Gender Pay Gap in Surveying

[jamesh1467]

I have been hearing more and more about the gender pay disparity recently. A lot of progress towards equality in pay between men and women of equivalent roles was being made over the past two decades or so, and over the last few years, some of the data is showing that the United States is now going backwards again. At the very least, most data I have seen shows that it is hovering and leveling off right at 85%. Women only make 85% of what men make for equivalent roles. Some studies still say that its even less.

I am wondering what people are doing for gender pay tracking in their individual companies within the survey industry. One that is very male-dominated and easy to overlook an issue like this. Are there any companies out there that are tracking and making active attempts to equalize pay between men and women? Either on individual levels or (hopefully) on wider company-wide scales.

For reference, I've noticed that people are often justifying clear pay differences (to me, once I have been made aware of them, such as superiors making less than subordinates) by other methods now. My personal opinion is that it seems like the pay difference is becoming less and less vast, or its becoming less obvious that women are paid less because they are women. So it feels like there is no more "wrong" being done, and other things are being used to justify the pay discrepancy to continue to pay women less than men. Years of experience, geography, years of service. Etc. Maybe it feels legally justifiable, but not really valid ethically (to me) if you take a step back and look at the big picture. Or, especially, without having data to know what the big picture is and validate that the pay differences between men and women within your own organization are actually due to those factors that are being claimed and are not due to gender discrimination. Even if it is subconscious or unintentional gender discrimination.

The things I have seen recently seem like they are being done directly in front of men (or even by men) who would not stand for it if they knew what was going on or remembered or had their eyes opened to this issue. However, these men are turning a blind eye to the problem because it no longer seems obvious, they are unaware of it, or they have forgotten the centuries-old generational issue that has been trying to be corrected over the past few decades, as they make business and salary decisions.

I'm also curious if anyone can claim to be paying men and women equally, as verified by third-party audits. Or even just feel confident enough to claim that themselves without paying for an audit because they actively keep tabs on the issue.

[No_Target]

Anecdotally: I've seen a few survey businesses led by women, including one mother/daughter business.
Facts: I've got none.
Guesses: Government data should have some more easy to obtain data to dig into over private companies which will be unlikely to volunteer unless they have a good story to tell.
Opinions: This needs to be discussed, and I am curious to see what the response is on this forum (which leans argumentative). Even ignoring the discrepancy at a macro economic scale, we have a system of licensure in CA that allows for the introduction of implicit biases. What does a competent surveyor look and act like to the 4 licensees signing off on your competency? A lot like the signing surveyor.

[jamesh1467]

Opinions: .....This needs to be discussed, and I am curious to see what the response is on this forum (which leans argumentative).....

I honestly think it will be largely ignored by this forum and most of the industry, as it has always been. I found out some stuff that really pissed me off last week about how some of my peers have been or are being treated. I thought we were well past some of this stuff, and apparently, we are not.

[DWoolley]

Opinions: .....This needs to be discussed, and I am curious to see what the response is on this forum (which leans argumentative).....

I honestly think it will be largely ignored by this forum and most of the industry, as it has always been. I found out some stuff that really pissed me off last week about how some of my peers have been or are being treated. I thought we were well past some of this stuff, and apparently, we are not.

The oft-repeated claim that women earn only 85% of what men make is a misuse of statistics. That number comes from raw median earnings and ignores hours worked, occupational choice, and tenure. When economists control for those factors, the so-called gap shrinks to two to five percent, and even that margin has not been conclusively tied to discrimination. In industries like surveying and construction, compensation on public contracts is set by prevailing wage under California Labor Code §§1771 and 1774—tables that don’t have a male column and a female column. A female apprentice or party chief is paid exactly the same as her male counterpart.

Bureau of Labor Statistics data also shows men work longer hours on average—about seven to eight percent more per week. Over the course of a year, that adds up. Men also dominate higher-risk, higher-paying fields such as construction, trades, and heavy civil work, while women disproportionately gravitate toward teaching, healthcare, social services, and administrative professions. Women make up less than five percent of the trades—do you honestly think that’s a grand conspiracy, or is it more likely that women prefer other occupations? In my experience, the woman in land surveying are in leadership and occupy the highest levels of professional teams and management. If women truly could be hired for the same job at a 15% discount, any rational employer would hire women exclusively and the industry would be dominated by them. By the same logic, men make up 92% of the prison population—should we lock up more women to “close the gap”? The numbers tell a story of choice and circumstance, not systemic wage theft. Based on the experiences told to me by the woman I have known in the profession, it was quite different 40-50 years ago. The tenured professional woman have horror stories from the 1970s, early 80s.

