|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 235
I ~2 Insdiudonal Factors Contributing to
Sex Segregation in the Workplace
PATRICIA A. ROOS and
BARBARA F. RESKIN
Researchers have frequently attempted to
explain sex segregation in the workplace by
invoking either workers' or employers' pref-
erences. In economic terms, the former em-
phasizes the characteristics and choices of
the labor supply; the latter claims gender
discrimination in the labor market. Re-
search guided by each perspective has shed
light on the causes of the unequal distri-
butions of the sexes across occupations, but
neither workers' nor employers' preferences
systematically assess how the organization
of labor markets and the way work is carried
out within establishments constrain the sexes'
occupational outcomes. As Granovetter (1981)
persuasively argued, to understand the op-
eration of the labor market, one must ex-
amine the processes through which jobs and
workers are matched. Scott (1981:186) di-
rects our attention to internal (or organi-
zationa[J processes and workplace mecha-
nisms that result in people being recruited,
allocated, and retained in particular jobs.
Their work and others (e. g., Kanter, 1977;
Kelley, 1981) focus on both formal ant] in-
formal processes existing within the work-
place that constrain the free operation of the
labor market.
235
The effect of informal processes on women's
employment prospects has been the topic of
much work in recent years (e.g., Epstein,
1970a, 1975; Coser and Rokoff, 1971; Kanter,
1977~. For example, women's exclusion from
or marginality in work groups, which often
extends into nonworking hours (Martin, 1980),
has been found to impair their performance
on the job (Kanter, 1977; Schafran, 19811.
Women may also lack access to necessary in-
formation or be overlooked by senior people
who could facilitate their career advancement
(Epstein, 1970a). Sometimes coworkers try to
sabotage women's entry into positions men
customarily hold by harassing them or refi~s-
ing to provide help or instruction (O'FarreJR
and Harlan, this volume). Such informal bar-
riers have been found to hamper women's
employment prospects in such diverse occu-
pations as blue-collar jobs (Walshok, 1981a;
Harlan and O'Farrell, 1982), police forces
(Martin, 1980), forestry (Enarson, 1980), con-
struction (U.S. Department of Labor, Em-
ployment Standards Administration, 1981), law
(Epstein, 1981), medicine (Freidson, 1970),
science (Reskin, 1978), and management
(Kanter, 19771.
In contrast to these informal processes,
OCR for page 236
236
PATRlClA A. ROOS AND BARBARA F. RESIGN
the segregative effects offormal barriers that
are institutionalized in labor markets and
firms' personnel practices have been inves-
tigated less thoroughly. The effects of these
institutional mechanisms constitute the fo-
cus of this paper. We define institutional-
ized factors as those that are either embed-
ded in or stem from the formal procedures
or rules of firms and other labor market en-
tities. These processes include recruitment
and job assignment practices, promotion
systems, administrative regulations regard-
ing job transfers, stipulations regarding par-
ticipation in training programs, and barriers
to information about certain labor market
opportunities. Some factors, such as senior-
ity systems, are by-products of administra-
tive procedures established for other pur-
poses. Others represent deliberate seg-
regative practices in keeping with laws no
longer on the books (as in the assignment of
men to "heavy" work and women to "light"
work; Bielby and Baron, this volume). In
this paper, we examine how these institu-
tionalized mechanisms within establish-
ments, and other organized entities in labor
markets such as unions and federally ad-
ministered training programs, contribute to
sex segregation by limiting the access of
workers of one sex to certain occupations
and channeling them into others. The em-
phasis in this paper is on institutionalized
barriers to women's employment in sex-
atypical jobs (e.g., construction and police
work). Of course, occupational sex segre-
gation is also maintained in part by insti-
tutional barriers limiting men's employment
in female-typical jobs (e.g., secretarial and
nursing) and mechanisms fostering both sexes'
employment in sex-typical occupations (e.g.,
women in clerical or librarian jobs and men
in engineering or firefighting work), and we
discuss these processes, albeit less exten-
sively. The barriers we consider occur at
four points: preemployment training, job ac-
cess and assignment, job mobility, and re-
tention.
Most of the mechanisms that affect access
to training, job assignment, and mobility oc-
cur within labor markets, and our discussion
considers relevant labor market theories. In
synthesizing these theories, we draw heav-
ily on Althauser and Kalleberg's (1981) con-
ceptual analysis of firms, occupations, and
labor market structure, although we deviate
from their nomenclature and distinctions to
highlight what is relevant for our purposes.
It is useful first to distinguish between ex-
ternal and internal labor markets. External
labor markets include traditional, competi-
tive markets through which employers fill
entry-level jobs on ladders and other jobs
that are not on ladders (including Althauser
and Kalleberg's "secondary labor market".
The entry-level and job assignment barriers
we identify occur in this market.
Internal labor markets, according to Alt-
hauser and Kalleberg (p. 130), have three
defining characteristics: a job ladder exists,
entrance is restricted to the lowest level,
and movement up the ladder is accom-
panied by the progressive acquisition of job-
related skills and knowledge. The barriers
to mobility we identify reside primarily in
firms' internal labor markets. Althauser and
Kalleberg distinguish "firm internal labor
markets" from "occupational internal labor
markets" and "occupational labor markets,"
the last of which lacks the internal labor
market characteristics described above. In-
dividuals in the latter two markets have spe-
cialized skills and knowledge, acquired
through extensive education or training ac-
companied by practice, which may culmi-
nate in licensing, certification, or registra-
tion. Although these occupational markets
may exist within firms, they often span sev-
eral enterprises, and mobility among firms
is common. Ibe occupational labor market
is relevant here because it is the locus of
institutionalized rules or policies restricting
access to training.
Institutional barriers to the retention of
workers in sex-atypical jobs tend not to be
located in labor markets as commonly con-
ceived but in the way that tasks are orga-
OCR for page 237
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SEX SEGREGATION
237
nized or in the informal organization of the
workplace. Finally, some constraints on the
sexes' free access to jobs operate outside
labor markets in other institutional arrange-
ments (examples include communication
networks and child care facilities). We should
note that these functions could be institu-
tionalized within labor markets (including
the workplace) to expand women's occupa-
tional options. (Kanter, 1977, offers some
useful strategies along these lines.)
We note at the outset that because the
practices we consider are institutionalized
their effect is net of employers' intentions
and workers' preferences. However, they
neither emerged nor exist in a vacuum, in-
depenclent of social or cultural factors that
define certain kinds of jobs as appropriate
for one sex only. Widely held, deep-seated
stereotypes about differences between the
sexes and assumptions about their proper
roles provide an often invisible foundation
for many of these organizational practices
and encourage sex"traditional" decisions bv
individuals in the labor market (Reskin and
Hartmann, 19841. In sum, these institution-
alized factors have a life of their own in terms
of their segregative consequences. How-
ever, they persist in part because they are
reinforced by sex-role norms and cultural
beliefs that shape the preferences of employ-
ers, workers, and consumers.
INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO JOB
TRAINING
For many occupations, workers acquire
the necessary skills on the job, and barriers
to training for women in sex-atypical jobs
reside primarily in the resistance of male
coworkers. However, many occupations that
exist in what Althauser and Kalleberg (1981:
134) call "occupational labor markets," re-
quire substantial preemployment training.
Here training has the same function as "port
of entry" positions in internal labor markets
in providing access to a job ladder. The
training that permits entry into occupational
labor markets is available in a variety of set-
tings. High schools offer some vocationally
specific classes, and other courses (for ex-
ample, on electronic equipment repair or
bartending) are available commercially to
anyone who can afford the tuition. The higher
education system selects and trains persons
for most professional occupations. Sex dis-
crimination in training, along with institu-
tional barriers that discourage women's par-
ticipation in "male" professions, has been
thoroughly addressed elsewhere (Epstein,
1970a,b; Theodore, 1971; Hochschild, 19751.i
In comparison, the effects of formal voca-
tional and technical training programs op-
erated individually or cooperatively by
unions, employers, and public agencies have
received less attention. Because such train-
ing is the route to and indeed is some-
times requisite for many predominantly
male occupations, we first consider insti-
tutional barriers in such training.
Apprenticeship Programs
Apprenticeship programs are an impor-
tant avenue for entry into skilled blue-collar
jobs, especially those in union-dominated
occupations and industries (since appren-
ticeship is often the simplest way to enter
a union; Briggs, 19811. These programs pro-
vide a formal mechanism whereby skilled
workers pass on - their knowledge to new
workers through classroom and on-thejob
training. Such programs are seldom avail-
able to women. Despite progress in the
number of occupations in which women are
now apprenticed (up from 17.5 percent in
1973 to 44.4 percent in 1977), in 1978 women
constituted only 2.6 percent of the more
than 250,000 apprentices registered with the
U.S. Department of Labor (UlIman and
~ We do not consider training that takes place in pub-
lic schools and institutions of higher education. For an
analysis of the impact of educational institutions on sex
segregation, see Marini and Brinton, in this volume.
OCR for page 238
238
PATRICIA A. ROOS AND BARBARA F. RE SKIN
Deaux, 19811.2 In addition to their small
numbers, women are located disproportion-
ately in certain apprenticeship categories:
they constituted 54 percent of the barber
and beautician apprentices in 1975 but only
6 percent of craft-worker apprentices
(O'Farrell, 1982) ancl 1.9 percent of con-
struction apprentices (Uliman and Deaux,
1981; Briggs, 1979:225-2261.
