, take time off to take it to the doctor every week/month for checkups, take time off for the kid's parent-teacher meetings, soccer games, recitals, childhood illnesses etc etc etc.
If I got paid for all the extra work I had to do to fill in for all of these things I would have a double salary. I think it's great that woman without kids get paid more because they work more.
Having kids is a choice. It is not something that should be an excuse for special privileges. Yet the time allowed off in the workplace to do the above personal business when it comes to their kids is always given while others are not allowed this same favor to handle their obligations.
I suspect that this affects raises too. If the mother can't work the hours, she shouldn't expect as high a raise in pay as someone who can.
In general, one who doesn't work the time should not get the pay.

Employers need to get the most out of their employees. Fair or not, "Working" Parent writes about how she was laid off due to having to take time off because of a sick child.
I have seen the same thing happen when a female co-worker of mine was laid off because she needed time out to care for an elderly, ailing mother who was dying.
I have also seen employees themselves get laid off due to time taken off because of their own chronic illness (although that reason is never officially given). So it isn't just mothers who face this.
From the employer's point of view, time is money. I've been in the workforce for 40 years. Believe me mothers are given way more leeway today than when I first started working. But I think that because some have taken advantage of that the pendulum is swinging back the other way.
I have heard that some companies will give everyone the same generous amount of allowed time off equivalent to the time it may take to have a baby and bond with it. What people decide to do with that time is their business. If they chose to have a baby and stay home for the alloted time, fine. If they chose to travel that's ok too.
In other words, everyone has an equal opportunity to fulfill their choices and no one gets more than anyone else simply because they chose to reproduce.
Under those circumstances, I imagine the employees who have to cover for those who are absent don't mind because they know they will have their turn too.

So who here is responding to this post during working hours? Just curious.

I work for a company where there is no additional leeway for working moms to take time off for caring for a sick child. Everything is frowned upon so you end up not taking any time off to meet your child's needs.

If you consider a day off even to care for a sick child, you will definitely be faced with a negative appraisal even if you are more productive and efficient than your no-kids colleagues simply due to the image factor of being a mom hence not serious about your job.

In fact you would be afraid to take a afternoon off to meet anappointment/event at school whereas another colleague without kids can take an afternoon off for playing golf or baseball.

That seems to be the norm so these results are not surprising.

""Elizabeth
June 8, 2009 10:09 PM
For those of you who are complaining about working moms, who do you want to have kids? The heroin addicted 18 year old on probation? Sure, she isn't in a position where some cold soulless b*tch who couldn't get a boyfriend will take her job, but ....

I feel like a lot of time the people who discriminate against working moms are the "childless by choice" ladies, that is to say, women that no men want.

Also, interestingly enough, the people who miss the most work in my office are 1. a guy who likes to party and 2. a girl who has a dog that takes up a lot of her time (vet appts, training appts, etc)""

Elizabeth, I am childless by choice. I am also married. I am also probably the "bitch" who took your last job.

How sad this all is. And how much sadder it will all be in 30 years when people realize how much they need the younger generation. The US's lack of parental leave and rights is an embarrassment right up there with paltry health care and relatively huge infant mortality rates.

No one ever whispered on their death bed that they wish they'd worked more.

the question I have for anonymous who took "attendance" is this: Did those working moms who took more sick days get their work done, meet their deadlines and honor there work commitments as well as others who were there all the time? If so, than who cares about their hours?

Maybe they worked from home on those days or made up the productivity on evenings/weekends. Maybe they took shorter lunches, fewer coffee breaks, spent less time web surfing. Maybe they just worked more quickly and efficiently.

Discrimination against working mothers won't end until more corporations get in the habit of valuing employees by work produced rather than office hours kept, which don't have anything to do with one another.

http://twitter.com/extremecareer

I hadn't even made it past the first few paragraphs when I started laughing. First of all, the obvious questions are how do the interviewers know who's a mother and who isn't? They cannot ask these questions and even if they do, the interviewee doesn't have to answer. So that's issue #1.

Another issue is that it says "the mother was 100% less likely to be hired when she applied for a position" 100%? Really? How many interviews did she go on? Two or twenty? With a statistic like that, that's basically saying if you're a mother you'll never get hired, which, of course, is ridiculous as there are many working moms out there.

