kennedy was the little boy who told them that he could give them a good description because he recognized this boy, this really tall boy he was doing these things. he had a really funny looking little eye and because of that they narrowed down the person that they were looking for. ..

so the book kind of -- it came out of i guess my disappointment really, with some of the dialogue at that time occurred after cheryl sandburg published her book "leap in" which said some

important things, but a lot of things that weren't said that are what affect the vast majority of women, for whom leaning is it not an available option. their challenges are more existential. i wanted to expose the broader questions affecting women in the workforce and think about the possible solutions we as a nation could be moving towards. >> host: i was going to say that did seem like partoff your frustration was about the conversation around working women and which working women we're talking about. this book focuses on women with less education lower down on the socioeconomic ladder. obviously you have a legal and policy background, you're familiar with the equal pay agent and civil rights act and the family medical leave act. the premise seems to be number often these law goods far enough. we need more government to help women, especially those lower on the economic scale. do you want to share more before

the that? >> guest: sure there or two pieces to it. one is we don't -- simply don't have responses to very broad questions, and these aren't just for low-wage women although they're particularly important for them. for example, we don't actually have a child care system in this country. we have some ban dades. we -- band-aids we haves' subdieses programmed that are very underresourced. 18% of eligible children are actually able to get into the government subsidized programs. but then middle class families struggle very deeply, with the cost of child cair, and you hear that child kay-cost as muching a tuition at a university. so we have that as really out of whack. then what was really interesting and troubling to me, coming out of the brown of policy and law was as i started looking into some of the law is found and believe to be very important and still do, that they had some

real gaps in there and as i looked into them and looked into the history realized -- that's where the title comes from -- the deal making process categories and women of color who got thrown under the bus so they were cut out explicitly left out of our wage and our laws who don't have the right to organize in a union. or who may not be covered by the family and medical leave act. then these are -- i think we don't look enough at the gaps, and think about what the impact is and so i started thinking about, as i got deeper into this issue, and started thinking about the domestic workers who basically have no legal protections in the workplace and you -- i started wondering so for a nanny who doesn't get paid or is not at least guaranteed a minimum wage or overtime isn't protected against discrimination, certainly can't join a union

what happens when the nanny has a sick kid? what goes on in that situation? so it was questions like that, that i wanted to explore. what is the child cair situation for someone in that category? and as i looked more and more into it, got into these other issues of family leave and child care, and discovered, even more to me dismay that the department of labor does survives kind of care that children are in. they actually have a category that is large, called self-care

kids just left by themselves and i think that for me -- even if you don't -- no matter what your perspective is on working women or whether or not we need a strong government role in providing a fair workplace, the fact that we have a large group of children who are growing up without supervision, i think is an economic issue for all of us. the consequences of that are lasting. >> host: one thing you have in the book jacket is that a lot of these women, as you see it -- we'll get into the specific policies -- they're systematically left out. do you think that policymakers are overtly elimiting them or saying we don't need to worry about thosewoman? are they really that bad? >> well, you know, honestly, not anymore. it doesn't play out that way. now it's more inadvertent or questions of the costs. but at its origins it was actually quite explicit, and when i was digging into the history around the new deal, and when congress adopted the sort of flagship pieces of legislation, the fair labor standards act ask the national

labor relations act, there's some ex-explicit conversations -- very explicit conversations on the record comping from what we call southern disk dixiecrats who reflected a strong point of view about the southern economy being dependent on the kind of agricultural farming -- the farm economy that was dominant in the south, and they wanted to protect what they thought of as their way of life, and again it's very explicit in talking about how important it is for us to keep our traditions and the black man can't be paid the same as the white man because that's not what we do, and soy are you have these conversations on the record, and then actions in tempters of implementation where categories of workers who were -- it was well known were african-american and many, many of them were women the domestic workers and the farmworkers and a lot of the farm laborers were

women as well. they were cut out in a concession to the dixiecrats who wanted to preserve their economy as well as the dominance of the white majority. >> host: we both agree that 80-plus laters things have evolved, and many, many ways many good ways, but at the same time, you of course point very quickly in the book to the pay gap, the idea that women are still only paid -- i whoa say white women are only paid 77 cents for every dollar man makes. it's funny because this conversation happens all the time. we just had equal pay day here in washington. the date that lots of women's groups marks the amount of time extra that women have to work to make up for lost wages but we're seeing more and more mainstream and left-leaning outfits are questioning this, there's a wage