The presence of women is rare in ap-
prenticeship programs because they are less
likely than men to learn about openings, to
meet their requirements, and to be se-
lected. Information about apprenticeship
programs, usually transmitted by friends or
relatives (Sexton, 1977), outreach programs,
and publicity, is less likely to reach women
who seldom belong to the networks in which
such information is circulated (Waite and
Huclis, 1981~. Even in the female-domi-
nated occupation of hairdressing, Allison
(1976:390) found that women were less likely
than men to have semiinformal apprentice-
ships, which were associated with subse-
quent employment in better shops and at
higher wages. The few women who had been
apprentices had male relatives in the in-
dustry and thus presumably were better in-
formed about their availability anchor value.
Many labor-management agreements
stipulate that apprenticeship openings be
advertised only within the plant, where few
women have worked. Moreover, they may
be posted in areas inaccessible to women
employees such as men's restrooms (Briggs,
1974:131. When unions go outside the plant
to recruit, they might consult high school
industrial arts teachers, who are unlikely to
nominate female candidates since only a small
number of women take such courses.3
Often apprenticeship requirements are
harder for women to meet. The upper age
limit (as low as 24 to 27 in some trades) is
the most significant obstacle for women, given
the typical timing of child-bearing. Because
of their socialization, few young women even
consider skilled blue-collar work before they
have spent several years in sex-traditional
jobs, at which point economic exigencies often
force them to seek better-paying work (Kane
and Miller, 1981:90; Waite and Hudis, 1981;
Walshok, 1981a; O'Farrell, 19821.
Apprenticeship programs are geared to
young unmarried men who can sustain un-
paid work or low wages and the uncertainty
of immediate employment. These condi-
tions constitute particular obstacles for eco-
nomically disadvantaged women, who are
likely to have families to support. In the
construction trades, for example, high ap-
plication or union induction fees and the
long wait between application and accept-
ance are hardships for women with depend-
ents and may deter them from seeking ap-
prenticeships (U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment Standards Administration, 1981;
Walshok, 1981a).
Women who apply are at a disadvantage
in the selection process. Unions practice
nepotism or require sponsorship by a mem-
ber in awarding apprenticeships (Simmons
et al., 1975:119; U. S. Department of Labor,
Employment Standards Administration, 1981~.
In the construction industry, for example,
where unions often have absolute control
over the certification and supply of labor,
labor unions have been particularly resistant
to accommodating women. As a conse-
quence, women must generally rely on out-
reach agencies to place them in jobs or cer-
2 This figure is even smaller than the number of women
workers in craft jobs—in 1978, 5.6 percent of craft
workers were women (Ullman and Deaux, 1981~.
3 One recent study of New York City's vocational
education system found that of 21 job-kaining high
schools 12 were primarily male and 5 were primarily
female. The 5 predominantly female schools were train-
ing their students for traditionally lower-paid employ-
ment than the predominantly male schools. The study
cited sex-biased admission tests, guidance counselors
steering students to sex-typical fields, and male antag-
onism to female students in traditionally male fields as
the primary explanations for the large sex difference in
vocational training (New York Times, 1983~.
OCR for page 239
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SEX SEGREGATION
239
tification programs in the construction trades. cleveloped to acIdress the problems facing
For example, one study found that women women apprentices. Walshok (1981b) claimed
~ ' ' that "competency-basec3 testing" of appren-
tices in a pilot program at General Motors
offered apprentices feedback on expecta-
tions and performance, while reassuring
journeymen that standards had not been re-
cluced for women and minority apprentices.
Instituting placement services has also proved
essential for women, who often encounter
discrimination from employers (U.S. De-
partment of Labor, Employment Stanciarcis
Administration, 1981:33; Walshok, 1981a).
Preapprenticeship training in certain con-
struction programs enhances women ap-
prentices' chances for success. In abolition,
efforts to match female apprentices with
journeymen can reduce friction on the job
and thus contribute to more effective train-
ing (U.S. Department of Labor, Employ-
ment Standards Administration, 1981:571.
However, apprenticeship is not the pri-
mary entry channel into the tracles. Even
in the unionized sector, which represents
40 percent of the industrial work force, only
one-fifth of workers enter trades through ap-
prenticeship programs (U. S. Department of
Labor, Employment Standards Administra-
tion, 1981:231. We now turn to other paths
by which workers enter jobs.
who had not been apprentices were rifled
by family ties in gaining access to the con-
struction trades (U.S. Department of La-
bor, Employment Standards Administration,
1981:34, 411.
Another factor hampering women-e selec-
tion into apprenticeships is that they are
unlikely to have completed vocationally rel-
evant programs in high school and are often
unfamiliar with the tools, procedures, and
terminology used in blue-collar work. The
current unstable nature of the economy un-
doubtedly works against women being ac-
cepted in apprenticeship programs, since the
availability of apprenticeships declines with
rising unemployment (Briggs, 19791.4
The structure of apprenticeship programs
hinders women's ability to complete them
and find craft jobs. Many female apprentices
whom Walshok (1981b:177) interviewed
complained that they lacked the opportunity
for hands-on experience and that hostile
journeymen prevented their learning nec-
essary skills. Some (New York Times, 1982b)
argue that unions may provide "separate and
unequal" apprenticeship training for work-
ers who are not white males. One example
led the New York State Division of Human
Rights to find a construction union local guilty
of uniawfill discrimination for requiring non-
white apprentices to work more than twice
as long as whites to reach journeyman sta-
tus. Moreover, nonwhite trainees had ob-
solete textbooks and were denied a fifth year
of classroom training. Whether the same in-
adequate training also affects women's ap-
prenticeship experience requires investi-
gation.
Several experimental programs have been
4 O'Farrell and Harlan (this volume), for example,
found evidence that women are more likely to make
progress at integrating traditionally male employment
in rapidly expanding firms than in companies experi-
encing retrenchment.
Federal Job Training Programs
The federal government sponsors training
programs to provide an avenue for un-
skilled, economically disa(lvantaged work-
ers to move into more skillet] blue-collar
work. Recent investigations of the effects of
these federal programs on women (HarIan,
1980, 1981; Berryman and Chow, 1981; Wolf,
1981; U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1981;
Waite and Berryman, this volume) indicate
sex inequality in training, employment, oc-
cupational placement, and wages.
The Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act (CETA), enacted in 1975 and
amended in 1976 and 1978, is the largest
federal program designed to increase the
OCR for page 240
240
PATRICIA A. BOOS AND BARBARA F. RESK1N
employability and earnings of the disadvan-
taged (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
1981:28-291. As paraphrased by Wolf
(1981:87), the amended law recommends that
CETA sponsors:
. . . overcome sex stereotyping and artificial bar-
riers to employment . . . [presumably] by at-
tempting to (1) expose women to nontraditional
career options, and (2) overcome additional bar-
riers to the employment of women (such as child
care, transportation to work).
Despite the fact that the law requires prime
sponsors to include eligible groups equitably,
other regulations favor other groups such as
Vietnam veterans or youth (Wolf, 1981:109~.
As a result, in 1977 women were under-
represented in CETA programs relative to
their numbers in the eligible populations (Na-
tional Commission on Manpower Policy, as
cited in U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
1981:29~. More important here are the seg-
regative implications of their uneven partici-
pation in individual programs. For example,
women were less likely to be assigned public
service jobs or on-thejob Gaining (which more
often leads to unsubsidized jobs) and more
likely to be in classroom training usually
preparation for clerical jobs (HarIan, 1980; O'-
Neill and Braun, 1981:102; Wolf, 1981:941. In
fiscal year 1980, for example, 56 percent of
those in classroom training were female, com-
pared with 36 percent of those in on-thejob
training programs (Bendick, 1982:2591. In ad-
dition, while CETA women expressed in-
creasing interest in nontraditional jobs be-
tween 1976 and 1978, their placement in such
jobs dropped (Wolf, 1981:981.
Several features of federally sponsored
· . . ,
tram1ng programs 1mpec e women s access
to nontraditional jobs. First, these programs
put priority on quick, low-cost placement in
order to reduce welfare dependency, which
does little to ensure long-run financial in-
dependence. This emphasis on placing the
most"job-ready" individuals encourages
placing women in traditionally female em-
ployment.5 Second, CETA programs are
targeted to families rather than to individ-
uals and to the single person within the fam-
ily who has "primary" support responsibil-
ity. These features of the CETA legislation
hinder the participation of married women
because any man in the home is assumed to
bear the support obligations for the family
(HarIan, 1981:371. Third, veterans' prefer-
ence policies reduce women's participation
in CETA. Prior to 1978, this preference was
explicit: President Carter directed that 35
percent of those assigned to public service
employment be Vietnam veterans. Al-
though this directive was rescinded, some
claim the preference persists (Wolf,
1981:109~. Fourth, while the CETA author-
ization empowers prime sponsors to provide
support services (such as child care and
transportation costs) to those otherwise un-
able to participate, the standard in-program
evaluation of a high ratio of trainees to ex-
penditures discouraged sponsors from using
Finds in this way (U. S. Commission on Civil
Rights, 1981:30-32; Wolf, 19811.