Meanwhile, women today outnumber men in higher education, including STEM. Colleges are roughly sixty percent female. Women dominate medicine, law, and biosciences. Men are the ones falling behind—lower graduation rates, fewer marriages, fewer children, climbing suicide rates, rising addiction, and increasing mental illness. Suicide is now (since 2015) the second-leading cause of death for men under 45 (CDC), overdose deaths have tripled in the last two decades, and one in five men report serious mental illness each year (NIMH). Among men aged 26 to 40—the Half-Miler generation—only about twenty percent are making sustained, productive contributions, while roughly forty percent are completely wasted to idleness, addiction, mental illness, or dysfunction. The remainder drift somewhere in between, underperforming against historic generational standards. This is not a passing downturn; it is the unraveling of an entire segment of society, abandoned while the culture looks the other way. Understandably, as in nature, the herd must move on and leave these folks behind. And while the Half-Milers can appear as sympathetic casualties, they are in fact a growing liability—resentful, entitled, and increasingly hostile to the structures that sustain a functioning society. Left unchecked, they are not just underperformers; they are a destabilizing threat. Restated, only one in five of the Half-Milers are "okay" by historical standards. Best advice, if a Half-Miler is walking your way, put your head down and cross the street, engage at your own peril. Interestingly, in Southern California, we do not get the benefit of the modest 20% that are "okay" - it is considerably lower than 20%.

jamesh1467, I would suggest further reading, but you have already made it clear elsewhere that you consider yourself too highly educated to bother with books. Lastly, it is a free world, but this forum is not the ideal place to virtue signal—there are plenty of other venues that will yield more mileage for your societal concern about gender pay gaps.

DWoolley

[jamesh1467]

I did encourage opinions…..

I do appreciate the response because this issue matters to me and no one else way saying anything. But I’m not going to engage in some of the logical fallacies introduced below. Other than to say it seems like you are trying to justify why men deserve to get paid more? Because the first response is not “ oh is that right, that shouldn’t happen, is that correct?” it was “this is a political issue and men are superior. Let me as a man, try to prove to you how men are superior and how I can continue to justify paying myself more”. Anyway that’s how it reads compared to NoTargets post. When you went into stats I was expecting you to spin it into something about how the data was miss done and that women are actually paid equally and it’s all some kind of political trick with the stats to prove it’s still a problem. Instead you went for the track of trying to prove the stats do indicate that men are somehow superior? That’s just nuts to me and proves there is still a problem.

It’s like how some old white people I know say some of the most racial and screwed up things and then justify it by saying “I hire back people I’m not racist”…it’s like yeah…..we have always had no problem with black people doing the work for white people. It was called slavery……At least now we are paying them. The problem is the mentality in general.

You see the differences in the two responses by others here. One from a young surveyor, and one from an old surveyor. Just trying to get you all with the times here one little bit at a time. Because the problem very clearly does still exist. And yes every forum is a forum where this should be discussed because even by your own admission there have been large previous efforts to equalize pay for things like prevailing wage to give women equal footing with us. And your response makes it clear there is still a problem. The correct response if you believe that I am making this up is to prove the stats wrong and that the issue is not really an issue. Not that men are somehow superior in our industry and the stats justify that. “Women should just work harder and more hours”. Just one example because I cannot resist: So with all these occupational choices that influence the stat differences the women in our industry just chose the wrong industry? So it’s acceptable they are paid less in our industry because other women in other industries are making more to offset it? The individual women in our industry are just stupid for trying to become a licensed surveyor? Doesn’t that imply that we got the dumb women in our industry? The ones that weren’t smart enough to go into more “correct” industries? So that’s the message you want to send? We only take the dumb women as surveyors? And we will make sure they know they should be paid less because they are the dumb ones for coming into our industry.

Again hopefully you all see my point here. It’s messed up and when you see it, call it out and if you can fix it, fix it. Because they fought harder than we did to get where they are and they deserve to be paid well for that. Society changes. You have to change with it or you will be forgotten.

[DWoolley]

I did encourage opinions…..

... or you will be forgotten.

"Eventually, every grave goes unvisited" Conan O'Brien

The last time I recommended a book here, several people reached out privately to thank me for the reference.

A few years ago, I read Of Boys and Men by Richard Reeves, which addresses many of the points I wrote in this thread.

Carry on, jamesh1467.