gap but it's not as large should we be using a different number? are we able to convince people that we need policy if we use a smaller number? is that the problem. >> guest: i do think it's a fair number. but i would agree with those who are critical who say it's not all of just sexual discrimination express sit direct discrimination, economists say there's around a 20% pay gap. 59 parts of that is attributable to occupational segregation and we could have an argument whether that is a choice or whether there are cultural constraints or it's difficult for women to break into different profession us. >> some people refer to it as the pink ghetto, or occupational segregation. >> guest: what is interesting is that one-fifth of women works are in five jobs, five job

categories. secretary, child-care -- teachers and so forth and those kind of jobs are dominated by women. and so there's definitely -- they're lower paid that a lot of categories of jobs dominated by men. there is a question -- this is where may be some disagreement between women's groups and other groups -- but many women's groups would assert, and i agree with them, that because these jobs are dominated by women doesn't mean they should be paid less. when you look at jobs of equivalent skill experience and so forth, it doesn't make sense that the jobs dominated by men should be paid more. even if you say that part of the pay gap is due to occupational segregation, that is, women go into certain career paths that are lower paid. i think there's a question about why they are lower paid.

i think it's reflection of a broader. sort of upset of constraints of the roles of women and expectations of their ability to earn money, whether or not a care-giving role should be valued as a role where a man is driving a truck. and i think perhaps somewhat of an expectation that because women are sort of init'sly care-gives they're dag it as a job gets discount because it's kind of what they are and what they're nature is. >> host: fair enough. into some people say that men and women are different and we choose -- we have different preferences and aptitudes and women may choose to go into certain jobs that give them more comfortable, come naturally to them and of course if always think there are also some benefits to the segregation in some ways. we know that men die more frequently on the job. is that somehow sort of reverse discrimination? are we allowing men to do jobs that are more dangerous than women? is that a problem? >> guest: you know, i would be

more than happy to see more men school teachers if they want to be school teachers. actual live it's a good thing it's a good thing for our society have my diverse any terms of which -- whether men and women fill different roles itch think it's hard for women to move into professions dominated by men for a lot of ropes. some of it is internal. going back to sheryl sandburg, we impress some constraints on ourselves which maybe from the broader culture but we don't want to be unladylike, driving a truck is not something a lot of women do. but there are plenty of examples of the hostility and harassment that women can face in those kinds of job sectors. i think choice is the operative. people should have the liberty to be in the kind of profession they want and that's all i'm interested in looking at really, is how do we dismantle barriers if women want to be a school teacher, i think that's terrific but i think we should pay school teachers adequately

and they should be paid at the level that is commence -- commensurate with their skills and experience. >> host: you mention you think that women are still met with hostility and disapproval when they move into these more male dominated fields, and i was thinking about

those are the job that tend to be most associated with kind of ma macsimo. more mass christianity. there are difficulties for women in those professions and i really think it's wonderful there's some organizations that try to break down barriers and offer training. being a welder may be something that would be great for certain women because it pays a decent page and they can raise their family on it and the door shouldn't be closed to them because their colleagues might not want them there. >> host: of course, some women are looking for professions that give them more flexibility the restaurant industry, service industry where women are able to create their own hours. i wonder if there are lessons we should take away from white

collar jobs. i remember reading about walmart's flexibility work arrangement for its legal department and how that sort of trickled down into other areas. do you think there's room for that kind of -- work here for more educated women or higher skill jobs, can it work in lower skilled jobs snow that's a great question. it's not that surprising in retrospect but seemed surprising when i was doing the research, was how much more accessible flexible schedules are to white collar workers and higher earning workers and men in particular are the ones who have most access to family leave and sick leave and vacation days, and i think you point out that they also have more flex illinois citied -- flexible schedules generally. the way the fair labor act works if you're salaried, you don't

punch a clock if i if you have to run fourth a dentist appointment. you don't account for that hour and a half by working an extra hour and a half. people understand you probably will but kind of ability to deal with daily circumstances -- i was thinking about that on the way here. about all of the snow days that we had in the d.c. area, and for people who work -- this is now becoming more less of a mother's issue but also a father's issue. mothers and fathers who were struggling to try and figure out who -- if the school was closed, who would be able to stay home and who would go to work. a lot of white collar folks were able to telecommute or come in late. if you're hourly worker, you're working at mcdonald's, that's not an option for you. i think it's a good point and i actually have seen data that shows that mess flexible work hours increase productivity and