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS ASSOCIATED
W1IH ACCESS TO SEX-TYPICAL AND
SEX-ATYPICAL JOBS
This section considers the institutional
factors affecting women's access to entry-
leve! jobs, particularly barriers to sex-atyp-
ical jobs. Typically these barriers reside in
external labor markets through which entry-
leve! positions are filled. They are of two
types: firm-based limitations for certain kinds
of jobs and restrictions on women's access
to certain occupational labor markets. Sev-
eral firm-based limitations restrict the sexes'
5 This problem affects all workers. Schiller (1980:197)
noted the general tendency of federally sponsored job-
training programs to "cream" the most job-ready pro-
gram applicants for job placement, thus enhancing pro-
gram success ratios at the expense of the most needy
job seekers.
OCR for page 241
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SEX SEGREGATION
241
access to sex-atypical entry-level jobs, in-
cluding employers' and workers' prefer-
ences and beliefs, entrance requirements,
and organizational practices regarding job
assignment. Except when they are institu-
tionalized in personnel practices, employ-
ers' discriminatory preferences fall outside
the scope of our essay. However, we men-
tion their manifestation in statistical dis-
crimination because of their special impor-
tance in excluding women from entry-level
positions. In employment, statistical dis-
crimination involves treating individuals
based on beliefs about group differences in
relevant characteristics (Phelps, 19721. With
respect to women it is most often manifest
in employers' reluctance to hire any woman
for jobs that require appreciable on-thejob
training, because they believe many young
women leave the labor force to have chil-
dren. As a result, newly hired females are
often assigned to low-skillecT dead-end jobs
(Grinker et al., 1970~. Because transferring
across internal labor markets is very diffi-
cult, if not impossible (see the next section),
statistical discrimination has long-lasting im-
plications for women's occupational out-
comes.
With regard to the second barrier, two
processes restrict the occupational labor
markets in which women can seek jobs. The
first we have already discussed—mecha-
nisms limiting their chance to train for cer-
tain occupations. Women also lack access to
selected labor markets because they have
insufficient information about their very ex-
istence. Few methods of job recruitment are
fully public; state employment services and
classified advertisements in mass circulation
newspapers are notable exceptions. Instead,
personal ties through which job seekers learn
of possible job opportunities and employers
of possible applicants are important in de-
termining who is hired at the entry level.
Below we show how sex-segregated per-
sonal networks foster sex-typed occupa-
tional outcomes. Because these mechanisms
diner for blue- and white-collar workers, we
discuss them separately.
Blue-Collar Workers
Access to Information Regarding Job
Opportunities Women are unlikely to learn
about predominantly male blue-collar jobs
for several reasons. First, the common as-
sumption that women are not interested in
craft employment is reflected in brochures
and publicity oriented toward men (Steven-
son, 1977; Briggs, 19811. Such materials
generate little response from women. In an
ingenious study to determine the impact of
such materials, Bem and Bem (1973) found
that sex-biased wording in job advertise-
ments and the placement of ads in sex-seg-
regated newspaper columns discouraged
women's interest in traditionally male jobs:
only 5 percent of the women surveyed ex-
pressed interest in linemen and framemen
jobs when they were written in sex-biased
language, but 25 percent were interested
when the language was sex-neutral, and 45
percent expressed interest when the ad was
written to appeal specifically to women.
Traditionally, blue-collar employees in the
crafts have been recruited from secondary
schools and through employee referrals,
methods unlikely to elicit female recruits
(Golladay and Wullsberg, 1981:781. To the
extent that employers rely on employee re-
ferrals, new recruits will tend to reproduce
the existing sex-segregated work force.6 This
is especially true in certain industries such
as construction, where referral and hiring
are often accomplished via nepotism and word
of mouth recruitment (U. S. Department of
Labor, Employment Standards Administra-
tion, 1981:22~.
6 Harkess (1980) found that employers often hold their
employees responsible for the job candidates they nom-
inate, so even unbiased workers may hesitate before
taking the risk of recommending someone whose sex
or race does not match the work group.
OCR for page 242
242
PATRICIA A. ROOS AND BARBARA F. RESK1N
Employers' reliance on traditional re-
cruitment techniques reflects their belief that
a homogeneous labor force will facilitate the
transfer of craft knowledge via on-thejob
training (Stevenson, 19771. Whether or not
they are right, the practice perpetuates sex
segregation. In general, to the extent that
the recruitment process involves parties who
hold sex-typed notions about who should
hold certain jobs- whether they be re-
cruiters, training program administrators,
current employees, or job seekers formal
mechanisms such as outreach programs are
necessary to ensure that women are trained
and recruited. As we noted with respect to
apprenticeship programs, information about
most typically male jobs is circulates] in all-
male info~al networks. For example, a 1966
study by Sheppard and Belitsky (as cited in
Folk, 1968) noted that 77 percent of the
blue-collar workers surveyed found their jobs
through friends ant} relatives. In our dis-
cussion of access to information about white-
colIar jobs (see below), we consider in more
detail the segregative implications of infor-
mal networks and review several empirical
studies.
Employers often claim that they cannot
comply with federally mandated affirmative
action requirements because the pool of el-
igible women is too small (U. S. Department
of Labor, Employment Standards Admin-
istration, 1981), while women interested in
nontraditional jobs contend that there are
too few openings to accommodate all those
seeking blue-collar employment (Westley,
1982~. Kane anal Miller (1981:88) argued that
both views are accurate: while the number
of women who want to participate in out-
reach programs and the number of employ-
ers requesting referrals have increased, the
resources for training have remained con-
stant. As a consequence, the supply of trained
women these programs are able to produce
is severely limited.
Special programs often succeed in placing
women in nontraditional jobs. For example,
40 percent of the women in nontraditional
blue-collar occupations whom Walshok
(1981a) interviewed had direct contact with
special recruitment and counseling agencies
that were specifically designed to link in-
terested women with job opportunities in
nontraditional fields. Almost none of these
women found their jobs through advertise-
ments. Thus, while men can be recruited
through existing recruitment channels,
placing women in heavily male jobs appears
to require specialized intermediary place-
ment agencies or other outreach efforts.7
Employer Practices Regarding Entrance
Requirements Several kinds of rules or re-
quirements employers impose restrict wom-
en's access to a variety of jobs. While insti-
tuted to help returning veterans, veterans'
preference rules also limit women's access
to several occupations that have been la-
beled mate. For example, 65 percent of the
government agencies surveyed gave some
form of preference to veterans in selecting
police officers, an occupation women have
had considerable difficulty entering (Eisen-
berg et al., 1974, as cited in Martin, 1980:47~.
By restricting competition, veterans' pref-
erence rules serve the latent function of re-
serving such occupations for men. Interest-
ingly, some states have exempted tradi-
tionally female occupations from veterans'
preference /~`Personne! Administration of
Massachusetts v. Feeney, 1979), so these
policies do not increase male access to tra-
ditionally female occupations. Despite their
segregative effect, the Supreme Court al-
lowed veterans' preference rules to stand in
its 1979 decision in Feeney.
For much ofthis century, protective labor
laws ruled out many occupations to women
and provided an excuse to employers who
7 See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment
Standards Administration (1981:32), for how this method
of recruitment operates in the construction industry.
OCR for page 243
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SEX SEGREGATION
243
did not want to hire women for other jobs.
Under the regulations interpreting Title VII
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, such laws can-
not be applied to only one sex. Recently,
however, employers in some industries (e.g.,
rubber, lead, metal, and chemical) have re-
fused to employ women of child-bearing age
in jobs that expose them to toxic substances
(e.g., lead, viny} chloride, carbon disulfide,
pesticides), rather than develop standards
that would protect both male and female
workers. Bell (1979) and Wright (1979)
pointed out that employers ignore toxic haz-
ards in traditionally female jobs (e.g., op-
erating room nurses' exposure to waste an-
aesthetic gases, beauticians' to hydrocarbon
hairspray propellants, flight attendants' to
above-average levels of radiation).
In Grigg v. Duke Power Company (1971),
the Supreme Court construed Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit job
requirements that disproportionately ex-
clude members of protected groups unless
they were demonstrably job related. This
ruling was applied in 1975 to strike down
the height and physical agility requirements
that barred nearly all women from being
police officers in San Francisco (Gates, 1976;
Martin, 1980:441. Reflecting the lag be-
tween court rulings and changes in prac-
tices, many police departments continue to
use height and agility requirements, with
the result that women are underrepresentec!
among those eligible to apply for positions
(Martin, 1980:471. A maximum-age restric-
tion for police recruits adversely affects
women's chances to become police officers
for the same reasons it limits their partici-
pation in apprenticeship programs.
Access to traditionally male jobs is also
impaired by what Newman (1976:272) char-
acterized as "sex bias in machinery design."
Because of sex differences in physical size,
some women may find it difficult to use ma-
chines designed for men. Similarly, ma-
chinery used in traditionally female em-
ployment (such as fine work requiring finger
dexterity) may inhibit men's employment.
Employers have sometimes claimed that the
cost of adapting machinery for women is
prohibitive. This problem is highlighted in
the military. In discussing the costs of rede-
signing special clothing and equipment to
accommodate the increasing the number of
women in the Armed Forces, Binkin and
Bach (1977:54) noted:
In particular, the assignment of women to tra-
ditionally-male occupations could require exten-
sive changes.... In a number of critical di-
mensions weight, stature, sitting height, . . .
the average woman measures significantly less
than the average man.8
Organizational Practices Regarding Job
Assignment In establishments with only a
few occupations, decisions regarding hiring
and job assignment may be one and the same.
