Wages Down Sharply for Part-Timers

Today's Washington Post (front page, top of the fold) cover story reflects something we've seen over the last two quarters: hiring is steady and picking up, but wages are flat or down. But what makes this front page news in one of the nation's largest publications? The Washington, DC area has largely been insulated from the devastating effects of the recession due to the dependence on the Federal sector and high supply of and demand for highly-skilled workers.

Some key figures:

• Median income for part-timers was down double digits in every jurisdiction in the region from 2007-2009
• Median pay for women who work part-time in the region fell from the highest in the region to 4th place (men fell from 2nd to 7th place)
• From 2007-2009, median pay for women working part time fell 22% in The District and a whopping 24% (the worst in the region) for women in Fairfax County, my own backyard (compared to a 10% decline in Va. Beach and a 9% decline in Atlanta)

Drawing back to statistics class I know that the averages are dragged down by the predominance of hiring in the last fiscal year in minimum wage jobs (construction, retail, service-related) but it's also hard to determine if these part-time wage earners are working part-time by choice or are under-employed due to economic circumstances.

Although you can't watch CNBC for more than 5 minutes without hearing Santelli describe all of the cash Corporate America is sitting on, I don't think employers are being nefarious here, just cautious, but maybe so cautious that they're shooting themselves in the foot as we climb out of the recession.

Here's the thing, hiring manager, don't go cheap. Sure you can get a bookkeeper who will debit and credit all day long for $35/hour, but in 6 months, after you've spent 3 months bringing her up to speed, she's going to leave you for a $40/hour job and it's going to cost you somewhere between 1.8-3x the annual cost of that employee to backfill and re-train. Those are well-proven, hard-tested numbers and will only prolong this economic uncertainty.

Truly can't afford a market wage? Offer a non-financial incentive to join your firm and stay. Women, particularly, value time over money in many instances and schedule flexibility is free for employers and priceless for employees. Alter work hours (e.g. 7am-4pm), allow regular telecommuting (e.g. Wednesdays, the worst traffic day in the Washington, DC region) or any other combination of schedule flexibility that will bring you the best and the brightest who will stick with you through the recession and beyond.

Having Kids: Changing your life AND your paycheck

The Government Accountability Office, commissioned by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, recently released a report that showed very slow progress on closing the wage gap, particularly among female managers. Perhaps the most shocking data surrounds working mothers: working mothers earn just $0.79 to ever dollar a working father earns, after adjusting for things like education and age. This has stayed the same since 2000.

What does that mean? Even though more women than men graduate from college and post-Great Recession make up the majority of the workforce, working mothers are losing.

Cited in the NY Times , Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Chairwoman of the Joint Committee said, "When working women have kids, they know it will change their lives, but they are stunned by how much it changes their paycheck. In this economy, it is adding insult to injury, especially as families are increasingly relying on the wages of working moms."

What does this mean for us? That the wage gap is largely a function of the work-life balance debate. That what's good for working mothers and their families is to find a way to keep women employed throughout fluctuations in their life and care-taking responsibilities (new babies, aging parents, heck, even sick dogs) so that the can in fact rise to the management ranks.

The Glass Hammer took the story one step further, demonstrating Why Men Matter in the Work/Life Debate. Discussing author and UC Hastings Law Professor Joan William's recent assertion that the work/life debate needs to move away from a maternal argument and embrace paternalistic responsibilities as well. Noting an absence of dialogue, inflexible work schedules and missing voice of the middle class in policy-making discussions, Williams believes focusing too much on the working mother's needs, and not that of the whole family (including Dear Ol' Dad) is hampering progress.

I remember when our twins were born, 6 weeks early with a stay in the NICU, my husband unsuccessfully petitioned- all the way to the VP of Human Resources of his Fortune 100 very profitable firm for which he had worked 3 years- to get 4 days of paid paternity leave instead of 2. His argument was two babies, two days each. They didn't see it that way. We needed more help than any 2 days of paid leave could ever provide but that signal, that "working dads are nice but don't come looking to us for help" eventually cost them an employee.

But I think things are starting to change. At a recent sick child appointment at our local pediatrician's office I noted with smug satisfaction that there were more Dads than Moms in the waiting room. Some Dads were in gym clothes (SAHD?) with tardy back-to-school health forms, others donned the typical DC dark suit and glanced furtively at Blackberries while waiting to be called. But the bottom line is that with more women in the workforce than men the Dads are stepping up, and although change is slow in the making, we're moving in the right direction.