100 best companies for working mothers … are they really the best?
by Becky KruseLink to article
It happens once a year, when the leaves turn, the weather changes and kids head back to school. Working Mother magazine publishes its “100 Best Companies for working mothers” list. Before the glossy, 200-page, multimillion-dollar brochure hits the stands in October, the flurry of press releases covers the Internet in September as fallen leaves blanket the ground. Working Mother sends press releases with its list, quotes and information. The companies identified as the “100 best” send more press releases – with the same quotes and same information. Hundreds of newspapers dutifully rake them up and publish the same list, quotes and information without even a glance.
Are any of these companies really “best” for working mothers? Who knows? The magazine does not base its list on input from employees. Instead, it uses information supplied by company representatives/advertisers. While an independent survey-research firm collects information from companies trying to make the list, the magazine’s editorial staff “finalizes” the list.
Of the 100 companies, almost all are advertisers with the magazine, its parent company, Working Mother Media and its WorkLife Congress, and its organization, the National Association of Female Executives. The October 2006 issue includes ads from 64 of the companies. Of those, 55 are full-page ads, and one is an inside front cover.
Where is the conflict-of-interest disclosure?
According to a code of ethics for journalism, the magazine and its staff should “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived” or “disclose unavoidable conflicts” and “deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.” Journalists should also “remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility” and “… shun … service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.” (Working Mother CEO Carol Evans serves on the board of directors for a national organization with representatives from several of the “100 best.”)
Many of the “100 best” are multinational corporations with offices throughout the world. A quarter of the companies have offices in
Let’s explore the meaning of “hardship.” At least a dozen executives from the “100 best” appear on the Forbes Richest Americans list, meaning they earn at least $1 billion a year. Forty “100 best” CEOs also made the Forbes Top CEO Compensation list, starting at $249 million a year. Six of the “100 best” appear on the Forbes Largest Private Companies list, with earnings starting at $21.3 billion a year. Fifty appear on Forbes 2000, a comprehensive list of the world’s biggest and most powerful companies. The top three are “100 best” companies, with market values of $230.93 billion, $348.45 billion and $184.17 billion.
Executives from five of the “100 best” are on U.S. Chamber of Commerce board of directors. Most of the “100 best” are members of local or state chambers of commerce, many of which are members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $38.9 million on lobbying in 2005 and $53.4 million in 2004. Key issues for the national chamber are blocking efforts to raise the minimum wage and revising the Family and Medical Leave Act.
So, for example, we have a “100 best” company, whose market value is $279 billion. It’s run by the richest American, earning $53 billion a year (that’s about $25 million an hour, give or take), and the fifth-richest American, earning $16 billion a year and the proud owner of a 413-foot yacht with two helicopters and a 60-foot submarine. Through business affiliations and a strong lobbying force, they fight the “hardship” of paying employees more than $5.15 an hour.
What kinds of benefits do the “100 best” offer?
One pharmaceutical company offers four lactation rooms in its
Another pharmaceutical company has one on-site daycare center at its headquarters office, yet it has more than 28,000 employees in 11
The only criterion for determining who makes the “100 best” list, apparently, is the information each company provides about itself for the magazine’s survey. If this list were more than a pay-for-play marketing piece, one might believe that some of the following information would be grounds for ruling out certain companies. At the very least, one would like to believe that this information would be discovered and disclosed in the name of quality journalism.
The investment and the financial-services companies paid more than $1 billion for lawsuits for unpaid overtime, retaliation firings, hostile work environments and sex discrimination. (Interestingly, a reporter who wrote an article for Working Mother’s October 2006 issue opened an article for Inc.com in 2005 with the $54 million lawsuit. Granted, she was writing about three other companies in the Working Mother article, but it would be interesting to know if she mentioned the lawsuit to the magazine’s editors.) According to a June 24, 2006, Toronto Star article, the company faced two more lawsuits; one filed in Washington federal court on behalf of six named plaintiffs in four states and all female advisers who worked at the brokerage since 2003; another filed as a separate class-action gender-discrimination in California.
Two of the lawsuits resulted in court-ordered judgments. A federal jury awarded a former financial-services employee $29 million for sex discrimination and retaliation firing. A
The two automakers have paid millions of dollars in settlements for disability discrimination, hostile work environment, hiring discrimination, sexual harassment and racial harassment.
Three technology companies are under scrutiny for widespread discrimination, sexual harassment, low wages, employment instability and lack of trade-union freedom for employees in the electronics industry in Mexico. Executives for one of these companies face felony conspiracy and identity-theft charges in a boardroom spying scandal that began to unfold last year. Another company is in court for a sex-discrimination lawsuit filed in 2005 by a fired female executive.
