Despite the widespread belief that women have achieved equality with men, the economic sphere is still one place where women are undeniably behind. Wage gaps, sexual harassment, glass ceilings, hiring and promotion discrimination, and a myriad of other problems – all of which somehow are keep hidden or are ignored unbelievably well – still put women at an extreme disadvantage in the workforce. For instance, Cynthia Enloe reveals these problems in the sneaker industry where big-name companies outsource their factories overseas to make more profit, which they do by paying women very low wages, concentrating their factories in military-run countries where they cannot strike or organize, and slyly relieving their responsibility for these women by using subcontractors and cleverly worded loopholes in their conduct codes (Enloe 46-48, 49-50, 52, 54-56). She asserts that these foreign women were and are routinely taken advantage of by money-hungry companies who play to foreign oppressive political regimes “to exert pressure on those women so that their constructions of femininity would make their labor cheap (Enloe 60).” By twisting how these women workers thought of themselves as daughters, potential wives, and patriots, these companies and government reaped the monetary and social benefits of keeping these women working despite horrible injustices and dangers.
While Enloe has a legitimate point in bringing these foreign women’s plights to light, she contributes support to the false idea that these problems only happen in third-world countries where female inequality is more well-known and, sadly, more expected. Sex discrimination in the workforce also happens in developed countries such as the United States, where sexism purportedly does not exist anymore. A blatant example of sex discrimination within the American workforce comes from the drug giant Novartis, which ironically was labeled as one of the 100 Best Companies for working women (Working Mother); male sales managers promoted men over women regularly and routinely fired women for being pregnant. The case against Novartis emphatically reinforces Crittenden’s argument that mothers are the most disadvantaged group in the workforce because employers see them as undesirable and inefficient workers because they have the most attachments to detract them away from their jobs, resulting in a high “mommy tax” they still have to pay despite lower wages.
The women’s case against Novartis has garnered much attention because of people’s sheer disbelief that such discriminatory actions by Novartis’s male managers were left unpunished for so long. The company has to pay about $250 million in punitive damages to their 5,600 women employees, which does not include compensatory damages for the primary plaintiffs (“Going to Get”). The plaintiffs each won about $500,000 to $600,000 dollars, totaling another $3.4 million (“Going to Get”). Even though this particular case is over, any of Novartis’s female employees are allowed to sue the company for personal discrimination, so Novartis is expected to pay another couple million dollars to these employees (“Going to Get”); in addition prosecutors are trying to force Novartis to give these women back pay, or lost salary due to demotion or termination for being pregnant, upwards of $37 million (“Going to Get”). Novartis’ settlement is one of the biggest ever in the history of sex discrimination cases in the workplace and a victory for all working pregnant women and mothers.
Novartis apparently had a long history of sex discrimination before any of their violations were finally revealed. Email chains, interviews, and TV broadcasts revealed how male bosses made sexually inappropriate jokes towards their female employees, routinely passed over female sales representatives for promotions even if they were top performers which effectively restricted their income, and fired pregnant employees like Raelene Ryan, Amy Velez, and Holly Waters. Such an email chain between Novartis’s Human Resources department and Raelene Ryan’s boss, Jim Hansen, shows his disrespectful attitude towards women as well as his blatant attempts to terminate her employment because she was pregnant regardless of her flawless record as a top sales representative (“Terminating the Pregnant Employee”). Hansen’s suggestive comments about her appearance and sexist jokes that included insensitive references to domestic violence peppered Ryan’s experience with Novartis (“Terminating the Pregnant Employee”). Then when she became pregnant, he actively sought to force her out of her job; he emailed Human Resources frequently saying things like he would “[o]bviously like to fire this person [Ryan]. She is 6 months pregnant, too, just to let you know (Terminating the Pregnant Employee”).” as well as “As you are aware, she is going to be terminated for falsification once the baby is delivered. As we discussed, we will continue to pay her maternity leave, however, she will be terminated so I can fill the position (“Terminating the Pregnant Employee”).” Holly Waters, who claimed that she was bringing in the most revenue for her boss, reported being harassed by her male coworkers and then let go when she was seven-and-a-half months pregnant, leaving her in no position to find another job to pay for her expenses (“Holly Water-Novartis”); Amy Velez also was fired for being pregnant even though she had great reviews (“CNN”). Other instances of Novartis’s prejudice against pregnant mothers are still being revealed, indicating that this company has a long way to go into ensuring that its female employees are treated fairly.