However, for large establishments that are
continuously hiring for a variety of occu-
pations, it helps to examine separately the
factors associated with the kinds of jobs to
which workers are assigned the focus of
this section. Sex differences in initial job
assignments reflect sex stereotypes about
appropriate work roles for men and women.
Certain jobs have been historically sex typed
as male or female (Oppenheimer, 1968~. Sex
typing persists in part because men and
women learn to "prefer" jobs that society
deems appropriate for their sex. However,
the persistence of occupational sex segre-
gation cannot be reduced to sex differences
in employees' preferences. In the case of
initial job assignments, employers' organi-
8 In the same vein, military authorities have argued
that the number of women who can be assimilated into
the Armed Forces is limited by the cost of adapting
living and working facilities for their use. For example,
the Department of Navy has estimated that the total
cost for adapting all active Navy ships would range from
$96 to $132 million, depending on how many women
needed to be accommodated (Binkin and Bach, 1977:54~.
OCR for page 244
244
PATRICIA A. ROOS AND BARBARA F. RESlUN
national practices contribute to the perpet-
uation of sex segregation, and these insti-
tutional practices reflect, and are reinforced
by, societal norms.9
Based on their sex, workers are often as-
signed to so called light or heavy work. These
initial assignments are often due less to job
content than to stereotypical notions about
what kinds of work are compatible with fe-
male and male workers' alleged strengths
and weaknesses. For example, lifting one
heavy object a day has justified restricting
a job to males. Under Griggs (1971), Ala-
bama height and weight minima for prison
guards that excluded almost all women were
struck down (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 1977~. is
Formal policies assigning women to light
work would probably not survive legal chal-
lenge, but litigation—always expensive and
slow is not a viable option for many women.
Even women who are employed in such
nontraditional sectors as the military typi-
cally work in what are traditionally female
jobs outside the military. Considering how
this comes about is instructive. After the
1970 decision to end the draft, the U. S. De-
partment of Defense began to increase the
number of women in the Armed Forces.
Within four years, the proportion of women
had more than doubled to approximately 5
percent of all Armed Forces personnel
(Binkin and Bach, 1977:14~. Prior to 1972
only 35 percent of the military's occupa-
9 While certain jobs have been historically labeled
male or female, this does not mean that jobs never
change their sex type. Clerical jobs, for example, have
shifted from a male to a female sex type (filly and Scott,
1978:157), as has public school teaching (Tyack and
Strober, 1981~. Carter and Carter (1981) argued, with
respect to the professions at least, that this shifting of
sex types derives from the deskilling of occupations
and that women entering jobs previously identified as
men's employment move into the most routinized sec-
tors of these occupations.
A The Supreme Court, however, permitted the state
to deny women jobs as prison guards in male maximum-
security prisons where their safety was allegedly in
jeopardy.
tional specialties were open to women; cur-
rently, all but combat-related assignments
(about 42 percent of all enlisted positions in
the Armed Forces in 1977) are available to
women (p. 17. Although the percentage
of women working in male sex-typed mili-
tary specialties (e. g., infantry, electronic
equipment repair) increased from 9 percent
in 1972 to 40 percent in 1976 (p. 19), most
women in the military still work as medical
and dental specialists and administrative
specialists and clerks.
The U. S. General Accounting Once (1976)
identified three reasons for the persistence
of sex-segregated occupational assignments
in the military. First, women lack infor-
mation regarding the full range of job op-
portunities. For example, over half of the
female Army recruits interviewed in 1974
reported that their recruiters had not in-
formed them of various assignments for which
they were eligible (a comparable percentage
was not provided for men; p. 10~. Second,
many women reportedly preferred aclmin-
istrative or medical jobs, perhaps because
young women who choose military careers
may wish to avoid being doubly unusual in
selecting specialties with few or no women.
In addition, because military pay is deter-
mined by rank and time in service (and not
by occupation), women lack the financial in-
centive to pursue jobs that in civilian life
are both higher paying and held predomi-
nantly by men.
Third, and most important, women are
automatically excluded from both combat-
related occupational specialties and posi-
tions set aside for men who return to the
United States from male-only overseas and
sea-duty jobs (estimated to be another 9 per-
cent of all enlisted positions, yielding a total
ii The definition of combat-related occupations has
recently been broadened to include 23 additional mil-
itary occupational specialties. The U. S. Army currently
bars women from a total of 61 (or 17 percent) of its job
specialties (New York Times, 1982a).
OCR for page 245
lNSTlTUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SEX SEGREGATION
245
of 51 percent of positions not open to women;
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
1977:Table 111. i2 Each of the services has
additional restrictions on the entry of women
Mat further limit women's job options. Thus,
according to the U.S. General Accounting
Office report, while nearly all military oc-
cupational specialties were open to women,
once all restrictive factors were taken into
account, only 26 percent of all enlisted po-
sitions were available to them.~3 Not only
do these restrictions inhibit job access at the
entry level, but they also limit women's later
mobility, since combat and other male-only
jobs are the main route to upward mobility
in the military.
White-Collar Workers
Sex differences in access to information
and recruiting networks, entrance restric-
tions, and the allocation of men and women
to sex-typical entry-level jobs also contri-
bute to sex segregation among white-colIar
workers.
Access to Information and Recruitment
Networks Occupational sex segregation
persists in white-colIar jobs in part because
information networks are sex segregated.
i2 This total estimate varies by military service. In
1977 the percentage of all positions unavailable to women
because of a combat restriction was 50 percent in the
Army, 60 percent in the Navy, 7 percent in the Air
Force, and 73 percent in the Marine Corps (calculated
from Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
1977:Table 11~.
i3 This varies substantially by military service. In the
Army only 8 percent of all positions were available to
women, compared with 8, 76, and 5 percent for the
Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, respectively. The
greater proportion of open jobs in the Air Force was
due to the small number (7 percent) of all positions
that are classified as combat related (all figures calcu-
lated from Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
1977:Table 11~. These figures are from 1977. As noted
in note 11, the estimates for the Army will be reduced
with the new restriction in the number of specialties
open to women.
Granovetter (1974) explored the role of per-
sonal contacts in securing employment among
professional, technical, and managerial
workers. He concluded that the key to the
process by which a worker with certain char-
acteristics gets "matched" to a particular job
lies in large measure in the dynamic process
whereby job information flows through in-
formal personal networks. Those outside
networks (e.g., young labor force entrants,
recent immigrants) must rely on formal means
of finding employment, such as intermedi-
ary agencies. With respect to sex segrega-
tion, the questions of interest are whether
the sexes have equal access to personal net-
works, whether they are equally likely to
use them, and whether networks are equally
effective for women and men.
In howling most professional and mana-
gerial jobs, men enjoy personal and work
associations that facilitate learning of other
opportunities in those fields. Women, con-
centrated in clerical and service jobs, nor-
mally find themselves outside that network.
Instead they share information with same-
sex friends and coworkers. Thus, men's and
women's positions in the occupational struc-
ture themselves contribute to continued sex
segregation in occupational allocation. Sev-
eral network studies elucidate these sex dif-
ferences. Langiois (1977:Table 1) found, for
a small sample of government workers, that
men were slightly more likely than females
to secure their initial employment via per-
sonal contacts, while women more often ac-
quired their jobs through direct application.
Moreover, sex differences in the use of per-
sonal contacts were largest in the two oc-
cupational categories with the fewest women
(administrative workers and laborers/serv-
ice workers).
Ense! and Lin (1982:8) found that men
were more likely than females to have used
personal contacts in their initial employ-
ment search, whereas women were more
likely to have relied on formal job-search
methods. Interestingly, although each sex
relied predominantly on same-sex contacts
OCR for page 250
250
PATRICIA A. ROOS AND BARBARA F. RESK1N
women who transfer into traditionally male
jobs. i9
The Structuring of Opportunity: Other
Organizational Practices
O'Farrell's (1980) case study of a local union
in a large Northeastern industrial plant il-
lustrates ways other than seniority systems
that mobility opportunities are structured
for blue-collar jobs. Employment in O'Far-
rell's plant was highly segmented: of the two
company plants the union local represented,
the smaller plant was historically female
dominated, while the more modern plant
was male dominated. The two plants re-
mained sex segregated partly because jobs
were posted separately within each. Fur-
thermore, jobs that opened up when a worker
changed jobs within the plant were not posted
but instead were filled at the managers' dis-
cretion. Thus, workers were unaware of op-
portunities available in the other plant. Even
if they learned of transfer opportunities,
workers lacked cross-plant bidding rights.
Given the greater number of jobs in the
larger mostly male plant, the detrimental
effects of posting and bidding restrictions
fell primarily on the mostly female workers
at the smaller plant. Treating the two sex-
segregated plants as separate organizational
entities ensured the persistence of sex seg-
regation.
Recent studies of state civil service em-
ployment focused on structural barriers in
white-colIar jobs. Here researchers exam-
ined "career" or promotion ladders associ-
ated with particular entry-level jobs. Work-
ers in certain entry-level jobs were "on the
mobility track," while others had to shift
"tracks" to move up.