you have lower job turnover, so that you have greater experience in the workers who stay, and you don't have the costs associated with recruiting and training somebody new. so i think it's definitely something we should try and push down because i think those of us who have been lucky enough to benefit from the education and a socioeconomic class that has allowed to us be lawyers and doctors and whatever, has by and large been able to take advantage of those circumstances when we have a family crisis or when there's a snow day or whatever reason you might need flexibility in your job. >> seems as though where we talk about flexibility and flexible hours for some of those white collar jobs that share jobs is an area where i think we could see a lot of real progress for service industry. that you don't need the same person to do the job all week long but people, especially women, who maybe want to pick up extra hours here and then, they

would benefit from those kind of workplace policies that will we'll see more of. >> guest: there's interesting examples in other countries. prime minister cameron was a big proponent of flexible work hours in he can land, and one of the things they tide was to guarantee that men and women who wanted to propose -- maybe a short work week, four or ten-hour days, or different configurations come in late, leave late, or some other option or a job-sharing-couldn't make a proposal and the employer actually would have to accept it unless there was some business reason why they can't. some economic impact on the company. if it was just a matter of rearranging some responsibilities that didn't have major impact, they actually had to implement that. that's just a wonderful approach. the other thing i think that is -- we need to consider is on the flipside of that, we have situations in the retail and

restaurant industries where people don't know their schedules until the day of or main the day before, and they call in and they're told, sorry you don't have a shift today or yes you're working a double-shift and they either have to fine child care or they don't have work that day meaning they earn less money which means they might not be able to afford child care so the next time they have to be at work. that kind of complete lack of control over the schedules hard enough for most people. anyone who is working in a law firm and been there on a friday afternoon when the partner comes and dumps a task on your desk and vase this is for monday morning, understands the loss of control of your schedule, but for these low-wage workers who in an everyday roller coaster or not knowing whether they're work organize not working and they don't know how to deal with child care, other responsibilities and certainly they don't know how much they're going to be awaying for any work period. >> host: certainly maybe we should shift into what some of

the solutions are. gather from what you were saying you do favor and you certainly talk about it in the book -- more top-down, one-size-fits-all policies that would blanket a larger group of people. the feeling is more people have been left out. you point to -- you have worked on the issue the paycheck fairness act as a way of hopefully closing the remaining wage gap whatever it may be. do you worry -- certainly some critics would say that a law like that makes women a liability, that it makes them more expensive to hire. employers see women enough as a potential lawsuit and if there is man who is equally qualified maybe that's the safer route do you worry about that? sunny don't actually. we have that title vii on the book and the equal pay act since the '60s and i don't think they have resulted in an aim

pact where employers have been less willing to hire women minorities religious minorities the disabled and so forth. they've been a necessary response because those groups are actually not being hired and not being promoted or not being paid fairly. the bycheck fairness act is meant to close gaps and strengthen the enforcement mechanisms. the equal pay act doesn't have much in the way of dams so it's kind of a -- way of damage so it's a limp statute and the idea that the paycheck fairness act was both to strengthen the enforce; provide a stronger leverage for the eeoc, for the reinforcement organizations to get employers to actually pay women a fair wage, and as well as to move towards transparency in terms of salaries, which is very important. a lot of people don't know that

there are significant numbers of employees who are told by their employers they're not allowed to either by contract or by the order of the boss -- they're not allowed to share salary information with colleague. i can understand why employers want to do that. on the other hand, it makes it very difficult for women for minorities to ever understand where they stand in terms of salaries with respect to their kole legs. the case of -- colleagues the case of lilly led better, some brought her kids to the supreme court, is telling. she worked for her employer for several decade and it was only as she was getting close to her retirement that she was slipped a note by one of -- by somebody -- she didn't know where it came from -- that said, you have been paid 40% less than the guys for your entire career. and it was shocking to her.

