How to Close a Gender Gap: Let Employees Control Their Schedules

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/how-to-close-a-gender-gap-let-employees-control-their-schedules.html?ribbon-ad-idx=3&rref=upshot&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&pgtype=article

by nishs • 9 years ago

77 115 9 years ago

nytimes.com

david-gpu• 9 years ago

The article puts a strong emphasis in how (truly) flexible schedules benefit women but I think it applies just as well to men, particularly once you have children.

wmccullough• 9 years ago

Precisely. The flexibility would be helpful irrespective of gender. It says a lot about our culture (or lack thereof) that we even have this issue to start with.

mpweiher• 9 years ago

And that we find it to be an issue once it's a problem for women, whereas as long as it was a problem just for men it was perfectly fine.

cperciva3• 9 years ago

Indeed. The article cites the stigma of being the woman who can't come in to work because her child threw up -- but there's far more stigma attached to being the man who can't come in to work because his child threw up.

dangerlibrary• 9 years ago

I remember reading (found it: [0]) that men tend to lie about these situations and claim they have something not-childcare-related to do, whereas women are more likely to be honest about the reason for their absence.

[0] http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.2015.0975

pavel_lishin2• 9 years ago

there's far more stigma attached to being the man who can't come in to work because his child threw up.

I'm pretty spoiled ("privileged" might be a more accurate term), but I've called out fairly often due to having a much better time off policy than my wife - so when the kid is sick and can't go to daycare, I tend to pick up 75%+ of the stay-home time with her. I've never had a problem at work, and other dads at work have done the same thing.

I literally can't imagine someone giving me shit about it, or a coworker suggesting that it's the woman's/mom's job to stay home with a sick child. I guess it's different in non-software fields?

thescribe• 9 years ago

The solution to the gender gap is to fundamentally change how work is done. I'm glad it was that simple.

nasalgoat• 9 years ago

I'm not sure an hour one way or another is really "fundamentally" changing anything. 8-4 or 10-6 vs. 9-5 is pretty normal, actually.

dlo• 9 years ago

I think the employer that is able to accommodate a variety of different schedules, and indirectly, challenges that their employees face in their lives, will be a sought-after place to work.

If an employer is trying to attract the best employees, this could be a major competitive advantage. Google can offer superior compensation, but they likely will not be able to offer this due to institutional inertia, people who believe in and are invested in the current system.

No employer, especially a startup, has to follow conventional wisdom on how to run a workplace. They could decide to upend things next week if they wanted to.

jmcdiesel4• 9 years ago

It's very true.

In my situation, I struggled for years with attendance because my spouse had a seemingly impossible time getting up on a consistent basis to take care of the kids so i can go to work... lots of fights ensued, a even lost a couple of jobs to it (though the employers were mostly kind, and my managers appreciated the situation, but the strict rules of the company basically meant i had to leave)

Turns out, my wife has an actual sleeping disorder (DSPD[1]), and my new position, when I came to my managers about it, they worked with me. I work from home now every morning until about noon when I head into the office. If there is a meeting that I need to be in physically in the morning, than I still go in (waking up "early" once in a while is fine, the problem in the past was basically waking up early every day for years) ... it works out for everyone, I end up putting more work in (instead of sitting around for 3 hours before work when i woke up at 6am, now i am working at 6:30 ... then i go in at 12, and work till 5). I'm gladly putting in that extra time, too... as a sort of appreciation for what they are helping me with. It also drives loyalty, and I'm very loyal to both the company AND my managers for working with me. There is literally no downside to the arrangement from anyone's point of view... and it all comes from just being flexible.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder

jmcdiesel4• 9 years ago

I think your mindset is part of the problem...

WHEN someone works isn't a fundamental issue. IF we're talking retail, thats an obvious exception. If we're talking a job where the employee isnt directly contacting customers, then the time they work is largely less important. The most efficient team I've worked on in my career was made up from people around the world, there were 9 of us, everyone single one was in a different timezone, some 12 hours off from each other... and we got more done as a team than any Team I've been on before or sense... and it was largely due to the nature of our hours... we had to make sure we buttoned our shit up, we documented it well, we communicated VERY efficiently and effectively... etc.

I know it doesn't work for every position at every company, no single thing does, but to consider 9-5 (or any set schedule in particular) "fundamental" to business is short-sided at best...

flootch• 9 years ago

Yeah, retail, food, healthcare, transportation, maintenance, manufacturing, trash pickup, almost everything really. But nah, hell with anyone whose job ain't yours.

jimmywanger5• 9 years ago

No, many jobs aren't customer facing yet require you to be in a certain place at a certain time, such as most trades (carpentry and welding), long haul trucking, repairman, and deliveryman.