A case study of promotion under New York
State's civil service system by the New York
State Commission on Management and Pro-
ductivity in the Public Sector (1977) showed
how career ladders perpetuate sex segre-
gation. Women and minority workers, con-
centrated in the lowest-level jobs with short
career ladclers, had few advancement op-
portunities. Of the 43 different career lad-
ders, women generally fillet! the low-floor/
low-ceiling ladders, while men predomi-
nated in the higher, longer ladders (p. 30~.
In a similar study in four other New York
State agencies, Peterson-Hardt and PerI-
man (1979) fount] that in over 90 percent of
the career ladders, the incumbents were at
least 60 percent one sex.20 Moreover, in all
four agencies, female-dominated career lad-
ders began at lower entry levels and offered
fewer opportunities for advancement: fewer
than 14 percent ofthe female ladders ranged
into high civil service grades, compared with
31 to 41 percent of the male ladders, de-
pending on the agency (p. 57~. Not only
were women in New York State government
more likely than men to be on truncated
ladders in essentially dead-end jobs—but
their job ladders were also harder to climb
because the educational and experience re-
quirements for promotion were harder to
satisfy than in male-dominated career lad-
ders (p. 781. Smith's (1979) findings replicate
these results. In 13 job "chains" with at least
three steps, high-opportunity chains (de-
fined as those in which at least 15 percent
of the jobs were at or above the entry man-
~9 The Conference Board report also revealed that
plantwide seniority had not been successful in moving
women into higher-skilled blue-collar jobs in some
companies, where blue-collar women workers who had
accumulated enough seniority bid into clerical jobs where
they preferred to remain (Shaeffer and Lynton, 1979:70~.
Mobility may also have been limited by more informal
barriers, expected opposition from coworkers or work-
ers' sense of achievement at having escaped blue-collar
OrigInS.
20 Since women comprised about 45 percent of the
civil service work force in New York in 1977, the results
would have been more useful had the researchers set
a higher value to define sex-dominated jobs.
OCR for page 251
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SEX SEGREGATION
251
agerial level) were filled preclominantly by
men, while low-opportunity job chains were
held mainly by women.
Research currently under way at the Cen-
ter for Women in Government (Ratner, 1981;
Haignere et al., 1981) extends that of Peter-
son-Harcit ant! PerIman (1979) by investigat-
ing the differential impact of personnel prac-
tices on women's and minorities' prospects for
promotion to management positions. In New
York State government, promotion involves
several steps: setting criteria for eligibility to
compete for the promotion, a competitive ex-
amination, and selecting the successfi~! can-
diciate from the top three who pass the exam
(Ratner, 1981:3~. Eligibility is limited to em-
ployees in "feeder" jobs specifies] in the job
posting. Although women made up 53 per-
cent of all state employees in 1979, they con-
stituted only 12 percent ofthose in clesignatec]
feebler jobs for management positions. Fe-
male and male applicants for the New York
management jobs were equally likely to pass
the exam, ancI, when women got into the three-
person pool, their chances of being chosen
were good. However, the consequence of bas-
ing eligibility on a feeder system composed
of jobs held disproportionately by men was
that over 70 percent of the three-person pools
were all male. This system ensured that men
would hoist almost all managerial jobs which
was the case.
In less bureaucratized promotion sys-
tems, recommendations play a larger role
than the formal procedures we have de-
scribed above. This too can contribute to
sex segregation because female clerical jobs
are more likely than male jobs to provide
direct services to one's immediate super-
visor (a reflection of the institutionalization
of women in helper or assistant roles; Ep-
stein, 1976:1911. Because supervisors may
be reluctant to recommend very effective
assistants for promotion, relying on super-
visors' recommendations of canclidates for
promotion from clerical to managerial jobs
may undermine organizational efforts to
promote women (Kanter, 1977; Shaeffer and
Lynton, 19791.
Informal networks in the workplace also
differentially affect the sexes' mobility pros-
pects. Epstein (1970a,b, 1975, 1976) has
identified several informal mechanisms that
restrict women's mobility prospects: women
are likely to be less connected to commu-
nication networks, less involved in sponsor-
protege relationships, and less likely to have
access to the clublike relationships charac-
teristic of many of the professions. (While
Epstein concentrated on the professions, the
logic of her argument holds for blue-collar
occupations as well.) Kaufman (1978) found
that female professors (especially those who
were not married) hac! fewer males in their
collegial networks than did their male col-
leagues. Because men dominate the upper
levels of academe, women had less access
to those in authority positions. Contrary to
these results, Strober (1982:32) found no
significant sex differences in access to men-
torships for a sample of Stanforc! MBAs four
years after graduation. Strober's study and
that of Harlan and Weiss (1981) suggest that
more investigation is needed to provide a
(lef~nitive answer on the role of mentorship
in female and male mobility.
Some companies have restructured their
internal labor markets to increase women's
employment opportunities, partly in re-
sponse to federal enforcement efforts (Shaef-
fer and Lynton, 1979:34; O'Farrell and Har-
lan, this volume). Changes include devel-
oping strategies by employers, support groups,
and managers to make job openings known
to women and minorities; analyzing jobs to
retain only those qualifications that are truly
necessary; enacting safeguards against man-
agers' biases for fair evaluation of candidates;
and monitoring the promotion process. In
recognition of the fact that existing career lad-
ders curtail women's chances for mobility, some
firms have analyzed and revised job families
to create new career lines for women into
managerial positions.
OCR for page 252
252
PATRICIA A. ROOS AND BARBARA F. RESIGN
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS
ASSOCIATED WITH RETAINING
WORKERS IN SEX-ATYPICAL JOBS
This section focuses on institutionalized
features of the workplace that affect the re-
tention of workers employed in sex-atypical
jobs. Since most workers are in sex-typical
jobs, institutionalized factors that facilitate
the retention of workers in these jobs are
probably more important in maintaining sex
segregation. For example, the availability of
part-time clerical work enables women to
combine paid employment with child-rear-
ing, thus contributing to the highly segre-
gative character of clerical employment. The
compatibility of short working days and free
summers with child-rearing attracts moth-
ers to public school teaching. That these
same features are accompanied by smaller
salaries is likely to discourage the retention
of men. Many mechanisms that encourage
workers to remain in sex-typed jobs have
evolvecI hand in hand with the development
of these jobs and may have been influenced
by workers' sex. Unfortunately, space con-
straints preclude examining them here. Wig
respect to sex-atypical jobs, we note two
recent studies that show a considerable
amount of mobility by workers of both sexes
into and out of sex-atypical jobs: Rosenfeld
(this volume), and Jacobs (19831. Obviously,
segregation results from both entry barriers
to sex-atypical jobs and mechanisms that
discourage workers who hold such jobs from
remaining in them. We have considered some
of these factors in describing the mecha-
nisms associated with access to sex-atypical
jobs and will return only to those that affect
retention differently.
Recruitment Practices and Information
About Jobs
A recent study of women in nontraditional
jobs in 10 public utility companies sug-
gested that recruitment methods strongly
affect retention. Meyer and Lee (1978) in-
terviewed 164 women, and their supervi-
sors, peers, and subordinates, regarding the
effectiveness of special programs devised to
move women into nontraditional jobs. The
interviews suggested that informing female
applicants about the characteristics of jobs
for which they were applying reduced turn-
over. Nowhere is this more evident than in
the comparison of the typical experiences of
professional/managerial and blue-collar
workers. Women selected for professional
and managerial jobs usually underwent ex-
tensive screening, whereas program ad;min-
istrators often hac! to persuade blue-collar
women to apply for traditionally male jobs.
The dropout rate for women recruited for
blue-collar jobs in this manner was very high,
especially in jobs that required heavy phys-
ical labor or had undesirable working con-
ditions (p. 17~. Shaeffer and Lynton (1979)
also found that the more information firms
provided women entering traditionally male
blue-collar jobs, the higher the retention
rates. Particularly useful were clear descrip-
tions of job demands, slides, tours, oppor-
tunities to talk with workers (especially fe-
male workers), and a chance to try out various
aspects of the job. See O'Farrell and Harlan
(in this volume), for additional recruitment
practices found to be successful in retaining
women in nontraditional jobs.
Training
Training- both prior to beginning a non-
traditional job and on the job- may be the
most important (leterminant of retention.
The study of women in public utilities cited
above as well as two surveys of women in
construction stressed the value of special
pretraining for women entering traditionally
male blue-collar jobs (Meyer and Lee,
1978:18; U.S. Department of Labor, Em-
ployment Stan(larcis Administration, 1981;
Westley, 19821. By exposing women to the
tools and techniques with which most men
become familiar while young, pretraining
OCR for page 253
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO' SEX SEGREGATION
253
puts women on a more equal footing with
new male recruits (see O'Farrell and Harlan
in this volume for additional evidence on
this point).
Walshok's (1981a) interviews with women
in nontraditional blue-collar employment in-
dicated that unstructured on-thejob training
in which apprentices depend on a single jour-
neyman is problematic for women, since it
makes them vulnerable to their trainers' biases.
Some foam on-thejob training enhances the
chance that women wiD obtain necessary sobs.
But Walshok also stressed the importance of
hands-on experience during formal training.
Women whose preemployment training in
male occupations included actual work ex-
perience were more likely to find jobs, to
learn how to perform them well, and to suc-
ceed in them.