DWoolley

[E_Page]

In nearly 45 years working in surveying, most workplaces (and college surveying courses) have been mostly or all male. In that time, I've never witnessed any overt or apparent discrimination in hiring, promotion or pay. Nor have I witnessed anyone being discouraged from entering the field on account of gender.

Historically, surveying has been a profession that tends to attract males far more than it attracts females. I'm sure that unbiased social theory (as rare as that is) has a good explanations for that. Most simply recognize it as human nature. That being said, I've worked with several women who performed their work as well as any man and worked for a couple of very good female surveyors.

Although in some isolated instances, the gender pay gap may be real and due to discrimination, on a broader level, I believe that it's a long since corrected (and sometimes overcorrected) issue kept alive by the misuse of over-generalized data for continued BS talking point.

[Peter Ehlert]

my personal experience is near identical to what Evan wrote above, and my opinion is the same.
now, I only work in Baja. In my limited experience it's the same here.

if anything, as Evan said, the effect (here also) is that it has been over-corrected

[CBarrett]

Personally speaking, some companies are better at negotiating pay than others. Not just pay but professional respect.
In last 38 years I've encountered men who are delighted when a woman in surveying is assertive and knowledgeable and those who can't stand it, and push back hard, or vilify you gor it.

I think similar happens to men too. However, not being a man, I don't have comparative experience.

Since women are often raised to be a nurturer, agrenurture, the peacekeeping one, this inherently sets them up for not advocating gor themselves very strongly. Similar to "men don't cry" "girls dont fight". When the work environment is predominantly male, you end up not represented that well in your supervisor management style - which is likely geared towards managing men, and call it stereotypical male style interactions.

Someone recently suggested that I might enjoy working with another woman or two. I responded with, most of my career I've been flexing to work with men in this business. Women are so few, I never worked with one (closely). I have no frame of reference what the experience would bring.

I did notice in recent years when supervising people, men and women alike seem to expect that a female supervisor would be less demanding, and when I am not, the reactions can be indignant. I also noticed that some men try to relate to me as they would to a wife, and hope to be coddled. While I'm always eager to teach and show and help people, I'm not willing to carry their shortcomings long term.

People are a very mixed, and mixed up bag. Including myself.

This is where management training should exist and kick in. Pay gap among groups, gender, minorities etc... can exist in part due to management levels being one trick ponies. "You only get a raise if you assertive yourself in a specific way the manager understands".

There isn't a lot of management and soft skills training for surveyors out there, or a good number of surveyors even seeing the need for it.

We tried to set up leadership academy within CLSA to deal with some of this, bit the interest level was maybe three people .... two of whom didn't have soft skills to get along with each other.

[CBarrett]

In nearly 45 years working in surveying, most workplaces (and college surveying courses) have been mostly or all male. In that time, I've never witnessed any overt or apparent discrimination in hiring, promotion or pay. Nor have I witnessed anyone being discouraged from entering the field on account of gender.

Historically, surveying has been a profession that tends to attract males far more than it attracts females. I'm sure that unbiased social theory (as rare as that is) has a good explanations for that. Most simply recognize it as human nature. That being said, I've worked with several women who performed their work as well as any man and worked for a couple of very good female surveyors.

Although in some isolated instances, the gender pay gap may be real and due to discrimination, on a broader level, I believe that it's a long since corrected (and sometimes overcorrected) issue kept alive by the misuse of over-generalized data for continued BS talking point.

Being a female, and lately knowing a few other females, there is definitely a good dose of men discouraging females in the field. Not majority of men, but enough influential ones who are able to impact people's careers.

One day I can tell you a story why my PLS number starts with 9, instead of 7, like many of my contemporaries. When I tell it here, people get triggered.

There is also a women in surveying group that developed in recent years with nearly 1000 women surveyors across the US. One of the thingis discussed at times are topics not suitable for mixed company, because when discussed in mixed company they trigger massive conflicts. Sadly.

The profession is not ready to understand and balance different interests and work styles.

One other point of information, I got into surveying in one of the European countries in the 1980's. Male to female sit even back then was 60% men 40% women. Not 95% to 5% or so like it is in the US. There's definitely a cultural aspect to the ratios rather than just biological or genetic inclinations of men vs. women.

[hellsangle]

"MARKED" by Karen Zollman. (Washington state if I recall correctly.)
Great book by a lady forester/surveyor based of her life's experiences.
One kewl lady surveyor!

Happy almost-end-of-week!