The only job I can think of that won't get mostly automated away are either jobs that require either/both lots of creative talent (such as a highly skilled engineer, artist, etc) or require an actual onsite presence (contractor, building inspector, pest control.)

kristineberth• 9 years ago

I'm all for flexible work arrangements for people, no matter what their gender. But I have to say I disagree with you. Many roles are not necessarily customer facing but require a lot of interaction with a team. In the startup world the pace at which you have to operate is relentless, and in many roles it's critical that numerous people work together on a variety of projects. Yes, you can dial someone in. You can try to schedule meetings around their particular schedule. But ultimately it is SO much easier to get things done if you're all in the same place (the office) for relatively similar core hours day-in and day-out. Ideas arise out of conversations. People end up becoming privvy to information and conversations that are perhaps only tangentially related to their role. Or they end up joining new projects rather informally and organically. Which is exactly what often leads to (and prepares you for) more senior roles.

There are trade-offs that have to be made to work remotely or to have less face-to-face interaction with your teammates than others. In many cases these negatively impact your ability to move up, to succeed or to function well with a team. This is of course not true for every role or company, but it's true for many.

dang2• 9 years ago

Please don't post snarky dismissals here. Few things are worse for thoughtful conversation, even when the underlying point is a good one.

ue_16• 9 years ago

I wonder if we could close it even further if we let the employees control the means of production.

js82• 9 years ago

I agree with you. Unfortunately feminism is often too self-centered as a leftist ideology so it tends to ignore other classes and other inequalities.

ChristianBundy• 9 years ago

All struggle is class struggle. Intersectional feminism (egalitarianism?) is supposed to address this, but somehow it tends to miss the mark -- at least in the parts of society that I've been exposed to.

yummyfajitas7• 9 years ago

Probably not. There are a few places which already approach this socialist ideal - hedge funds, some management consulting firms and some law firms.

In this firms, employees control the means of production because employees are the means of production. Such firms tend to be mostly owned by employees themselves.

These firms are not known for being family friendly or having a work life balance. The reason is that these firms are populated by high productivity, high effort individuals. Such people rarely want to work with people less dedicated than themselves, people they rightly think of as underperformers. (I've worked with such people in the past and it's dreadful.)

In your proposed world, high productivity employees would likely self segregate into high productivity firms which would not be particularly family friendly. Lower productivity employees who want to take years off from the workforce and put family first would shift into lower productivity firms.

This means the same inequality would exist. Women would work at the family friendly firms, their husbands would work at the high productivity firms, and the inequality would continue.

(In fact, even in the modern world, inequality of this sort has been the primary driver of inequality growth. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21199 )

ue_16• 9 years ago

Thank you for the insight. I was being semi facetious with my comment; owning the MoP isn't the only required change for a Socialist society; I had similar thoughts to yours with regard to segregation of the more and less productive.

Though I am not sure how this problem can be addressed. I suspect that the fact that humans wouldn't have to work so much would alleviate part of the problem.

shanacarp• 9 years ago

Actually, this isn't true in the slightest. The VAST majority of management consulting firms, law firms, and yes, even investment firms like hedge funds are very small and closely held. Most do not get to global size with hundreds of employees ala Renassaisance or BCG or MoFo.

They are maybe 6 people, 10 people and as a result, most people in them do find that they can, in fact, structure their own hours to be family friendly.

This does not mean they are not competitive in their niche. It just means they are small and prefer to be that way, in part because the people in them prefer to have time for their lifestyles.

WalterBright• 9 years ago

There's nothing stopping you and like minded people from setting up your own corporation where you collectively control the means of production.

ue_16• 9 years ago

Co-ops would be a great idea, if it weren't for the fact that they have to balance automation with caring for the workers, which is highly inefficient for making profit, which is necessary to survive in a capitalist ecosystem.

Paying wages (and fair ones at that) along with trying to match the efficiency of those who (i) use extensive automation, at the expense of worker employment and (ii) purchase extremely cheap labour time (sweatshops, places where labour laws aren't as strict etc.) is almost untenable.

It can be done, but it's extremely hard to get done successfully, and it does not solve the societal problem of worker exploitation and reckless abandon for the environment.

edblarney2• 9 years ago

"I wonder if we could close it even further if we let the employees control the means of production."

Employees do control the means of production. They make all the decisions and do all the work.

You probably meant to say own the means of production.

Tried that. See: every Communist regime, all of which failed :)

Anybody is free to create a startup with 100% employee ownership - you can do it today. All the power to you, it'd be cool if that worked, I just don't think it will.

ue_16• 9 years ago

Tried that. See: every Communist regime, all of which failed :)

This is an uncharitsble and pessimistic view of the development of socialist theory since the failure of such regimes. Arguably capitalism has a more rich history of failure.

All the power to you, it'd be cool if that worked, I just don't think it will.