Organizational Mechanisms That
Influence Women's Retention in Sex-
Atypical Jobs
Certain organizational arrangements fa-
cilitate women's success in nontraditional
jobs. Of particular importance are commit-
ment by top management to improve wom-
en's employment opportunities (Shaeffer and
Lynton, 1979:21) and a full-time equal em-
ployment opportunity staff(Meyer and Lee,
1978:4~. O'Farrell (1980: 124) identified lack
of organizational support as an important
barrier to women's employment in nontra-
ditional work: missing at the industrial plant
she studied were any special recruitment
programs to inform women about the nature
and advantages of nontraditional jobs, tran-
sition programs to ease the shift into non-
traclitional employment, and support on the
job for women experiencing difficulty.
Other organizational practices, which
cannot be thoroughly examined here be-
cause of space constraints, foster or hinder
women's retention in sex-atypical jobs.
Pregnancy leave, opportunities for flextime
or part-time work, and child care can make
jobs more accessible to women, whereas re-
quired shift work, overtime, and extensive
travel may discourage women from staying
in certain jobs.
The Role of Unions While unions can
facilitate women's entry into nontraditional
employment, they can negatively affect
women's retention (O'Farrell, 1980; New-
man and Wilson, 1981; Steinberg and Cook,
1981~. Lack of female leadership may limit
the effectiveness of unions. Programs that
would enhance women's retention in jobs
(such as child care) are more expensive than
the bread-and-butter issues unions have tra-
ditionally addressed (Steinberg and Cook,
1981:631. Women as a group are only one
constituency of unions and, given their un-
derrepresentation in leadership positions,
not a particularly powerful or vocal one.
Without female leadership to press for such
programs, they are often bargained away in
negotiated agreements.
Lack of Standards for Entry Lack of
specified standards for job performance has
limited women's ability to perform on the
job and, hence, their retention in blue-col-
lar jobs. The U. S. General Accounting Of-
fice (1976) found that some women in tra-
ditionally male military jobs had been as-
signed to jobs for which they were not phys-
ically suited, and their lack of strength con-
tributed to their inability to complete re-
quirecI tasks. The report recommended that
the military services develop physical and
operational standards required for job per-
formance as well as measures of men's and
women's ability to satisfy established stand-
ards. Of course, the danger of instituting
such standards is that they may be used to
keep all women out of traditionally male
employment rather than to ensure that only
those men and women physically suited to
the job will be hired.
Seniority We considered seniority sys-
tems in some detail earlier in our discussion
of mobility. Here we simply stress that sen-
OCR for page 254
254
PATRICIA A. ROOS AND BARBARA F. RESK1N
iority systems organized for units smaller
than an entire plant have predictable neg-
ative consequences for women's retention.
Department or job sequence systems ren-
der women who transfer to mate jobs in dif-
ferent seniority units vulnerable to layoffs
in an economic downturn. Steinberg and
Cook (1981:68) noted that seniority systems
also inhibit women's retention by reducing
the likelihood that work-sharing systems
might be implemented as an alternative to
layoffs. When narrowly structured seniority
systems are used to determine shift assign-
ments and overtime allocation, as in the steel
industry, women with low seniority who are
assigned to night shifts or required to work
overtime may have to quit if they cannot
arrange adequate child care (Walshok, 1981a).
Seniority systems that guarantee bumping
rights in the case of layoffs including the
right to bump back into sex-traditional jobs
they left- may facilitate women's willing-
ness to enter and their retention in sex-atyp-
ical employment. Not only are their jobs
more secure in the event of an economic
downturn, but women gain expertise in more
jobs in the plant, thereby enhancing their
future job prospects.
Organization of Work and the Workplace
When only a few women work in a group
and male coworkers are not supportive, the
amount of interdependence necessary to ac-
complish a task is important. Some of the
women Walshok (1981a) interviewed indi-
cated that male coworkers' unwillingness to
work with them on multiperson tasks ham-
pered their ability to complete their own
job duties and ultimately discouraged them.
Although the resistance of male coworkers
is not an "institutionalized" barrier, it comes
2} Of course, newly hired women from the outside
will also lack seniority regardless of the structure of the
seniority system. For them it is seniority per se and
not the type of seniority that threatens their retention.
into play when work is organized such that
women's ability to do their jobs depends on
male cooperation. By assigning women jobs
they can do alone or by providing female
work partners, organizations can retain
women working in nontraditional jobs
(Shaeffer and Lynton, 1979; Walshok,
1981a).22
Some intrinsic aspects of the work itself,
the tools, and the typical division of labor
also influence the success and retention of
women working in nontraditional blue-col-
lar jobs. With training, women can learn
how to use unfamiliar tools, but, as we noted
above, equipment and too] design may oc-
casionally interfere with successful job per-
formance. Pioneers in nontraditional jobs
have found it difficult to obtain proper work
clothes (Business Week, 1978:901. At AT&T,
for example, the higher accident rate of
women in out(loor jobs spurred the com-
pany to introduce lighter-weight and more
mobile equipment. Bales and White (1981)
of the Coal Employment Project found that
over ore-half of their sample of women min-
ers feared for their safety because of im-
properly fitting protective equipment. Boots
and hard hats were too large, and oversized
gloves got stuck in moving machinery.
Studies of women in forestry, mining,
construction, and other outdoor jobs (En-
arson, 1980; Bales and White, 1981; U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment Stand-
ards Administration, 1981; Walshok, 1981a)
have pointed out the very real problem that
access to adequate sanitary facilities pre-
sents. The absence of such facilities for
22 Blalock (1962) has argued that minorities will en-
counter less discrimination in occupations with a high
division of labor, where the group output depends on
each worker's performance. There is some evidence
that this may also be true in science (Hagstrom, 1965).
This should hold for women in nontraditional jobs in-
sofar as their jobs are necessary to complete a group
product and no male can substitute for them, but prob-
ably neither condition holds very often in most blue-
collar settings where several workers do the same job.
OCR for page 255
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SEX SEGREGATION
255
women exposes them to health risks and
sexual harassment (see Enarson, 1980; and
White et al., 1981~. While costly (BethIe-
hem Steel spent over $10 million to outfit
its mills, shipyards, and mines with wom-
en's lockers, restrooms, and showers over a
5-year period; Business Week, 1978:90), these
facilities are essential for making tradition-
ally male blue-collar jobs accessible to many
women.
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS OUTSIDE THE
WORKPLACE
The focus of this paper is on institution-
alized factors that exist within the work-
place. However, many factors outside the
workplace affect women's occupational and
advancement prospects indirectly by affect-
ing their labor force participation.
The lack of adequate child care affects
women's access to and retention in jobs. The
recognition that inadequate child care con-
stitutes a barrier to women's employment is
recent, at least among lawmakers. Not until
1978 did Congress, in an amendment to Ti-
tIe VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, 1981:5), spe-
cifically recognize that women's childbear-
ing role constrained their educational and
employment opportunities. Inadequate child
care affects women's employment options in
several ways: (1) by limiting their entry into
the labor force; (2) by restricting their par-
ticipation in federally sponsored education
and training programs; (3) by reducing the
amount of time they can devote to their jobs
and encouraging their retention in part-time
jobs; (4) by restricting their ability to work
certain shifts; (5) by preventing them from
being able to take advantage of training for
more demanding jobs for which they are
qualified; and (6) by constraining their par-
ticipation in jobs that require traveling. It
probably also contributes to women's lesser
participation in union activities and ulti-
mately union leadership.
Surveys have indicated how inadequate
child care arrangements limit women's em-
ployment prospects. Shortlidge (as cited in
U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1981:10)
estimated that approximately 20 percent of
currently nonemployed women do not work
because of unsatisfactory child care arrange-
ments. Presser and Baldwin (1980) reported
a similar figure: 17 percent of nonemployed
women would look for work if satisfactory
child care were available and 16 percent of
currently employed women would work more
hours given suitable and reasonably priced
child care.
It has been suggested that inadequate child
care may contribute to higher accident rates
among women assembly line workers. Cuth-
bertson (as cited in U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, 1981:12) suggested that stress
is a significant factor in industrial accidents,
and worry about inadequate child care may
contribute to stress. However, more re-
search is needed before we can accept this
contention.
Federal laws contribute to sex segregation
by affecting women's labor force participa-
tion. Income tax laws discourage secondary
family earners usually women- from
entering the labor force, since additional
earnings are taxed at a progressively steeper
rate (Blumberg, 1979; Gordon, 1979a).23 So-
cial security laws have a similar effect, since
dual-earner families get a lower return to
their social security investment than do sin-
gle-earner couples, and married women are
often entitled to higher benefits as their hus-
bands' dependents than as retired workers
in their own right (Blumberg, 1979; Gor-
don, 1979b). The federal policies underlying
these laws discourage women's continuous
labor force attachment, which in turn has a
strong negative impact on their access to
high-wage employment and mobility op-
portunities.
23 The effect of income tax laws has recently (tax year
1982) been ameliorated by a special tax deduction de-
signed to reduce the so-called marriage penalty.
OCR for page 256
256
PATRICIA A. ROOS AND BARBARA F. RESIGN
Finally, economic factors also reduce
women's opportunity to go into business for
themselves. One barrier to entrepreneur-
ship among women is difficulty in obtaining
financing. Financial institutions prefer to
support larger and less risky enterprises, and
women are prone to start small businesses
in low-profit, labor-intensive industries (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1978:51.