she had made it in good years was one of the few women at her level, endured a very unpleasant workplace, harassment, a boss who told her he didn't want women in the workplace and then to find out at the end of the day, that she has been discriminated against so significantly, and she went to the supreme court and she lost there because of what i think was a -- inappropriate reading of the stat statute of limitation. the supreme court majority said she should have complained when she was first discriminated against, which is when we was first hired. i it wasn't until decade later she knew she had been discriminated against because the employer had imposed this secrecy on salaries. congress ended up reinforcing what it originally meant, which is discrimination is discrimination and she should have been able to make a claim but by then she had lost because the law didn't get changed until after her case went to the supreme court and she was out

not only all those wages but she was out her -- the retirement which was significantly under -- she was significantly underpaid in terms terms of her retirement because it was base on salary. >> host: certainly discrimination exists -- women's for you. did research and we found 70% of women think discrimination is at least a problem. everyone has a story. that doesn't mean they believe it's widespread but everyone knows it exists, and then we have this issue of privacy and wanting to balance that with transparency. i'm wondering a couple things come to mind. one is the best thing for women not more laws, perhaps but just a growing economy more jobs which would then lead to wage competition, employers would have to be more transparent have to compete with other businesses out there because employees would become more valuable to them? do we think that is even perhaps

a stronger solution? >> guest: well sabrina i definitely a stronger economy helps low-wage worker. we have seen minimum wage as the economy has recovered. however, i think that doesn't really address the wage gap. and it doesn't address some of the sort of structural issues that we have, and to go back to the domestic workers. this is a category of workers particularly the home health aides, that's it one of our most rapidly growing sectors. there's a huge demand for home health aides but they're still carved out of the fair labor standards act. a category of workers who is not entitled to minimum wage or overtime and are often expected to work just inhuman hours. they may be going between patient to patient, have very, very difficult jobs because they're often dealing with

elderly or disabled people who need to be moved lifted, cleaned, assisted, and all sorts of ways, and yet we haven't seen just because there's a great demand and there's a certainly a huge need, becames aren't moving up and so i think -- i guess i do -- i come from the sort of belief in the economy that the government actually does play a role and i think coming out of the new deal we saw some of the real significant changes that were brought about because of the workplace laws that were enacted by president roosevelt. i think to a great extent the economy growing helps everybody but i think in order to sort of counteract these structural problems we have and with certain types of job categories there needs to be a stronger

government hand in those particular places. >> host: one gary particular in addition to the paycheck fairness act is the minimum wage you. say we don't just need an increase in minimum wage, we need a living wage which would in effect be higher than any kind of modest raise. do you want to elaborate on that what the living wage means and how that impackets -- >> guest: sure a number of localities have enhe canned living wage in maryland, contractors with the state have to pay a living wage, and there's a lot of people who are loving to have changes like that pushed through the federal government. if you're gifting a big contract from the u.s. government, you should have to pay your workers a decent wage. and so i think we have seen there have been a lot of moves in the last e3/4 raise the minimum wage across the country. a lot of states have done away with the sort of bifurcated

minimum wage, which gives tipped employees much more wage, and state like washington state which is now $15 an hour, at least in seattle $15 an hour, they're not seeing job losses and they're not seeing employer flight. it's actually been good for the economy, and it's good for the works and i think it's definitely something we need to examine very strongly. the minimum wage has not kept pace with overall cost of living has not kept pace with the growth in the economy and so you see where we are now we are well behind where we should be if the minimum wage had been actually pegged to the economy. >> host: i certain the think there are -- those businesses able to increase their employees' wages more aggressively should be applauded, but i also am noticing the trend and especially with jobs that are sort of less skilled, the

automation. you go into convenience stores and there isn't anybody checking you out. you check yourself out and that seems to be increasingly a consideration, and i hope -- i suppose it's worth a conversation and we should talk about, in our efforts to micromanage wages are we in fact going to see more women especially out of work altogether? >> guest: well, it's certain lay criticism that has been raised of efforts to ensure that people get paid a decent wage. but i still thing the data don't bear that out and there are lot of job categories just not -- you just can't mechanize a unanimous any. there's nothing you can do. nobody wants to hire a robot to watch their children, at least i don't think so, not based on what we have right knew, as well as home health aides and the person who does your hair or your nails or -- any number of categories of workers that are just not the kind that you can

really do by machine. so i think around the margins there's some truth to that. but i think by and large there will be such a benefit to low-wage workers it's worth moving forward. >> host: so, this raises another question which is that we often sort of still think about -- maybe you can talk about a little built the structure of the workplace. as things have changed we see many many more wimp in managerial positions and hr positions so in theory those women are overseeing other women, and i wonder are we -- when we talk about discrimination in workplace are we two one dimensional people are too quick to dismiss their employees no, another only someone who comes from a family of owned beens organizations -- the most frightening thing to me is somebody losing an employee. are we too one dimensional how