Precisely; you can see that it is almost impossible to avoid exploitation of yourself or others worjers within capitalism.

godelski4• 9 years ago

While this is a great solution is many sectors it won't solve anything in others. As a man I love having flexibility in my job. One of the best perks. But you can't do that for a lot of jobs, a lot of high skill jobs too. So while I think we should do this, will it really solve much?

js82• 9 years ago

Which jobs you can't do it for? Isn't this just a matter of "buffering", i.e. having enough people in the place to deal with the unexpected?

jimmywanger5• 9 years ago

Well, any sort of job that isn´t strictly associated with pure officework.

Something like doctor, nurse, any sort of trade, outside sales, any sort of in-person service, police, fireman, trucking/delivery. Most of these professions employ more people than IT, I believe.

Even a lot of other professions have certains times of the year/situation where you have to be there. For instance, if you're an accountant, during end of year inventories, you have to be around to take a physical inventory. If you're a lawyer or judge, you have to show up to court.

harryh6• 9 years ago

No. If I hire a banker to negotiate the sale of my company I want that specific banker to be available 24/7 to deal with any issues that might come up. Just any banker is not acceptable.

There are many jobs in which people are not interchangeable parts that can easily be substituted for each other. Not coincidentally, these jobs tend to be the highest paying.

smelendez2• 9 years ago

Yeah, as you say, I think it will vary tremendously job by job. But in the coding world, which has issues with gender and age inequalities, I think it might be a big help to a lot of people.

It probably should be coupled with replacing orally driven meetings and calls with written memos and written tools like Slack, Trello, etc. whenever possible.

godelski4• 9 years ago

I totally agree. I think any sector that you CAN do this you should. If not for the equality then for the increase in productivity. At least from anecdotal evidence I see people more productive when they can do things like sleep in or take time off just because they feel like it that day. Making up the hours later. And to the second part, that is just trying to increase efficiency. But with technology, there is little reason meetings need to be in person. At least the majority of them, because there are some types of meetings that do greatly benefit from being in person.

rrherr• 9 years ago

Also relevant? "Why Some Men Pretend to Work 80-Hour Weeks" https://hbr.org/2015/04/why-some-men-pretend-to-work-80-hour...

tbihl• 9 years ago

Cool. The end of the article reminds me of a somewhat recent cheating scandal that the US Navy had at one of its huge schools. The Navy adjusts its tests to be harder if pass rates get too high, which was the case at a base where instructors were passing answer keys to one another (ongoing certification tests, it seems.) The cheating led to higher pass rates and harder tests until eventually it was impossible to pass the test by just studying.

Similarly, the only way to have a life at these jobs is by cheating on the appearance of hours worked. I would say nearly the majority of my colleagues now are big savers who plan to get their money and then leave to have families for about this same reason.

latenightcoding• 9 years ago

This is just an ad for the site "werk" disguised as an article . Also, Erin Fahs should really consider a better chair.

godelski4• 9 years ago

Good eye. 20 paragraphs and 11 mentions of the website. Native advertising, but it does bring up a good point. Though I think overstated in its effectiveness.

lbotos• 9 years ago

I thought that NYT had to add a disclaimer when it's sponsored content?

If that's true, then this might just be lazy reporting?

I'm all for putting an end to native ads, but we have to admit any press about something is effectively an ad.

harryh6• 9 years ago

Obligatory link to PG's essay on corporate PR:

http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Natsu• 9 years ago

If that's true, then this might just be lazy reporting?

It's not easy to tell the difference, given that it will pretty much always be easier for them to spin a press release into an article than to find something to write about.

unethical_ban• 9 years ago

Should reporting never focus on a product or service?

wtf_is_up• 9 years ago

This thinly veiled advert for Werk doesn't explain how someone working remotely while caring for children will still be outperformed by someone without children working remotely. How is this meant to close "the gender gap"?

angry_napkin• 9 years ago

The answer to this "problem" isn't fair to a generation that was never taught life isn't fair. So we'll continue to get articles like this I guess.

dibstern2• 9 years ago

In some jobs, this just isn't practical. I know of a law firm that has the best employment record & situation for women, but is suffering because so many are working part time and/or working from home. It's made the firm less competitive and undesirable for a merger.

pdabbadabba• 9 years ago

But what about its effect on recruiting and retention? For most law firms those are both huge issues -- and in many cases much more important than the two factors you mentioned.

dibstern2• 9 years ago

ITT: Programmers / Sysadmins who are in an industry ideally suited for remote work.

Other industries are not so suited to this.

amyjess3• 9 years ago

On the contrary, industries that can be converted to a shift work model are also suited to this. Vox did a similar analysis to the NYT last year [0], and one thing they pointed out was that the wage gap among pharmacists nearly went away when pharmacies changed from being independent one-man shops to being part of large chains such as Walmart and CVS that hire pharmacists to work staggered shifts.

