Print This Post
May
11
This piece was written by Ellen Bravo, who spoke in NE Ohio last month about her latest book, Taking on the Big Boys. Sounds like a common theme in Ohio for some of us lately. I love this quote from the Amazon page, “Enough about “breaking the glass ceiling.” Here are blueprints for a redesign of the entire building, ground up, to benefit women and men-and even the bottom line.”
Here’s an interview with her earlier this year, also about her work and the book. An excerpt that Ohio needs to read right now in relation to what’s happening in our Attorney General’s office [bold emphasis is mine]:
Casey: In your title, Taking on the Big Boys, who are the “big boys”? How do they operate?
Bravo: The “big boys” are the powers that be. They are the people who control how and when we do our work, influence public policy, and often have a stake in maintaining the status quo, as they benefit from it. Some of the “big boys” are women, but the majority of men are not “big boys.” “Big boys” often maintain the status quo in place by using approaches that trivialize, patronize, “catastrophize,” demonize, and compartmentalize. When talking about the problems people face in managing work and family, they say things like “Well, women can do whatever they want! If they’re not represented in the best jobs, it’s because they have chosen not to pursue those jobs!” or “Men want to take leaves because they want to go hunting and fishing! They don’t care about their babies.” Another common response is “You don’t understand how business works, so you suggest these pie-in-the-sky ideas.” Finally, rather than addressing problems with the way work is structured, they suggest that if, mothers are unhappy with their lives, they should fight each other in the so-called “mommy wars,” as opposed to fighting for changes within the workplace and the home. My purpose in writing this book was to expose these tactics, explain how they work, and show that with the right analysis and organization, it is possible to take them on. The “big boys” try to imply that there is no need to take them on, that if workers are upset they need to change themselves, and even if you did attempt to take the big boys on, you can’t win. Giving concrete examples of how people have made changes in the workplace can inspire others to take action.
The good news is that some of the “big boys” get it and will be won over by an analysis of adjustments to today’s work arrangements and environments. The more we can expand that group, the better it is for us all. I want people to understand the consequences that come from leaving the world the way it is now and stake we all have in changing it.
Casey: Why do you think so few have so much power?
Bravo: I think it has to do with the way profit has developed as a driver. I make the case again and again that changing the way that businesses are run is not a favor to women; the changes are a better way to do business. However, this is only true if you care about the business itself. If individuals only care only about their own profit and don’t even consider the short term interests of the company, let alone the long term interests, they will fail. Unfortunately, lots of people with that mindset have lots of power. They are not only controlling businesses, they also play a role in who runs for office and how politicians conduct themselves. This affects public policy as well as the private sector. Therefore, the more we can make business about the entity itself rather than the personal needs of the higher-ups within companies, the better we all will be.
Casey: What are some of the negative consequences of the “big boys’” behavior?
Bravo: For women, it obviously costs jobs, income, and opportunities. However, it isn’t just women that are hurt by this behavior; many men are hurt by it, and there are many men who want to integrate their work and family lives, just as women do. Studies show that men are favored when they’re fathers—that’s what “normal” is—but if they start to act like mothers and are invested in their families and want to organize their work to take this into account, they, too, suffer penalties. So, the behavior certainly harms families.
I think the behavior also harms businesses by hurting workers’ productivity and, causing more money to go into areas like turnover costs. It also harms the quality of work, workers’ health and well-being as well as income. If we judged workplace policy, and public policy, for that matter, on outcomes such as child well-being, family well-being, and social well-being, we’d have very different policies. Many countries do this—they say “If we do x, what will the impact be on y?” “Y” can be children, families, fiscal solvency, the environment, et cetera. Of course, we don’t do this—those who do just look at profits, and that is a problem. We talk a lot about family values, but in the United States, family values often end at the workplace door.
Casey: Please describe your vision for a society that values women and provides them with opportunities to work.
Bravo: It looks a lot like a company like SAS. They have a 35-hour work week and close their doors at six o’clock, which means that no one, including the CEO, stays late and nobody takes work home. They understand that relaxed workers are productive workers. In my vision, it’s also important to have a more collaborative way of working, value every level of worker, and to make sure that everyone is special but no one is indispensable, so people can actually have flexibility. This should all be supplemented by public policy, so that parents of new children can share up to a year off, made possible by an insurance pool to which all workers contribute. These parents should also have access to quality, affordable child care that they can bring their child to after a year, going back to work for no more than thirty-five hours a week. There should be reasonable work days and a way to balance schedules so that children don’t have to be in daycare for an inordinate amount of time. For schoolchildren, there would be interesting afterschool programs. Workers would have the option of reducing their work hours without harming their benefits or advancement opportunities. Time off for caretaking may apply not only to children but elderly relatives or those with chronic illnesses. Advancement would be based on talent, leadership, and the ability to work well with others, not face time. In fact, people who neglect their families and health would not be seen as leaders and role models and would not be rewarded for this behavior.