employers behave? >> guest: a very good point. since i'm in an organization i feel entirely the same, when you have a wonderful employee and you lose them for whatever reasoner, bend over backwards to keep people, make sure we can structure a workplace that allows them to have a life outside without making too many sacrifices, and so i think it's very important and i think maybe it's a cultural shift we need to go through some maybe it's a cultural shift we will go through. the fact is we have well over three-quarters of women are in the work force. you have over three-quarters of women with children between six and 18 would are working and two-thirds of women with children under six who are working, and for single moms, that's a much -- it's a much higher number. i think we're in a world that we have to learn to live with, and

so whether or not -- whatever perspective you have about whether women should work or it's preferable they stay home, we have to address the fact that we have -- that women are working and it's very unlikely we'll go back to a a situation where women don't work in such high numbers. so that's the truth and we care about the next generation and the future of our country we're going to need continue vest in resources to allow -- women to have work and family and make sure their children have the best care-giving possible. >> host: before we move into the issue of subsidies the issue of paid leave. the family medical leave act since 1993 now but again this is another one of those laws which sounds luke you think covers a lot of people but simply not enough. maybe you can share more of that, about the medical leave. >> guest: the family medical leave act was well-intentioned

but it actually covers many fewer people than is understood. for example only employers with over 50 employees are covered at all, and then only employees who work for those employers who work over 1250 hours in the previous year. so estimates show that more than 40% of workers aren't covered at all but even that being said, it's very hard for certain workers to take unpaid leave, and so at the end of the day you see large categories of women opting out because they can't afford it. so the consequences of that are -- i've read numbers of studies that have analyzed women who have gone back to work after cesaireans that were not -- they didn't heal from very well after hemorrhaging after different kind sickness, difficulties of nursing, and the impact on

mothers who have to go back soon is demonstrable, and the impact on children is very significant. so unfortunately the family and medical leave act doesn't deal with that much and the authors of the legislation hoped it would spur more paid leave but it hasn't. >> from the employer. >> exactly. >> so unfortunately the calculation is still only 10% of american workers have paid leave. so that's very low. and i think that's a really significant problem and one i think if we look at other developed countries we'll see we're really an outlier in this category. >> host: i thought the numbers were a bit higher but i don't want to use that out here, about i want to get your opinion on the costs of paid leave not only for employers but for other employees. the young woman or man who doesn't have a family, who has to pick up the slack for the person who is out. i have three young children so i feel like i am on the safe side

to say i understand tremendously the need for time off paid time off, but at the same time i realize when i'm out of the work place someone else has to do my work and in many of these jobs, they're very physical jobs. do we have to consider more how those women and men will be affected? >> guest: well so the family and medical leave act under leave policies, don't colorful only child birth. they colorful early child care which can be done by a dad. or by a partner. and they also cover other types of family medical issues, so caring for an elderly relative. so i think everybody -- everybody has a situation and i can understand how in certain circumstances it can be difficult and maybe people feel like they're passenger an unfortunate amount of the work load or unfair amount of the work load, but i think in more or less comes out in the wash

because we all want to have that security that if we are suffering from some kind of family emergency parent that is very ill who needs us to be there, that if you need to go -- to your parents' bedside and they're in the hospital you want to do that and not risk your job, and so i think it was very important step forward but i think too few workers who are either covered by the family and medical leave act and well too few who don't have paid leave. >> host: you mentioned one woman in the book, and you -- this might shock some viewers. you say -- you talk about her story in which she asked for a day off and she gets fired and i wonder, is that the outlier? of course thered bad bosses bosses and people kuo who are just unfeeling, but most of white house oversee staff want our employees to be happy so that they are productive. is that the outlier or does that happen much more than we

realize? no one reason i wanted to bring stores like that out is because they're outliers to people in our world. people who work in larger organizations, people work in professional organizations they're not that unusual examples and woman who work in the kind of more manual lab labor, whether doing domestic work but that is particular lay difficult situation where they're either working for -- to care for patients, elderly patients patients or disabled patients or caring for children and they're in someone's household. that's where many of the most poignant stories occur and they're outliers in that they're individual examples of -- one employer is a family and the employee is a woman caring for their children so sometimes they may become more emotional than they would to more

