Gay men make less than straight men, but lesbians out-earn straight women, study finds
Canada’s wage gap has been well established. Researchers have uncovered wage disparities based on gender, race, immigration status and visible minority identities. But until now, little attention has been given to the relationship between wages and sexual orientation.
Nicole Denier and Sean Waite aim to change that. In their report, “Gay Pay for Straight Work: Mechanisms Generating Disadvantage” published in Gender and Society, the two McGill University Ph.D. candidates set out to understand in the economic lives of gay and lesbian Canadian.
Their initial findings match findings in other areas of the world: gay men make less money than straight men, and lesbians earn more than straight women. Denier and Waite wanted to take things further, though. By comparing the earnings of lesbians to heterosexual men, they found a hierarchy, where straight men earn the most, followed by gay men, lesbians, and finally straight women.
For many, the apparent benefits of being a lesbian in the workplace may be confusing, but the researchers say it can be explained. Much of this advantage Waite attributes to what is known as the “motherhood penalty." For some reason, lesbians don’t seem to pay the same price for parenthood as straight women.
No one knows for certain why this is, but Waite offers a few possible explanations.
“There are other studies that find that lesbians tend to more equally divide childcare responsibilities,” Waite told Yahoo Canada. “So in a lesbian relationship we have two women [who] are more equally dividing the housekeeping and childcare responsibilities, and this means that their employment is going to be less interrupted by the pressures of a child.”
In addition to having more help at home, lesbians may actually experience a wage benefit from discrimination. “Because lesbians tend to on average have fewer children than heterosexual women, employers may perceive [them] as more committed to the labour force, less likely to have children and less likely to take maternity leave, less likely to have these other familial responsibilities that could impede their work ability.”
In other words, while gay men experience a wage gap based on their sexual orientation, lesbians are primarily disadvantaged because of their gender.
Waite was quick to point out, though, that studies like these aren’t able to measure discrimination. All researchers can do is control the variables for what are typically considered personal choices, such as education, industry, occupation, and hours worked. These choices may be influenced by experiences of discrimination throughout a lifetime – for example, gay men may be less likely to feel comfortable entering industries which remain highly masculinized – but it can be impossible to narrow down the specific causes of disparity in these environments.
When researchers control for all these known influences on income, however, gay men still earn about five per cent less than heterosexual males, lesbians earn nine per cent less than straight men, and straight women are the most impacted, earning only 74 per cent of a straight man’s dollar.
Although we don’t know for certain why this is the case, sociologists and economists have found clues before.
“In the public sector, the wage disadvantage is reduced and in some cases eliminated,” Waite confirmed of the pair’s own findings. “We know the public sector provides protections against arbitrary evaluations, and channels for addressing potentially discriminatory action through high rates of unionization. And the anti-discrimination legislation tends to be more firmly entrenched in the public sector than in the private sector.”
Essentially, the public sector leaves less room for bias and discrimination.
Unfortunately, unconscious bias in any sector is difficult to measure. Not only does the person in power not realize they are abusing their position, but the person being discriminated against may not realize it either. In this case, education is the key. Advocacy groups have worked hard to legislate against workplace discrimination. Waite pointed out that, “compared to the United States where the protections against discrimination in the workplace vary from state to state and sexual minorities don’t have the same protections as they do in Canada, we were somewhat surprised to see the persistence of a wage disadvantage for gay men in Canada, and for lesbians relative to heterosexual men as well.”
But there are ways that employers and leaders in the private sector can take an initiative in creating change, even without legislation. As Sheila Block, chief economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, explains, “I think that these biases are most often unconscious biases, and so that’s why it’s important for people, those in decision-making positions and those with power, to examine those unconscious biases, and for employers to facilitate that.”
According to Block, what the private sector really needs is, “clear harassment and discrimination policies, clear processes, and an indication from the leadership that that will be followed, that those policies and processes will actually be followed up, and resources that are put into the enforcement of those policies and processes.”
Unionized workers, who make up a much larger percentage of public versus private sector employees, have greater support from their peers in dealing with workplace discrimination, but also have access to well-defined internal processes, something Block believes is lacking in private organizations.
“We need to set targets and time lines to make sure our workforce is representative. In Canada we have some success with that, because in federally regulated sectors like banking, there is a requirement from the federal government that employment equity plans be in place.” If the public sector can make it a priority, so can private organizations. “People need to look at their labour force and whether it reflects the population around them.”
It could really be that simple. Look around your office. First ask yourself: Do the people here represent the world I live in? And if the answer is no? It’s time to start asking (and not just to yourself): Why not?