In their book Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment, Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers calculated what it would cost to be able to implement the policies I just mentioned, and they figured it was 1.5 percent of the Gross National Product. We could truly afford that, especially if we curtailed handouts to the big boys, which eat up five times that amount. We have to change our mindset of what’s possible.
An excerpt from Bravo’s what women want and need column:
The right to care for a sick child or personal illness without losing her job or creating a public health hazard. I start with paid sick days as a minimum labor standard, in honor of Monique Evans in Portland, Maine, and JoCasta Zamarippa of Milwaukee. Monique’s weekly hours at a fast- food restaurant were cut to 15 after she stayed home with her sick toddler. JoCasta, like six out of seven food service workers, has been forced to serve you flu with your soup; staying home could have cost her not only a paycheck but her job.
The right to coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Half of private sector workforce employees aren’t covered by the act because they work for an employer with fewer than 50 workers, haven’t been on the job for at least 12 months or work less than 25 hours a week. We need to expand this law to all employees after 90 days of employment. I ask this in the name of Dana Wilson of Milwaukee, who lost her job because her father didn’t wait to get sick until his daughter had been on the job a year.
…
An end to maternal profiling. We need to add “family responsibility” to categories protected under anti-discrimination law. This request is in honor of Kiki Peppard of Effort, Pa., who has been fighting to change the law since she wound up on welfare because employers there wouldn’t hire a single mother.
…
The right to attend children’s school activities. Here, I pay tribute to Diana, the child of a long-term corporate employee in Milwaukee who says the company’s demands and inflexibility meant she “never saw her mom at sporting events, had to make her own meals since the age of 8, and grew up in second place to a job.”
…
A recognition that men are parents and have parents and also need time to care. I add this in the name of all mothers eager to share the joys as well as the responsibilities of caregiving with the men in their lives.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:19 pm May 11th, 2008 in Civil Rights, Gender, Government, Law, Marc Dann, Ohio, Politics, Social Issues, Women
Comments
3 Responses to “Confronting big boys & giving women what they want/need”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
Most of the higher up are theocrats steering the big ship it requires nothing radical. That is in the old school, which is fading off, the new school is more delusional and very narcissistic. If you are working your way up you often will have to dethrone someone it is never nice it is never easy. You learn as you go, you attempt to open doors and if they are not opening, you take your knowledge and jump ship. The object is contentment and compensation and is for the most part a state of mind.
Every event occurs in a moment in time, your adaptability and resourceful is all you need to succeed, if not appreciated then find the place were you are.
Moving up is less stressful when done laterally, that being seek a better position elsewhere, you absorb all that you can were you are, taking on all that you can. Building familiarity, knowledge, and experience makes you marketable.
Is the person that goes to work for the competition a traitor, no they are smart.
Nothing wrong with being aggressive, but if you are brilliant only you know that, never ever show your cards. The person that goes to work for the competition is not the traitor the person that you confide in at work is. Here is a good one when they ask you what is bothering you say; I have a hangnail on my toe and its bothering me. They will snarl, maybe say; I did not need to know that. If you tell them the boss is an ass, they all sit up and take the edge of their seat.
I like the Fishing or Hunting comment, addressing stereotypes and throwing them around at the same time. Is that a good way to make friend and win people over?
I don’t disagree completely Oengus with some of your suggestions – I think they’re part of the toolbox any person needs as they try to make their way.
But we should not ignore the fact that people higher up on the build with THEIR toolbox obstacles and that’s not right or proper or acceptable – no matter that it happens. That’s where the double standard comes in, where systemic and historical discrimination and privilege play a role.
There’s no QUESTION that resourcefulness and keeping your eye on the prize is VITAL to making it, for anyone. But for climbing to places that previously didn’t accommodate, welcome or otherwise embrace or invite or even witness certain types of people, for whatever reason? Giving up and going elsewhere should not be the only choice. That’s not American, to say the least.
I have seen it in the work world and often I have to leave the role playing is so annoying. I cannot honestly say which gender is worse; they often feed into each other. In a stereotypical American behavior, I am the guy who wants to quit America, seriously the less interaction with others for me the better. Well actually I like people, one on one I usually find some value in everyone, and the last thing I ever enjoy doing is attempting to change them.
I notice that many offices have men in them, and often the person outside the office is female. Sometimes I see a woman in the office and a woman outside the door.
When I get bored, I apply for the administrative assistant position and always enjoy the awkward reactions. People are programmed, is it an American phenomena, not really it is worse in some parts of the world.
Dena hands out one big fat preconception, and is that good, does it say, hey look for it, it is all around you. I am neutral and not Pavlov’s dog, I keep getting painful reminders of these roles that society hands out.
I hate Drama, work is unavoidable, if you start talking about gender then it actually takes on the roles it get people all fired up and maybe changes occur, usually it is not anything mission critical though. How can we make things better for woman or how can we do what we do better.
I would love to hear a woman say I did not get the promotion because I am moody and indecisive. If we all know what is typical, we must have heard that one before, there is always that one-week out of the month when there is always hell to pay and not for any real obvious reason? Maybe that is why the men go hunting or fishing for no reason.