Crazy Phil (Surveyor to Recorder)

[No_Target]

I left the conversation for a bit -- got busy (and scared to chime in). But I'd like to revive it a bit. I am curious to touch back on the number of women in surveying, and whether or not it is because women don't want to be in surveying, or because the people in the position are biased to hire others who look like them. I think people, regardless of gender, would be attracted to the job, but maybe that's my misconception.

[DWoolley]

Recent public debate continues to focus on surface-level issues such as the 2–5 percent gender wage differential, a figure that most economists attribute to occupational choice, work hours, and career tenure rather than direct pay discrimination. Yet, unsurprisingly, the forum conversation fixates on that narrow and (mostly) incorrect statistic, far more consequential policy changes are unfolding—changes that will likely erase entire classes of small and minority-owned businesses.

At the federal level, contracting reforms introduced under Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy are dismantling race- and gender-conscious procurement preferences. Framed as a return to constitutional neutrality and merit-based selection, these reforms are expected to produce the same economic outcome seen in California after Proposition 209 (1996)—a collapse in MWBE participation and the loss of thousands of firms. According to the Discrimination Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley, Caltrans had certified 3,269 minority business enterprises (MBEs) in 1996; by 2006, only 1,005 (32 percent) remained. A companion 2007 study of women business enterprises (WBEs) found that of 2,096 firms certified in 1996, just 763 (36 percent) survived a decade later. Many of the few survivors endured by pivoting to federal contracting—where diversity-based procurement still offered access—or by keeping dormant corporate registrations active through the state’s $800 annual minimum franchise tax (California Revenue & Taxation Code §§ 17941(a), 23153(a), 23802(b)), preserving their business names for potential future work. I suspect most of those remaining businesses are actually defunct.

Now, with those same federal frameworks being dismantled, that lifeline is gone. The market that remains will reward those operating on merit, precision, and accountability, not on preference or protection. Firms that have evolved into performance-based enterprises will adapt and thrive; those that have not will be displaced by policy and competition alike. The debate over a 2–5 percent pay gap is a distraction—federal and state policy have now eliminated the very businesses those debates claim to defend. It is time to focus on the structural issues that determine who survives in the open market—and let the virtue signaling occur elsewhere.

The problem is not some nominal 2–5 percent pay gap—it is that the virtue signalers won their argument and lost the marketplace. Federal contracting reform has finally caught up to 1996 California, wiping out entire classes of small and minority-owned businesses in the name of constitutional fidelity. How do you like ’dem apples?

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

I have to laugh

Framed as a return to constitutional neutrality and merit-based selection. . .

This from our present kakistorcracy

[Peter Ehlert]

Had to look that one up...
---
A kakistocracy is a system of government that is run by the worst, least qualified, and most unprincipled citizens
. The term comes from the Greek words kakistos, meaning "worst," and kratos, meaning "rule".

Clear as a bell

[DWoolley]

I could not say it any better than Bachman-Turner Overdrive: “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” Buckle up—there are still three and a half years to go, minimum. And do not expect a calm lame-duck period—there is no reelection campaign anticipated, and therefore, no political incentive to ease off the throttle.

Regardless of the politics or the politicians, the outcome is unmistakable and will be final: the MWBE sector that could not adapt to an open, merit-based market has been wiped clean off the procurement map. That is not an opinion—it is arithmetic. We have seen this before with Proposition 209, and we know how it ends—quietly, then completely. I doubt the who or the why matters much now; dead is dead.

For those of us who have worked alongside or are familiar with MWBE firms, now is the time to reach out—to offer employment to their skilled staff, repurpose their expertise, and acquire useful assets as many of these businesses wind down. The goal is simple: keep experience, equipment, and capability working here in California. Buy California.

As it stands, my understanding is that prime contractors are no longer obligated to meet prior MWBE participation goals—pink slips are in the mail. The only program still standing appears to be the Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) program, with its legislated 3 percent participation requirement in state contracts.

DWoolley

[Peter, same, I was not familiar with the word kakistocracy.]

[hellsangle]

Gents, I'm no genius . ..

I found kakistocracy in a Christopher Buckley book: "Has Anyone Seen My Toes". I love the humor in his books! A laugh a page!

https://christopherbuckley.com/

Happy Hump Day . . . (and I'm not referring to the last cartoon (#143) of my editorship of the CalSurveyor)

Carry on . . .

[D Ryan]

I can always use a good book recommendation Phil. And his books look good. Can certainly use the humor!

Dave Ryan
Arcata