CONCLUSION
This paper reviews workplace mecha-
nisms that act as barriers to women's em-
ployment in traditionally male jobs. These
mechanisms, institutionalized in the labor
market and in firms' personnel practices, are
less well understood and less studied than
those factors more often cited as explana-
tions for occupational sex segregation: char-
acteristics and choices of the labor supply,
on the one hand, and gender discrimination
by employers, on the other. Using internal
labor market theory as our theoretical
framework, we argue that such workplace
mechanisms act as barriers to women's em-
ployment prospects at four points in the job
allocation process: preemployment training,
access and assignment to jobs, mobility, and
retention.
Investigating barriers to women's job op-
portunities that are institutionalized in the
labor market and the organization of work
is valuable in identifying useful areas for fu-
ture inquiry and essential for developing in-
tervention strategies. Empirical studies that
document sex differences in access to em-
ployment information, the allocation of the
sexes to "sex-appropriate" employment, the
sexes' differential location in job clusters,
barriers to women's access to entry-level po-
sitions on high-prestige job ladclers, and so
forth will help us better understand how
internal labor markets operate and how they
might be modified to work to women's arl-
vantage. Our analysis also suggests the kinds
of organizational changes that might recluce
segregation. As the paper by O'Farrell and
Harlan (in this volume) shows, many of the
mechanisms that we identify as barriers have
been manipulates] by organizations attempt-
ing to improve women's employment op-
portunities. What remains to be explored
more fully is what functions these institu-
tional mechanisms serve within organiza-
tions and labor markets and for whom.
Edwards (1975, as cited in Tolbert, 1982)
noted that when bureaucratic control
emerged in labor markets at the beginning
of the century, large firms could no longer
personally manage employees. In response,
they instituted administrative regulations
regarding qualifications for employment,
wages, criteria for promotion, and so forth.
In unionized industries, many of these pro-
cedures became union as well as company
policy. At that time, the exclusionary im-
plications for women of bureaucratic pro-
cedures were not viewed as problematic in
light of prevailing social values. By the time
law and social opinions challenged their dis-
criminatory effects, resistance to modifying
long-established personnel procedures would
be expected from those with a stake in their
administration. For example, seniority sys-
tems ant] other job ladders that structure
promotion opportunities are economically
advantageous to both employers and work-
ers well positioned in firms' internal labor
markets. Fuller analysis of other functions
these segregative mechanisms fulfill is nec-
essary to devise nondiscriminatory alterna-
tives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was supported in part by a
UAP Faculty Research Fellowship and Grant-
in-Aid (#431-7531-A), 1982 from the State
University of New York at Stony Brook. We
would like to thank the following people for
their helpful comments on earlier versions:
Lee Clarke, Carolyn Ellis, Cynthia Epstein,
Mery} FingrutU, Arne Kalleberg, Maryellen
OCR for page 257
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SEX SEGREGATION
257
Kelley, Edward Royce, Jo Shuchat, Robert
Smith, Glenn Yago, and members of the
Sociology Workshop at SUNY, Stony Brook.
REFERENCES
Allison, Elizabeth K.
1976 "Sex-linked earnings differentials in the beauty
industry." Journal of Human Resources 11
(Summer):383-90.
Althauser, Robert P., and Arne L. Kalleberg
1981 "Firms, occupations, and the structure of labor
markets: a conceptual analysis." Pp. 119-49 in
Ivar Berg (ed.), Sociological Perspectives on
Labor Markets. New York: Academic Press.
Bales, Jeanne, and Connie White
1981 "Personal protective equipment in the mining
industry: a survey of women miners." Unpub-
lished paper, Coal Employment Project, Oak
Ridge, Tenn.
Bell, Carolyn
1979 "Implementing safety and health regulations
for women in the workplace." Feminist Studies
5(Summer):286-301.
Bem, Sandra L., and Daryl J. Bem
1973 "Does sex-biased job advertising 'aid and abet'
sex discrimination." Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 341~:6-18.
Bendick, Marc
1982 "Employment, training, and economic devel-
opment." Pp. 247-69 in John L. Palmer and
Isabel V. Sawhill (eds.), The Reagan Experi-
ment: An Examination of Economic and Social
Policies Under the Reagan Administration.
Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Berryman, Sue E., and Winston K. Chow
1981 CETA: Is It Equitable for Women? Rand Note,
N-1683-NCEP. Santa Monica: The Rand Corp.
Binkin, Martin, and Shirley J. Bach
1977 Women and the Military. Washington, D.C.:
The Brookings Institution.
Blalock, Hubert M.
1962 "Occupational discrimination: some theoreti-
cal propositions." Social Problems 9(Win-
ter):240-47.
Blumberg, Grace G.
1979 "Federal income tax and social security law."
In Ann Foote Cahn (ed.), Women in the U. S.
Labor Force. New York: Praeger.
Briggs, Norma
1974 Women in Apprenticeship Why Not? Man-
power Research Monograph, No. 33. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Of-
fice.
1979 "Apprenticeship." Pp. 225-33 in Ann Foote
Cahn (ed.), Women in the U.S. Labor Force.
New York: Praeger.
1981 "Overcoming barriers to successful entry and
retention of women in traditionally male skilled
blue-collar trades in Wisconsin." Pp. 106-31 in
Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., and Felician Foltman
(eds.), Apprenticeship Research: Emerging
Findings and Future Trends. Ithaca, N.Y.: New
York State School of Industrial Relations.
Business Week
1978 "The hardships that blue-collar women face."
Vol. 87, August 14, 88-90.
Caplette, Michele K.
1981 Women in Book Publishing: A Study of Ca-
reers and Organizations. Ph.D. dissertation,
State University of New York, Stony Brook.
Carter, Michael J., and Susan Boslego Carter
1981 "Women's recent progress in the professions
or, women get a ticket to ride after the gravy
train has left the station." Feminist Studies
7(Fall):477-504.
Coser, Rose L., and Gerald Rokoff
1971 "Women in the occupational world: social dis-
ruption and conflict." Social Problems
18(Spring):535-54.
Dubeck, Paula J.
1979 "Sexism in recruiting management personnel
for a manufacturing firm." Pp. 88-99 in Rodolfo
Alvarez, Kenneth G. Lutterman, and Associ-
ates (eds.), Discrimination in Organizations.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Enarson, Elaine
1980 "Sexual relations of production: women in the
U.S. Forest Service." Paper presented at the
annual meetings of the Pacific Sociological As-
sociation.
Ensel, Walter M., and Nan Lin
1982 "Social resources and strength of ties: gender
differences in status attainment." Paper pre-
sented at the annual meetings of the American
Sociological Association, Toronto, August 1981.
Epstein, Cynthia F.
1970a Woman's Place: Options and Limits in Profes-
sional Careers. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
1970b "Encountering the male establishment: sex-
status limits on women's careers in the profes-
sions." American Journal of Sociology 75~2~:965
82.
1975 "Institutional barriers: what keeps women out
of the executive suite?" Pp. 7-21 in Francine
E. Gordon and Myra H. Strober (eds.), Bring-
ing Women Into Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
1976 "Sex role stereotyping, occupations and social
exchange." Women's Studies 3:185-94.
Women in Law. New York: Basic Books.
1981
Folk, Hugh
1968 "The problem of youth unemployment." Pp.
76-107 in Princeton Manpower Symposium,
The Transition From School to Work. Prince-
ton, N.J.: Industrial Relations Section, Prince-
ton University.
OCR for page 258
258
Freidson, Eliot
1970 Profession of Medicine. New York: Harper &
Row.
Gates, Margaret
1976 "Occupational segregation and the law." Signs
1:3(Part 2, Spring):335-41.
Golladay, Mary A., and Rolf M. Wultsberg
1981 The Condition of Vocational Education. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Of-
fice.
Gordon, Nancy M.
1979a "Institutional responses: the federal income tax
system." Pp. 201-21 in Ralph E. Smith (ed.),
The Subtle Revolution: Women at Work.
Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute Press.
1979b "Institutions responses: the social security
system." Pp. 223-55 in Ralph E. Smith (ed.),
The Subtle Revolution: Women at Work.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Granovetter, Mark S.
1974 Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Ca-
reers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
1981 "Toward a sociological theory of income dif-
ferences." Pp. 11-47 in Ivar Berg (ed.), Soci-
ological Perspectives on Labor Markets. New
York: Academic Press.
Grinker, William J., Donald D. Cooke, and Arthur W.
Kirsch.
1970 Climbing the Job Ladder: A Study of Em-
ployee Advancement in Eleven Industries. New Kelley, Maryellen R.
York: E. F. Shelley and Co.
Hagstrom, W. O.
1965 The Scientific Community. New York: Basic
Books.
Haignere, Lois V., Cynthia H. Chertos, and Ronnie J.
Steinberg
1981 "Managerial promotions in the public sector:
the impact of eligibility requirements on women
and minorities." Albany: Center for Women in
Government, State University of New York.
Harkess, Shirley
1980 "Hiring women and blacks in entry-level man-
ufacturing jobs in a southern city: particularism
and affirmative action." Paper presented at the
annual meetings of the Society for the Study
of Social Problems, New York.
Harlan, Sharon L.
1980 "Sex differences in access to federal employ-
ment and training resources under CETA: an
overview." Working Paper No. 58, Center for
Research on Women, Wellesley College,
Wellesley, Mass.
1981 "The social context of employment choice:
women in CETA." New England Sociologist
3~1~:3245.