A food company is “focused on flexibility,” according to the list, but during a recent restructuring, flex schedules were the first to go. According to a
A health-care company paid a $4.05 million settlement in 2003 for a retaliation firing of an employee trying to prevent sexual harassment.
The Environmental Protection Agency fined a chemical company $16.5 million in 2005 for withholding information about chemical exposure. A Florida Supreme Court upheld a verdict for a woman whose child was exposed to chemicals while she was pregnant, and the company paid the child $4 million in 2003. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the company several times for not reporting worker injuries properly. The company also paid a $343 million settlement in 2004 for contaminated drinking water.
A pharmaceutical company was pressured by a human-rights organization to stop child-labor practices in
The EEOC obtained a $487,500 judgment from another pharmaceutical company for sexual harassment and retaliation firings. A former pharmaceutical-company executive went to prison for price-fixing. He paid a $50,000 fine, and the company paid a $66 million fine. Criminal investigations, settlements and fines cost another pharmaceutical company more than $1 billion.
Another pharmaceutical company funded a drug study of 300 poor, black and Hispanic pregnant women in
Sales representatives sued a pharmaceutical company for $225 million for unpaid overtime. Twelve female employees sued in 2005 for sex discrimination, including lower pay and fewer promotions. Two employees were refused access to the company’s management-development program after taking maternity leave. The plaintiffs’ lawyer said the company’s policies looked good on paper but were quite different in practice, saying, “As soon as a woman indicates that she’s planning to become a mother, her male supervisors start pushing her toward the exit.” A company representative responded to allegations of discrimination by citing the company’s appearance on the Working Mother “100 best” list.
That’s where the rubber hits the road. When companies start using their placement on the “100 best” list to defend their policies, it becomes important to establish the credibility of this list. Not only do the “100 best” bombard the media with press releases about being on the list, they publish it in their annual reports, they spend more advertising dollars to entice potential employees, and they spend more hours completing next year’s survey.
Are any of these companies “best” for working mothers? Maybe, but nobody will really know until someone talks to the mothers who work for them – not just the ones with access to a lactation room or an on-site daycare center – and spends more time delving deeper than the company PR kit.
− Becky Kruse
Tags: best-companies-for-working-mothers, maternity-leave, Working-Mothers-Magazine
February 27th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Someone had to write something like this, though I am glad it was you because you articulated several key points effectively.
Of the dozen or so companies I have worked for since getting an MBA at Harvard, 2 had any appreciation or expectation of basic honesty and decency. 1 of those had a European parent, worth noting because people matter much more in European operations than in American ones.
Of the other 10, most are household names and 2 have been in various “100 Best Places to Work in America” lists. That designation means only that those companies, in competing for skilled labor, pay money to promote their images because at least the younger, more naive labor will be swayed by it. It worked on me, when I was younger. At this stage I’ve learned that those companies are cesspools like the others, but with better packaging and promotion.
So there are 2 things left for Americans who are good workers and want a decent work environment to do. 1 is to luck into, or use your contacts to get into, those few operations that place some value on people. Do your own research on that and pay no attention to published surveys or rankings, which are worthless, paid for propaganda. The other is to encourage your children to get into fields in which they will be independently licensed and need not rely on a single employer for their livelihood.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I read this post with great interest, and was duly shocked at the blatant disregard for ethical journalism shown by Working Mother, then i went and looked at the list itself, and I’m still thinking a lot of those comoanies sound pretty good. Yes, I do think actual working mothers should be surveyed, and the company supplying its own information is not ideal, but how can you be wholly negative about something like (to pick a quote at random) this:
“About 60% of its staffers flex their hours or telecommute, and they only need to work an hour a week to earn health-care benefits. In response to recent staff surveys, the firm reduced overtime work, shortened business trips and added more opportunities for employees to adjust their daily schedules.”
You talk about lack of lactation rooms and on-site daycare, but you neglect to mention telecommunting and flex-time as major ways a working mother can balance work and childcare. If flextime and telecommuting are encouraged, it seems to me it doesn’t matter so much that there be 50 lactation rooms instead of 4.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Thank you for doing the legwork on this - I’m sure it took a considerable amount of time!
September 28th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Amazing post - thank you.
I’ve never worked for a company like any of those in that list…I’ve always worked for small arts non-profits. And I have to say that my current employer was and has been a terrific place to have been at when I conceived, gestated, birthed and am raising my almost 4 year old. I’d never have been able to do the things that I can and did do at a “corporation”.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I worked for a company that has been listed as one of the top “100 best companies for mothers” until my employment was suddently terminated after 32 years because my manager assumed that I would be less committed to my job after I stupidly informed her that my husband has severe Alzheimers. After being a loyal and dedicated employee for 32 years with nothing but excellent performance appraisals, I now find myself without a job, without a severance package and without medical insurance for myself and my husband.