professionalized atmosphere we work in. what i wanted to point out to the reader was that these examples -- there are things that are legal. these are thing that illegal and thatwoman who work the those circumstances don't have any protection if they're -- pregnancy discrimination act won't cover them if they tell their employer i'm pregnant and the employer doesn't think a that's so great they can be fired. >> host: what ways would you tweak these laws or implement new laws to cover these women that fall through the cracks or are run over. >> guest: one thing in play right now is to provide domestic workers, that category of home health aides and nannies as opposed to baby-sitters, to provide them with a minimum wage and overtime protections and this is actually -- it's interesting sort of historical issue because originally these

workers were cut out of the law as we were talking about, because of sort of explicit racism and interest in preserve thing jim crow economy in the south. but then as time went by, it became increasingly clear that there was an injustice being done and in the '70s, the congress finally passed legislation to amend the fair labor standards agent to encorp operate those groups into the law, but what happened then was that the labor department, under president nixon issued a rule that cut them out again. and so this has been 40 years since then, trying to fix that regulation. president obama has issued a new rule that would once again try and cover these workers and it is now being held. so i'm sure it's going to de -- once it's implemented the subject of much litigation but i think it's a very important move forward. so one thing i -- again one of

the things we have sort of -- surprised me of thinking i knew a lot about our employment laws. it's just the categories of workers who had been cut out and that as we draft -- was we talked before there was a moment in time when there was explicit misogyny and racism. then what happened is that's status quo and you have worked on the hill and i have, when you draft legislation you-usually looking at models when i worked on paycheck fairness act we look at the pay act. you don't change the whole framework so the existing omissions were just continued on and so i think what i -- i don't have every solution, obviously, and i think that's for your more brilliant people than me. i want to say we really need to sort of go back to square one in some sense and think about what are the protections we want for

workers? and if that's our frame what is it that we want to provide instead of thinking here's what they fair labor standards act let's loop in one more group. >> host: that's a fair assessment and one thing that kind of comes to mind for me is that you think about how big the country is, how varied -- everybody has something different that they're looking for, some people want higher wages, some people want more benefits some people want more flexibility, and i imagine that goes up and down the economic ladder. there's -- and so is it possible that as were seeing for are -- we're somehow limiting peoples choices and make the workplace less flexibility? another way of putting this i have somebody who helps me in our house. she gave india price. it seemed fair to me, seemed appropriate. if she had gone much, much high are i wouldn't have been able to do it. if we have more of these kind of

regulations, will we find that we can't freely negotiate contracts and pricing and wages and everything? >> guest: you're appealing to the lawyer in me. there's a whole line of -- sort of the very statutes we're talking about grew out of a time when this was the big debate. can you constrain the right to contract? and i think that the -- there was a big debate in the supreme court at the time which struck down president roosevelt's statute tattoos trying to limit the amount of child labor but i think where i would fall is there are differences in bargaining power between different groups of people, and one of the things that statutes attempted to do if give people who are the more vulnerable workers the ability to have some

leverage on their side and that would be putting constraints on the employer. so yes it does constrain the ability to negotiate but in a positive way i think in that particularly when you're talking about individual workers and they may be -- a lot of cases where people are independent contractors, working as house cleaners or gardeners and so forth, they may not be -- they may be immigrants, they may not speech english. there's an possibility for the stronger party the employer, to negotiate a wage that is simply not a fair one. >> host: it's interesting because when we started the conversation, we talked a little bit about sheryl sandburg and the advice she gives to women professional women. do you think for working women lower skilled working women there are things they can do outside of the government to

advance themselves, to make it easier for themes? maybe come out of this area -- >> guest: you make -- it's a very good question and i think it does make me want to say that sheryl sandberg was right. women are actually doing a lot to remedy the situation and seeing the rise of a lot of worker centers a lot of them are about women and run by women. the national domestic workers association, they've done quite a bit to organize women who can't be organized. they're not protected by the national labor relations act so they can't create a union but they've come together in other ways. it's moral support. they share information. they provide skills training for each other and connections. i actually had the immense honor of being invited to a meeting of a group of domestic workers at casa of maryland, and it was

just an incredibly interesting conversation because they came together on weekends to share these kinds of stories what is your experience in the workplace? if someone -- there's a common -- should i say at least two common experiences of domestic workers of being subject to sexual harassment. they share stories try to help each other get into new situations if they're working for a bad employer. but they also -- these were women who had gone to annapolis to lobby for minimum wage increase and even though they weren't protected by the minimum wage they were still sort of engaging. what was really interesting to me is how the worker centers -- they can't be like a union so they do something totally different. they talk about working conditions, talk about wages and they also are moral support for each other they're organizing weekend activities, soccer matches but they have language training, help with