Even though Novartis has not officially cited reasons for its male managers’ discrimination against their female employees, Crittenden’s theory of the ideal worker does provide motive for male managers to pass over women for promotion. Crittenden asserts that “[f]or most companies, the ideal worker is ‘unencumbered,’ that is, free of all ties other than those to his job. Anyone who can’t devote all his or her energies to paid work is barred from the best jobs and has a permanently lower lifetime income. Not coincidentally, almost all of the people in that category happen to be mothers (Crittenden 87-88).” These male managers seemed to believe that all female employees were teetering on the edge of this encumbrance because there was always the looming possibility of them getting married and having children; these women may already have been encumbered by even desiring a family of their own. By keeping these women with essentially capped salaries by passing over them for promotions, they minimized the damaging blow they would take if these women quit their jobs or reduced their time working to be at home with their family – a scenario that happens much less frequently with male employees, making male employees more “predictable” and “reliable.” It is much easier for a company to cut a female sales representative than a female boss or executive because lower-level jobs have a larger pool of qualified replacements that can be found more readily and are willing to accept lower pay. Novartis protected their own interests in ensuring its more unpredictable employees who would not be satisfied with devoting their life to their job – meaning women, especially pregnant women – stayed in low-level positions whereas promoting “safer” employees who would be more likely and willing to dedicate their lives to their jobs – meaning men, especially single men.
Once these managers had confirmation of their encumbrance – their pregnancies – they wanted to get rid of these women as soon as possible even if these women were top performers. They felt that these women could not be as devoted to their jobs as men could be since their families would automatically take precedence over their job. However, since firing women because they are pregnant is illegal, they had to resort to other more sneaky tactics to make these women uncomfortable to get them to quit on their own or if that strategy did not work, use pretexts to justify their termination to bring in other employees that would be unflinchingly, wholly dedicated to their job without the distractions of a family. Novartis discriminated against these women despite their high performance rates because the company saw them as investments whose return rate would inevitably go down with a baby in the way. To continue getting the same amount of work and profits out of all its employees since making money is the most important goal, Novartis eliminated who it considered the least efficient and most costly investments, or its pregnant women employees.
After Novartis fired these women, they had paid the “mommy tax” in that being a mother cost them their jobs and they still have yet to pay all the expenses that motherhood incurs. Crittenden states that “[t]he reduced earnings of mothers are, in effect, a heavy personal tax levied on people who care for children, or for any other dependent family members (Crittenden 88).” The wage gap between men and women still exists in the workforce and Novartis is no exception – a statistical analysis confirmed that male Novartis employees earn $75 more a month than its female employees, so even Novartis-employed women were already at a disadvantage in providing for themselves and existing families (“Cheerleaders”). Once the pregnant women were fired, they had no income, a baby on way, and no plausible way to look for a job, as Holly Waters points out (“Holly Waters-Novartis”). By choosing to have a family, they were forced to leave their job because Novartis did not believe that they could have and handle both, leaving these women without any sort of monetary safety net – their first installment in paying the unpayable “mommy tax” for the rest of their lives.
The Novartis case is both infuriating and sobering to women everywhere, especially working women and expectant mothers. The fact that Novartis got away with this discrimination in this day and age is shocking, but it also shows both men and women that sexism in the workplace is not dead, but actually alive and thriving. In addition to depicting the very real continued existence of sexism, it raises consciousness and awareness about the hidden discrimination against mothers in the workplace and the monetary and social price mothers pay for being caregivers. Hopefully Novartis’s discrimination, as unjust as it was, incites working mothers and all women to recognize that sexism is not dead and to campaign for women’s inequality in the workplace and beyond.
Works Cited
Crittenden, Ann. “The Mommy Tax.”
Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Glovin, David and Patricia Hurtado. “Novartis Must Pay $250 Million in Gender Bias Lawsuit (Update 5).” Bloomsburg Business Week. May 19 2010. Nov 5 2010.
Edwards, James. “At Novartis, It’s Pregnant Women vs. Cheerleaders Among the Sales Reps.” BNET. Mar 10 2010. Nov 5 2010. < http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-business/at-novartis-it-8217s-pregnant-women-vs-cheerleaders-among-the-sales-reps/4373>.
---. “Terminating the Pregnant Employee: Novartis Emails Lay Out the Appalling Tale.” BNET. May 26 2010. Nov 5 2010.
---. “Who’s Going to Get What in the $250M Novartis Sex Discrimination Verdict.” BNET. May 19 2010. Nov 5 2010.
“John Stossel: Holly Waters-Novartis Case.” Uploaded June 16 2009. Nov 5 2010.
“Novartis Gender Discrimination CNN.” Uploaded June 7 2010. Nov 5 2010.
“Novartis Pharmaceuticals.” “Working Mother 100 Best Companies of 2009.” Working Mother. Nov 5 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment