The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness will be Dr. Donohue. Dr. DONOHUE. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to address you on the concerns of women in terms of employment. I feel the basic question that we are asking here today is should the Federal Government be involved or committed to improving the quality of life of its citizens. In terms of women, one of the ways that she can improve the quality of her life is through employment. Women now make up about 41 percent of the work force. They have increased since 1950 over 100 percent in the work force. In my report, I have documentation of the status of women in terms of statistics. I just want to point out that when women are employed, they get the lowest pay, the lowest status, and the most dead-end jobs. With the low status in jobs, their economic responsibility has increased over the years. Female heads of household have also increased over 100 percent. Women with increased economic responsibility and low pay are forced to live in poverty; it's the working poor or below the poverty level. If you look at the unemployment statistics for women, you see the inequality here also. I would like to add another variable of race. If you add race to sex, you further complicate the situation. Women earn 59 cents to every dollar that a man earns. Black women earn 54 cents. So in this situation, women are forced to live in poverty; 75-percent of those who live in poverty are women; 49 percent of all poor heads of households are women. What are women's options? One option is employment training. Another option is expansion of opportunities. A third option is increasing the status of women's work. And a fourth option is securing these opportunities. The Federal Government in the past has made a commitment to this in terms of CETA and affirmative action, WIN, and Women's Education Equity Act, to name a few-and my statement documents more. However, we have seen a change in this. Reaganomics are now reversing 50 years of social progress. They are condemning the poor and making them responsible for being poor, and condemning them to a life of misery. One of the most helpful programs for women has been the CETA program. In Philadelphia alone, with new jobs for women, Typing Your Way to Work, the technical opportunities program of the Institute for Learning, they vouch for a 75-percent placement rate of women into permanent employment. However, these programs are being proposed to be cut. The program which I run is a title II-D program. We are now functioning at a reduced rate, so the women in my program, as well as the men, are now supporting themselves and their families on about $40 a week. The lack of job opportunity plus financial opportunity is one way of documenting the effects of the cuts, especially with CETA. However, the other effects on the family, on the community, and on a person's self-esteem are hard to document, but very evident. What should the Federal Government do? I have a list of recommendations. I feel there should be a strong commitment to job training programs for women-to expand the educational opportunities for women. There must be a strong commitment to affirmative action-EEOC, and OFCCP. There must be support of other agencies which help women, such as the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education. There must be support of the Women's Bureau, which is a watchdog agency out of the Department of Labor for women's programs. And there must be support of community-based organizations which act as resources for women in terms of employment. I have outlined my report, and I go into further detail. Thank you for this opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Donohue. [The prepared statement of Kate T. Donohue follows:] TESTIMONY ON THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT ISSUES by Dr. Kate T. Donohue Representing: The Institute for Learning Philadelphia Affirmative Action Coalition Temple University June 15, 1981 Submitted Representative William Grey, III I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Institute for Learning, the Women and Work Coalition and The Philadelphia Affirmative Action Coalition to express my concerns about the role of our Federal government with regard to women's employment. The basic question that we are posing here today is, "should the Federal government be involved in improving its citizens quality of life." Quality of life is usually defined by one's relationship to family, community and work. I am here to talk about the quality of life as defined by employment for 51% of our citizens; wamen. The work force is becoming more and more the vehicle which defines a women's life; for she encompasses 41% of the work force. Since 1950, female participation in employmnet has increased by 141%, while the total work force has only increased by 62%. Even though wormen's participation in the work force has increased, her status has not improved. Hence, her quality of life has not improved. Most women are in dead end, low paying jobs: In 1954, the average The earnings of women have not improved at all. women earned $.64 for every dollar a male earned. Today a women averages only $.59. College educated women earn less on the average than male high school graduates. Translated into simple facts, women earn one third less (i.e., 33%) than men. As a women enters the work force, she can expect the lowest paying, lowest status and most dead end jobs. Ironically, female economic and familial responsibility has increased. During the 1970's female head's of household have increased over 100%. Page 2 Female heads' medium income was an unbelievable $8,540.00 as compared to their male counterparts who earned $15,730.00. Consequently, most women's quality of life will not be improved by employment. Most women will be less likely to secure an independent financial life. She may become one of the "working poor" and be forced to live with her parents, or in an apartment rather than her own home or more devastingly give up her children because of a dire economic situation. If we add another variable of race, the situation becomes more destitute. A Black female earns $.55 to a White women's $.59, while a White male earns $1.00. Hence, she may never raise above the poverty level. As Inequality becomes clearer when reviewing unemployment statistics. of March, 1981, unemployment among women was 7.7%, while Black women experienced 10.2% unemployment. However, as Professor Janice Madden, University of Pennsylvania has pointed out, unemployment and under employment among women workers tends to be grossly understated. Due to this inequality in employment, many women are forced to live as the working poor, below the poverty level. -Women made 75% of those who live in poverty. -Women head 49% of all poor families -Women comprise 85% of all single persons over So the quality of life for women is threatened because she is forced to live in poverty from childhood, through her years of employment to old age. The only realistic means to improve the quality of life of women is by improving her employment and economic status through (1) training and education to upgrade skills; (2) increasing employment opportunities; (3) increasing the status of her employment; and (4) providing safeguards to ensure her rights to these programs, and employment opportunities. |