legal matters and i do think there are a lot going on that made me very hopeful but it is just a completely new phenomenon, and we'll have to see how it can be scaled and whether it's going to be able to have a broad impact. >> host: some of this, i suspect, we heal to do with the larger conversation we have. we want to make sure that the more people who recognize that the person cleaning your home or helping your elderly parent is a person with a family and want people to treat them with a sense of respect and hope that more people will think in those tomorrows. i'm happy to hear you say something positive because one thing, it's hard not to look to at the tiedle of the book, under the bus how working women are being run over. and i thought gosh, a downer. but it does feed into the perspective that this woman is victim narrative. life in america is hostile toward women the workplace

discriminates against women we don't have very men opportunities. does it perpetuate that negative image of america or do you think there's something more positive in here for readers? >> guest: i do want to say i think the 20th century and the 21st century has been progress for women. and also i say in the book, certainly when you look at the set of laws that passed in the new deal and beyond, we're talking fair labor standards act, natural lab user relations act, social securely medicare, title vii other, call pay act and on, we're looking at significant steps forward that are reflective in women in the workplace. women have seen some wage increases but i think we can do better. and so my positive is that i think this is a great country. i think we can do better. >> host: there's more for all of to us talk about and more that employers can do.

one thing that we think about with again not to jump from the working women to the professional women but we talk about technology. do you think there's a place for technology in terms of helping those skilled workers that making things easier for them? >> guest: one of the interesting things that's happened is that there's very sophisticated technology now around scheduling and i think unfortunately it's not been used so much to help workers as to be very much on the employer side. which is understandable. they developed the software ask they're trying to maximize profits. but i think it can be seen as a win-win if employees can be given more notice about the way that the schedules will play out. you can still have a fair amount of give and take and ebb and flow of customer demand and to give the employers some ability to be responsive to the economy at any given time. also giving the employee more

notice. i think certainly the technology if it's looked at more holistic include is how do we actually benefit more workers? i think things like telecommuting, obviously doesn't work for everyone but. >> host: if you're a surgeon you have to be in the operating room. >> guest: so it's certainly something that we should try to think about how is it that we can optimize the advances we have made, in technology to make it so that low skilled workers get more skills, they have access to more jobs. i think can we figure out how to connect workers with jobs in a better way? that's always ban problem with labor market, which leave leads to disagreements among economists but a lot of economists recognize the labor market is very broken in that employees don't necessarily know even if there is this job in florida and they're in

wyoming, how do you match that up? technology is a real opportunity to help correct those problems. >> host: that's fantastic. how things will change in the future. we have a few minutes left so i would love if you don't mind to sort of put this in the context of the political today. we have an election coming up, still a few years away -- >> guest: have you declared yet? >> possibly not. >> host: where do you see under the bus fitting into the conversation before the women and women voters voters and women candidates in 2016? >> guest: i've been very pleased to see how much a lot of the topics i write about are actually part of the national conversation from the million wage to child care -- the minimum wage to child care to paid leave sick leave. these are issues being debated in the public arena. president obama has been speaking broadly about the need to move forward on these

policies. so i think it's actually a time where some of the ideas you said -- it was rather -- -- provocative -- they're not so provocative. the policy proposals i make are very much in the mainstream. i think they're being debated more and more. there are more and more members of congress who are interested in or already supporting legislation that addresses the issues i raise. so i'm actually very hopeful we have made some strides forward. >> host: do you think that we need to have a woman candidate to talk about these issues? there's of course -- i think more of these kind of policies would come from democrats than republicans. they may have different approach to dealing with these but do you think you need a hillary clinton to tackle this or other democrats are onboard -- >> guest: tom fiely medical leave act was pass -- signed by president clinton and senator

kris dodd -- chris dodd is a proponent. i'm happy to have a woman but i think it would be wonderful to see a woman president whoever she may be, whether it's carly fiorina or hillary clinton tremendous for our country to have that -- make that forward movement. but i think men are part of families and men either -- if they don't have a wife, they have a mother or maybe sister i know they have a mother, and they may have daughters and the daughters are sometimes sometimes sometimes the "postful" proo'meants or the most forcele symbol of why we need to move forward. i'm hopeful and i to think that live handplenty of advances that that have helped women that have been' supported by men. as mentioned id a co said more universal solutions. a lot of the proposals at least

