Page 8


Why women complain Double Standard: Men’s Wages Much Higher Than Women’s National Averages of Annual Wages for Full-time, Year-round Workers, 1968.* d y Men Women Professional & Technical Workers \(Includes Doctors, $10,151 Non-Farm Managers, Officials and Proprietors \(Includes Office Managers, Local, State and Federal Government Officials; $10,340 Service Workers \(Excludes Private Household Workers; Includes $6,058 Laundry Workers, Barbers, $8,549 Salesworkers $3,461 Latest figures available Clerical Workers \(Includes Bookkeepers, File marriage. In other words, the frustrated job seeker pointed out, “they were making my decision for me.” The same woman, a college graduate, finally landed a job with a state agency in Austin. After a year’s hard work, she says, she is almost making what is considered a starting salary for men without college diplomas, doing the same work. 8 The Texas Observer $7,351 $3,991 $3,332 Another woman, an employee of the state comptroller’s office, says that state agency also is reluctant to hire women as computer operators. The comptroller’s office uses almost the same line as the university that men and women might have to work together at night, she says. They also fend women off with the explanation that the job might call for some heavy work, she adds. “It is no worse than heavy housework,” the employee says. ONE OF THE most interesting forms of discrimination in state agencies, is the enforced pregnancy leave. This policy will soon be challenged in court, though, almost by a legal loophole. Mary Ellen Schatman worked as a labor market analyst with the Texas while her husband attended law school. Although she was seven months pregnant, she said she hadn’t missed a day of work because of her pregnancy. Her doctor said she could continue working, but TEC said no. She was forced to take maternity leave. TEC regulations allow a maximum six weeks leave time for its employees, which was the leave Mrs. Schatman had planned to take. With the enforced leave added, she was bound to be away from her job three months. TEC told her she could return to work if the position remained unfilled, she says, but “six weeks to the day after I left, they filled my job.” She shook her head over the possibility of finding a comparable job in Austin. Now, unemployed, with a child and husband to support, Mrs. Schatman is suing the state in federal district court for damages and back wages. \(State employees who lose their jobs are not entitled to luckier than women in other state agencies \(Some are said to require that pregnant because she can go to court. Federal statutes give the EEOC jurisdiction over all employment agencies, even state employment agencies. EEOC attorneys ruled that this jurisdiction extended to employees of employment agencies as well, opening the way for Mrs. Schatman’s complaint. “I took a competitive examination for my job and can only be removed for cause,” the young, red-haired mother said. Since she was still capable of doing her job when she left, she doesn’t consider her pregnancy cause. “If you come to work with a contagious disease, they can’t force you to leave,” she adds. Another thing that obviously rankles Mrs. Schatman is that the TEC didn’t reveal its maternity leave restrictions until she told them she was pregnant, she said, in spite of earlier inquiries during her 14 months on the job. “Abortion is cheaper than losing your job, if you’re the sole support of the family,” she said. There was no malice in the TEC’s treatment of her, she feels, just a general disbelief that a woman would want to he both a mother and a professional woman. Maybe they haven’t heard … we’ve come a long way. Operatives $6,738 11111