Applying a touch of data logic about women in the USA workforce 

 FACT: labor is a major cost of doing business and comprises between 20-35% of overall cost. 

 FACT:  women are paid 17% less than men in the USA workforce. 

 FACT: in mid-size companies (those large enough to have a dedicated HR department) women comprise 67% of the HR staffing — HR is overwhelmingly white and female — female HR managers earned an average of $91,981 a year, while their male counterparts reportedly earned $103,644 — a 13% difference 

 QUESTION: If cost is a factor in doing business and being priced competitively, why aren’t more women being hired simply because they are the lower cost of labor? 

 With the majority of the HR staffing being women, do we assume 

•  a.        there is not a gender preference prejudice? 

 b.        fewer women are hired to the workforce because they are not qualified? 

 c.        are men a preferable choice because of their gender? 

 Cost is the most often voiced complaint from management, specifically labor cost. This includes wages, benefits (sick leave, family leave, maternity leave, health insurance). If labor cost is as critical to remaining competitive as is so often claimed, then why aren’t the lower priced female workers dominant in the workplace? 

 Women do dominate the hiring and management of employees, and often are the front facing negotiators of the salary paid. The disconnect is troubling. What is the cause of women getting lower wages in general, and often in comparable positions? Why aren’t HR managers hiring the lower cost women workers to reduce labor costs? 

 What is actually going on? 

 References: Wall Street Journal-By The Numbers; Paycor (NASDAQ: PYCR); hrdrive.com