as helpful for men as they are for women and there are many more men who recognize we don't live anymore in a society -- the new deal legislation structured the workplace around men working all week in a well-paying job maybe a factory maybe somewhere else able to afford not having a second income, the wife was able to stay home and rates the kids. that just not the world we live in anymore so many more men are feeling just this kind of time pressured and constrained and want time with their kids and now they're working too many hours and if their wife is working they're juggle jugging who is picking up the kids. a lot of issues are deeply resonant for men in our society and i think man just as well as a woman can be the leader, and i would say recently, one of the things i found gave me some hope is some of the activism around

the recent supreme court case, the lopez case, which was dealing with the pregnancy discrimination act. we had womens groups and some of the christian right wing groups coming together around needing to protect pregnant women to in the workplace. women who are pregnant should not i be descrive named against. whether you want to def courage tom from getting pregnant are but i thought that people can come together across a spectrum and realize that we need to address these issues because pregnant women are going to be working, and they're etrier going to go through the pregnancy or terminate their pregnancy, and if we want them to be able to continue, if we want these women to continue their pregnancy we need to make shower they don't get discriminated against in the workplace. >> host: i actually love the final chapter is called leaning together and independent

women's forum put out a book called "lean together. "so i actually was sort of -- i liked that title of your chapter and was thinking -- you were talking about how to lean together to create good policies but there's also the issue of how to work together, more republican -- it's a rather partisan environment these days. do you think that part partisanship can be overcome? sounds like there are ways -- scientifics makes for strange bed foe fellow outside but other ways we can compromise on this? conservatives will si this ties much government but we want to help people in need. >> guest: child care may be a good example. i personally -- i think that government programs can be effective and can often be both effective and cost effective butter it doesn't many it has to be a solution. if there are private solutions that is final. we need quality and

affordability. and accessibility. so parents to be able to get their kids into the program. they need to make sure they're not in some unsafe facility with an unskilled care giver and we need to make sure they're affordable. any number of ways to come at that and quite a lot of consecutives -- conservatives would we can nice that is an important value and children left in self-care -- i just cannot get over that term -- it's not just not good for the country. >> host: i do think that america is a country that is extremely giving extremely charity charitable, we don't want to turn or bach on those in need so hopefully we can come to agreement how to help, especially working women. any final thoughts on the book, things you want to leave your listener with, so when they pick up their copy of-under" in the bus" think they'd might be

looking for. >> guest: one thing i discovered through this is my own family history. i think my great-grandmother came from sweden, and she was very poor, and she left her father. he basically sent her way away he cooperate afford to have her anymore and she had been taking care of her younger siblings busbar her mother dade. all her siblings died so her widowed father put her on the boat and she came to the united states and was able to make it but she worked as a domestic worker. she what a maid and really made me think about upstairs and downstairs and her life, but i think sort of made me realize how many americans have that somewhere and if we think about what made it possible for someone in my family to be -- to

make it where we are now it was very eye-opening to think about what my great-grandmother faced is still what domestic workers face. her legal situation is the same situation they face now. so no legal protections. so i was just for me very, very important to just unearth that history and understand that my family too, has had these stories. >> host: that's so interesting. everybody in america at some point was an immigrant here so everybody has something like that to fall back on, and i wonder -- should i say i hope that while maybe legally there may be room for improvement that culturally things have shifted. i like to think that with women making up almost 50% of the workforce, the largest number of women workers are now in managerial positions. do we see a positive future for women workers in america. >> i do. i women are working.

i think as a society we're grappling with and it moving slowly in the right direction but i think so. >> host: that's very good. still feel very optimistic about the future of the united states and opportunities for women and girls. final thoughts. if you had to tell a young girl today who maybe doesn't have all the educational or financial opportunities ahead of her that maybe we have benefited from, what would you recommend what would you say that she can do to make things better for herself? >> guest: well, that's a hard question. i think have having an opened mind what kind of jobs to pursue. as we talked about before, women's professions still are paid categorically less than men, male professions even with the same kills and -- same skills skills ander and competence. if you can think about going into a feel dominated by men

you're going to have chance to make a higher salary. so i'd says that's something to think about. >> host: i found this to be a fascinating book. whether you agree or disagree with solutions it starts a really important conversation about working women in america and i really enjoyed this conversation. thank you so much. >> guest: i did as well. >> host: thank you. ...