Harlan, Sharon L., and Brigid O'Farrell
1982 "After the pioneers: prospects for women in
nontraditional blue collar jobs." Work and Oc-
cupations 9(August):363-86.
PATRICIA A. BOOS AND BARBARA F. RE SKIN
Harlan, Anne, and Carol Weiss
1981 Moving Up: Women in Managerial Careers.
Final report. Working Paper No. 86, Center
for Research on Women, Wellesley College,
Wellesley, Mass.
Hennig, M., and A. Jardim
1977 The Managerial Woman. New York: Anchor
Press.
Hochschild, Arlie R
1975 "Inside the clockwork of male careers." Pp. 47-
80 in Florence Howe (ed.), Women and the
Power to Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jacobs, Jerry
1983 The Sex Segregation of Occupations and Wom-
en's Career Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, Har-
vard University.
Kane, Roslyn D., and Jill Miller
1981 "Women and apprenticeship: a study of pro-
grams designed to facilitate women's partici-
pation in the skilled trades." Pp. 83-105 in Ver-
non M. Briggs, Jr., and Felician Foltman (eds.),
Apprenticeship Research: Emerging Findings
and Future Trends. Ithaca, N.Y.: New York
State School of Industrial Relations.
Kanter, Rosabeth M.
1977 Men and Women of the Corporation. New York:
Harper & Row.
KauEman, Debra R.
1978 "Associational ties in academe: some male and
female differences." Sex Roles 4:9-21.
1981 "Legal and empirical issues in determining when
seniority systems discriminate." Unpublished
paper. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Langlois, Simon
1977 "Les reseaux personnels et la diffusion des in-
formations sur les emplois." Recherches So-
ciographiques 2:213-45.
Martin, Susan E.
1980 Breaking and Entering: Policewomen on Pa-
trol. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meyer, Herbert H., and Mary Dean Lee
1978 Women in Traditionally Male Jobs: The Ex-
periences of Ten Public Utility Companies.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
New York State Commission on Management and Pro-
ductivity in the Public Sector
1977 Job Promotion Under New York State's Civil
Service System: A Case Study of the Office of
General Services. New York: Commission on
Management and Productivity in the Public
Sector.
New York Times
1982a "Army to enlist more women but in limited
job categories." August 29.
1982b "Labor's enemy: labor." September 5.
1983 "Desex schooling for jobs." March 9.
OCR for page 259
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SEX SEGREGATION 259
Newman, Winn
1976 "Combatting occupational segregation: pres-
entation III." Pp. 265-72 in Martha Blaxall and
Barbara Reagan (eds.), Women and the Work-
place: The Implications of Occupational Seg-
regation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Newman, Winn, and Carole W. Wilson
1981 "The union role in affirmative action." Labor
Law Journal (June):323-42.
Newsweek
1982a "Did Bill and Mary blunder?" October 11:94.
1982b "Hiring spouses." November 29:6.
O'Farrell, Brigid
1980 "Women and nontraditional blue collar jobs: a
case study of local I." Report prepared for the
Employment and Training Administration, U. S. Scott, W. Richard
Department of Labor.
1982 "Women and nontraditional blue collar jobs in
the ~1980s: an overview." Pp. 135-65 in Phyllis
A. Wallace (ed.), Women in the Workplace.
Boston, Mass.: Auburn.
Perrow, Charles Smith,
1979 Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, 2d 1982
ed. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Co.
Peterson-Hardt, Sandra, and Nancy D. Perlman
1979 "Sex segregated career ladders in New York
state government: a structural analysis of ine-
quality in employment." Albany: Center for
Women in Government, State University of
New York, Albany.
Phelps, Edmund S.
1972 "The statistical theory of racism and sexism."
American Economic Review 62 (Septem-
ber):659-66.
Presser, Harriet B., and Wendy Baldwin
1980 "Child care as a constraint on employment:
prevalence, correlates, and bearing on the work
and fertility nexus." American Journal of So-
ciology 85(March):1202-13.
Ratner, Ronnie Steinberg
1981 "Barriers to advancement: promotion of women
and minorities into managerial positions in New
York state government." Albany: Center for
Women in Government, State University of
New York, Albany.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
1977 Use of Women in the Military. Washington,
D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary of De-
fense.
O'Neill, June, and Rachel Braun
1981 "Women and the labor market: a survey of
issues and policies in the United States."
Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Oppenheimer, Valerie K.
1968 "The sex-labeling of jobs. " Industrial Relations
7(May):219-34.
Osterman, Paul
1979 "Sex discrimination in professional employ-
ment: a case study." Industrial and Labor Re-
lations Review 32 Quly):451-64.
Reskin, Barbara F.
1978 "Sex differentiation in the social organization
of science." Sociological Inquiry 48~3/4~:6-36.
Reskin, Barbara F., and Heidi I. Hartmann (eds.)
1984 Women's Work, Men's Work: Sex Segregation
on the Job. Washington, D. C.: National Acad-
emy Press.
Schafran, Lynn Hecht
1981 Removing Financial Support From Private
Clubs That Discriminate Against Women. New
York: Women and Foundations Corporate Phi-
lanthropy.
Schiller, Bradley R.
1980 The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination,
3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
1981 Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open
Systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prenffce-Hall.
Sexton, Patricia C.
1977 Women and Work. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Shaeffer, Ruth Gilbert, and Edith F. Lynton
1979 Corporate Experiences in Improving Women's
Job Opportunities. Report No. 755. New York:
The Conference Board.
Simmons, Adele, Ann Freedman, Margaret Dunkle,
and Francine Blau
1975 Exploitation From Nine to Five. Report of the
Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Women
and Employment. Lexington, Mass.: Lexing-
ton Books.
Smith, Catherine Begnoche
1979 "Influence of internal opportunity structure and
sex of worker on turnover patterns." Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly 24(September):362-
81.
Howard L., and Mary Grenier
"Sources of organizational power for women:
overcoming structural obstacles." Sex Roles
8:733-46.
Steinberg, Ronnie, and Alice Cook
1981 "Women, unions, and equal employment op-
portunity." Working Paper 3, Center for
Women in Government, State University of
New York, Albany.
Stevenson, Mary H.
1977 "Internal labor markets and the employment
of women in complex organizations." Center
for Research on Women, Wellesley College,
Wellesley, Mass.
Strober, Myra
1982 '1he MBA: same passport to success for women
and men?" Pp. 25-44 in Phyllis A. Wallace
(ed.), Women in the Workplace. Boston, Mass.:
Auburn.
Theodore, Athena
1971 The Professional Woman. Cambridge, Mass.:
Schenkman.
Tilly, Louise A., and Joan W. Scott
1978 Women, Work, and Family. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
OCR for page 260
260
PATRICIA A. ROOS AND BARBARA F. RE SKIN
Tolbert, Charles M., Jr.
1982 "Industrial segmentation and men's career mo-
bility." American Sociological Review
47(August):457-77.
Tyack, David B., and Myra H. Strober
1981 "Jobs and gender: a history of the structuring
of educational employment by sex." Pp. 131-
52 in Patricia Schmuck and W. W. Charters
feds.), Educational Policy and Management:
Sex Differentials. New York: Academic Press.
Ullman, Joseph C., and Kay K. Deaux
1981 "Recent efforts to increase female participation
in apprenticeships in the basic steel industry
in the midwest." Pp. 133-49 in Vernon M.
Briggs, Jr., and Felician Foltman (eds.), Ap-
prenticeship Research: Emerging Findings and
Future Trends. Ithaca, N.Y.: New York State
School of Industrial Relations.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
1981 Child Care and Equal Opportunity for Women.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary
1978 The Bottom Line: Unequal Enterprise in
America. Report of the President's Inter-
agency Task Force on Women Business Own-
ers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Commerce.
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration
1981 Participation of Females in Construction Trades.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of La-
bor, Employment Standards Administration.
U.S. General Accounting Office
1976 Job Opportunities for Women in the Military:
Progress and Problems. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
General Accounting Office.
Waite, Linda J., and Paula M. Hudis
1981 "The development and maintenance of a seg-
regated labor force: review, synthesis, critique
of recent research." Prepared for the National
Commission for Employment Policy, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Walshok, Mary L.
1981a Blue-Collar Women: Pioneers on the Male
Frontier. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor.
1981b "Some innovations in industrial apprenticeship
at General Motors: locally developed compe-
tency-based training as a tool for affirmative
action." Pp. 174-82 in Vernon M. Briggs, Jr.,
and Felician Foltman (eds.), Apprenticeship
Research: Emerging Findings and Future
Trends. Ithaca, N.Y.: New York State School
of Industrial Relations.
Westley, Laurie A.
1982 A Territorial Issue: A Study of Women in the
Construction Trades. Washington, D.C.: Wider
Opportunities for Women.
White, Connie, Barbara Angle, and Marat Moore
1981 "Sexual harassment in the coal industry: a sur-
vey of women miners." Unpublished paper,
Coal Employment Project, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Wolf, Wendy C.
1981 "The experience of women in federally spon-
sored employment and training programs." Pp.
87-130 in National Commission for Employ-
ment Policy (ed.), Increasing the Earnings of
Disadvantaged Women. Washington, D.C.:
National Commission for Employment Policy.
Wright, Michael J.
1979 "Reproductive hazards and 'protective' dis-
crimination." Feminist Studies 5 (Sum-
mer):302-9.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
labor markets