The Walmartization of professions results in higher wages for women.

[0] http://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12108126/gender-wage-gap-explain...

will_pseudonym• 9 years ago

Also, get more women into the military, oil refineries, etc.

drawnwren• 9 years ago

These jobs are the opposite of flexible schedules.

CptJamesCook6• 9 years ago

Don't forget about sanitation work.

CptJamesCook6• 9 years ago

As an average-looking man from an average family, if I want to attract a woman I need to be successful. The more successful I become, the higher quality of woman I can get.

For a woman, extra career success will not boost her attractiveness in the same way it will for me.

This is a huge incentive. If women don't have the same incentives to work hard as men, how can they achieve the same level of success?

beachstartup• 9 years ago

As an average-looking man from an average family, if I want to attract a woman I need to be successful. The more successful I become, the higher quality of woman I can get.

be careful with this line of thinking.

if all you're looking to do is attract a mate with all that money, you're better off investing that time into acting lessons, music lessons, and athletic training.

or you might find out the hard way that being a charismatic, guitar-playing tri-athlete is going to land you a higher quality and more loyal mate than $10 million in the bank ever will.

CptJamesCook6• 9 years ago

I think it's important to improve oneself in every way, including fitness, demonstrable skills like guitar, and interpersonal skills (charisma).

I wasn't stating that only success matters, just that it is an additional factor and this is motivational.

paulcole2• 9 years ago

This is all insane. So much so that I'm not sure it is serious. An "average family"? Do you live in The Great Gatsby?

If this is a serious comment, you really need to reexamine how you interact with and feel about women.

CptJamesCook6• 9 years ago

I've spent much of my life examining this, and I happen to believe this is the world we live in. Are you suggesting that women are not in any way attracted to success?

sheepmullet4• 9 years ago

This is all insane. So much so that I'm not sure it is serious.

The parents post is essentially arguing that women tend to find a different set of characteristics attractive than men do.

In particular monetary success in a partner matters more to women.

Can you post a serious counter-argument?

If you have research showing that women date down the income quartiles more often than men you could really add to the discussion.

Resorting to saying the parent has issues with women is not an acceptable level of discourse for HN.

projektir• 9 years ago

While I find such a view fairly gross, this is not very charitable. What is particularly insane about it? Troublesome, even wrong, doesn't make something insane. I've seen such a view stated many times. I hope we can do better than moralize, it just drives people with views like this further to the fringe.

dang2• 9 years ago

This amounts to trolling whether you meant it that way or not. Please don't start flamewars on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Also, it looks you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments (at least recently). That's not what we want here, and worse, it's actively destructive of what we do want—thoughtful discussions and intellectual curiosity. So please don't use HN like this.

DrDimension• 9 years ago

> Also, it looks you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments (at least recently).

We're all pretty sick of your badgering everyone with differing opinions, dang.

If you want a safe space insulated from intellectual diversity, try NeoGaf.

CptJamesCook6• 9 years ago

The idea that the gender pay gap could be caused by different incentive structures motivating men and women seems rather new, which is the rule for discussing flame-war causing topics.

Nevertheless, I will try to be more thoughtful with my comments.

swalsh• 9 years ago

You're not a father clearly, you clearly don't understand how a 2 working parents relationship work. I'd urge you to listen instead of trying to internalize the issue, and discounting the reporting on it.

In the real world daycare works on banker hours. Usually you have to get there when other people are starting work, and you have to get there usually when people are leaving work. If you're late, you'll be charged a not insignificant amount of money PER MINUTE. This matters a lot when you realize how much day care is (it costs literally more than my mortgage...).

Think of the impact on having on average an hour less "working hours" than your coworkers per day.... By the way, you're not going to be able to just make up the time when you get home.... you have a child to take care of when you get home.

This is not an incentives problem, this is a logistics issue.

sheepmullet4• 9 years ago

Is it solely or even mostly a logistics issue?

IMO, the software industry is one of the most flexible industries. I've had flexible hours ever since changing into IT more than a decade ago.

And yet we have a large gender imbalance.

amyjess3• 9 years ago

Vox did a similar article last year: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12108126/gender-wage-gap-explain...

I'm glad to see that more sources are coming to the same consensus on the subject.

whitemale• 9 years ago

http://www.chicksontheright.com/audi-accidentally-disproves-...

@Audi You pay your female employees less than males? You know that's against the law, right?
@TueborFrog When we account for all the various factors that go into pay, women at Audi are on par with their male counterparts.

I think that says it all.

Instead of worrying about wages, how about letting people do what they want and maybe fix the broken work culture that favours people who pretend to work hard?

How to Close a Gender Gap: Let Employees Control Their Schedules

Related Stories