The gender pay gap disappears when you control for hours worked, job seniority, and experience.
So, why do women work less hours than men and have less experience? That's still an issue even if it's not directly sexist. If we read some bullet points from your post:
> Men are more likely than women to have more years of continuous experience in their current occupation.
What crawls on four legs and causes women to drop out of the labour force?
> What crawls on four legs and causes women to drop out of the labour force?
"Women earn less due to sexist discrimination" and "women earn less due to bearing the brunt of raising children" are two distinct claims. The first one is contentious and widely disputed (disproved?).
If we, as a society, want to encourage more kids, we should to allocate those funds as a society, much like roads or anything else (we do, tax benefits, ..., maybe we should do more). If we want to offer welfare for people regardless of their life constraints, that's again a societal decision (and one I'm mostly in favor of).
Pushing that to each individual employer sets up a cat and mouse game where the shadiest organizations barely not getting audited are able to leverage that inequality (supposing we did fix the wage gap at an employer level without addressing underlying factors) to achieve higher profits and outperform the competition.
And that's one of the _better_ outcomes. Switching gears only slightly, suppose (using round numbers for simplicity) the average cost to the employer of maternity leave is 6 months salary and you have a 10% chance of incurring that cost. An organization like the NYT can absolutely self-insure, but at the level of only a few employees you cannot.
Something kind of like the unemployment insurance situation works much better in those kinds of scenarios. The government acts as an insurer to provide the service we as a society have decided is worthwhile, and each employer only has to send in a check for their average liability instead of dealing with a different mountain of paperwork and existential risks.
We can't even do something simple that I would like to see happen — make WIC universal with no conditions. It already covers about half of all children so it basically only doubles the budget. We can afford it and it saves so much time and energy trying to police the system.
Another one is free of cost universal pre-K. A lot of women can't go to work because there is nobody at home to take care of their children. But really the easiest lowest hanging fruit is universal WIC. Make it available to everyone so it is easier for us to tell people to get it.
progenity penalty is a societal issue, not issue between worker-corp. It is individual choice of a household to pro-create, and each mother's gender penalty is offset by father's gender penalty.
one may argue that America should provide more incentives to working families, but I see it as a society level issue, not the issue between a particular worker union and NYT.
I would love American society to unite once and for all, and ignore all artificial wedge lines created by MSM and uniparty (state, party, rural/urban, region, identity, ideology) and demand better laws that provide longer PFL and affordable childcare.
Curious what you mean by father's gender penalty as the link you provide states "Men's wages are either unaffected or even increase after having a child."
Doesn't sound like a penalty to me? also it assumes parents stay together if one offsets the other
So, why do women work less hours than men and have less experience? That's still an issue even if it's not directly sexist. If we read some bullet points from your post:
> Men are more likely than women to have more years of continuous experience in their current occupation.
What crawls on four legs and causes women to drop out of the labour force?