Next issue: "“They were also offered $11,000 a year less pay, on average, than an equally qualified childless candidate,”" This is silly because of the above. Apparently mother's have 100% less chance of being hired. So who are these mothers that are getting job offers that are paying less? Apparently none of them as none are getting hired. My other issue with this figure is wondering what positions they're looking at. For instance, if I go in and get a job offer, they are in turn not going to offer the same job to the mother unless I decline and she happens to be in second place for the job, therefore they have no way of knowing how much she would be offered. Even if this does happen, which companies are handing out these statistics? Who's going to openly admit that they offered the childless person more money? Now, if I'm offered the job and I accept the job, then there is no offer to the mother. Are they in turn following the same mother around to see what job she gets and then finds out that she's making less than me? Because if so, then they are comparing apples to oranges as far as positions go. The only way this figure can count is if I and a mother are both offered the same positions continuously and both told how much we're being offered, which is just impractical and would not happen. My further thoughts on this is that if mothers are in fact making $11,000 less a year, it's probably due to time they took off and what not. Many mothers take years off to raise their children and when they do return to work, they are going to have that gap on their resume, whereas I've been working the entire time and therefore an probably automatically making more money than the mother because I've gotten raises over this time and am now considered a few years "ahead" of the mothers. I also wonder if childfree women are more likely to have a degree than mothers because if so, then that should also be factored in. So yet another explanation for why childfree women might be making more. There are just sooo many issues with this figure.

"childless women got 2.1 times as many callbacks as mothers" How can they even track this? I'd love to see these resumes, because unless they are openly spelling out on their resume "Hobbies: Taking care of my two adorable, wonderful, beautiful, my whole reason for living children vs Hobbies: Researching permanent birth control methods" no company is going to know from looking at the resume that one is a mother and one is not, so there's just no way they can release a figure like this on who got more callbacks and expect people to take it seriously. I would imagine it's just a coincidence.

My final point is that if they have two women (one childless and one a mother) who are interviewing, did they perhaps think that maybe, just maybe the childless one is just better at interviews than the mother is, which would account for her getting more interviews? If they have one person getting all the job offers, they need to look at the individuals and how they interview, not look at their child bearing history. And if they have one person interviewing for both parts, I'd be curious to see if it's a childless person who has a hard time portraying that of a mother, thereby coming across to the interviewer as "not right" for one reason or another (seems "flighty, nervous, untrustworthy" because she's trying to play the part of a mother).

I'm not at all shocked by this study, as I think it appears to be completely ridiculous with so many possible issues that could have polluted the outcome. What did shock me was that it received the 2008 Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award for Excellence in Work-Family Research. Riiiight. Who the heck nominates these studies for the awards? Mothers?

Equal pay for equal work, period! Any yahoo that thinks that working moms deserve special privileges don't understand this concept. You are not special, and no self respecting person would expect an employer to offer special treatment because you spawned offspring.

Maybe I need to go read the actual study, but I don't recall ever disclosing my parental status on any interview ever. So call me suspicious of the research methods...

Children, why are we being so cruel to each other? maybe it takes time to teach a child to grow up as a kind compassionate person. maybe your mothers never took the time to teach you that kindness and compassion are what makes us human. The U.S. is full of selfish money driven assholes. Maybe this country needs to realize that once you have children, you can't stay until ten p.m. in the office because you are going to be up all night with an infant. Maybe we need to stop viewing reproduction like going to shop at the supermarket. Normal well adjusted people can't just be picked off trees. They are raised, painstakingly, by their parents. Women, stop attacking each other for deciding to, or not to, have children. We as people, need to start appreciating what it takes to create the next generation. What I have learned since i had kids is as follows: i can work my ass off, but i simply can't pull an all nighter at the office anymore. That's reality. I'm also an intelligent kind person who is an asset to society because I am raising a healthy intelligent well adjusted child. A civilization balances these things and encourages them to grow. A dog eat dog barbarian world prevents these things from growing. maybe that's why our birth rate is declining among middle class people. Is that a good thing? No. I am doing my best. Maybe we are all doing our best. Let's start being nice to each other. Let's start realizing that the world doesnt just begin and end with us. It goes on. and we need to start doing what's best for the next generation. which means encouraging mothers to be able to work and be mothers too. My baby is miserable while Im at work. Im miserable to leave her. But I know I have to, to live in a safe neighborhood and provide good food for her. Help me to balance these things, its the right thing to do, otherwise the children will suffer, and what are we all working so hard for if its not for the next generation?