Dr Hidayat Greenfield
IUF Asia/Pacific Regional Secretary
May 8th 2026
It is 25 years – a quarter of a century – since sociologists Michelle Budig and Paula England asked a question that women all over the world knew the answer to: “Does motherhood affect an employed woman’s wages?” The answer – through rigorous research and analysis of statistical data – was “yes”. They called this “the wage penalty of motherhood”, or “the motherhood penalty”.
Through in-depth statistical analysis Budig and England showed that women workers in the USA with children earned less in their jobs as a direct result of motherhood. This was distinct from the existing gender equality pay gap with men. Having children at any point in their work or career translated into a loss of wage earnings.
While paid maternity leave is an essential right of women workers, the loss of income calculated by Budig and England was not related to access to paid maternity leave benefits. The motherhood penalty was the economic loss, usually in terms of wages or income, that women suffer as a result of being mothers: giving birth and raising children.
Budig and England identified three possible causes of the motherhood penalty: the loss of job experience; becoming less productive at work; trading higher wages for so-called mother-friendly jobs; and being discriminated against by employers. None of the first three explained the loss in wages experienced by workers who were mothers. It was discrimination by employers that had the strongest link to the loss in wages resulting in the motherhood penalty.
In the 25 years since Budig and England published their research, there have been in-depth studies in other countries that examined the motherhood penalty and its consequences, considering race, ethnicity and types of jobs. This showed an even greater wage penalty based on employment status, race, ethnicity, and the nature of work – especially work deliberately classified as low-skilled or unskilled. More evidence – everywhere – that women in waged employment who have children end up being paid less.
Of course, women workers were aware of the motherhood penalty long before Budig and England published their research in English in 2001 and gave a name to it. Women workers who were mothers knew the penalties existed because they lived it.
Instead of tackling the systemic, institutionalized inequality and discrimination that creates the motherhood penalty, most trade unions reinforced the position of governments and employers by normalizing this inequality. By narrowly defining women’s rights in terms of paid maternity leave, the subsequent loss of income was not only overlooked, but it was somehow justified: motherhood creates the motherhood penalty.
Few men trade unionists understand that women trade union leaders who are mothers are admired by women union members precisely because they could overcome the barriers of inequality in terms of institutionalized discrimination and attitudes; and overcome the motherhood penalty. This triple sacrifice is sometimes recognized superficially (“well done!”), but only our women members who live the systematic, demoralizing effects of the motherhood penalty truly understand this achievement.
In a recent meeting of our union members in the food and beverage industry in Southeast Asia, three of our women union members made a presentation on the demoralizing and de-motivating effects of institutionalized gender discrimination.
Without mentioning the motherhood penalty, our women union members at a major food company explained several layers of discrimination. Married women workers with a dependent spouse and children are treated as single women in terms of health insurance and medical benefits, whereas men have full family coverage. Women are denied promotions with increased responsibility and better wages because management assumes that they are unable to do these jobs because of their family responsibilities, including taking care of their children. Women face gender bias during performance evaluations, where their performance is often rated lower than their male counterparts. And so on.
As a result, women workers experience a loss of “work motivation”, and this de-motivation leads to lower productivity and performance, and higher absenteeism. This then reinforces the lower performance ratings and loss of income. It also reinforces the gender bias of management that claims women are “too busy” or “too tired” due to responsibilities at home raising children. This has become a vicious cycle.
Even more demoralizing is the fact that all of this discrimination and bias is built into the national collective agreement negotiated by a union that is in collusion with management. Only after establishing their own independent, democratic union could our women union members now speak out with the support of their small union and the IUF.
We do not mention our sisters’ names, union, company or country because they have already shown great courage and sacrifice in exposing this institutionalized discrimination against women who are mothers. It is too much to then expose them to the retribution or ridicule of the establishment union, employer and government officials too.
Ridicule is one the most common weapons of men with power and authority. Eyerolling, smirking, shrugging and “just joking” – that is what prevents us from dismantling the motherhood penalty. It prevents us from ensuring all women have full access to their rights and a right to “a life worthy of human dignity” as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) – in terms of both just remuneration (fair wages) and freedom from discrimination. Such a failure today is shameful and nothing to laugh about.
Of course there is also outright harassment, intimidation and termination of employment which is devastating for women workers and their families.
We have recently raised awareness of psychosocial hazards at work. The lived experience of the motherhood penalty and its demoralizing, de-motivating impact falls within the scope of these psychosocial hazards. Demotivation, loss of confidence, loss of self-esteem, fatigue and depression are all symptoms of the psychosocial harm that the motherhood penalty generates. So, it is not only a penalty in economic terms, but also a penalty in terms of mental health and wellbeing. This deserves far more attention.
As part of our IUF Asia/Pacific International Women’s Day activities in March 2026, we promoted the campaign “Making unions work for women!” Women union members across the Asia/Pacific region wrote down on posters what unions should do to be effective, relevant and useful for women workers. This included the demands that unions should be making to employers and governments and what should be included in collective bargaining.
Many of the responses dealt with discrimination and inequality at work and unfair treatment that needs to be rectified. Included within this was a clear set of demands for more comprehensive maternity protection and equality in promotion, pay and opportunities.
A woman member from the Philippines calls for a comprehensive maternity protection
Whether we call it the motherhood penalty or not, the discrimination and inequality faced by women workers who are mothers is clear. This compounds the already existing discrimination and inequality faced by women workers regardless of whether they have children.
At a time when our collective social values are being rapidly eroded, it is necessary to reaffirm that motherhood has value and is a tremendous economic, social and cultural contribution to society, to the community and to the organizations, institutions, companies and employers that operate within that society and depend on it.
This does not mean we should invent new ways to determine the economic value of motherhood or determine its financial worth. Given that everything now seems to be judged in terms of financial value, it is likely that there will be well-meaning attempts to demonstrate the economic worth of motherhood, or mothers as financial assets. This will backfire. Just as Gen Z workers will tell us that attributing a person’s value to their economic contribution is meaningless when faced with the possibility of intermittent employment or long-term unemployment. “Are we of no value then?”, they will ask. And they will protest to express their anger and frustration with a system that provides them with no opportunities for quality jobs and decent livelihoods, loads them up with unmanageable debt, yet judges them by their economic contribution to society.
Recognizing the importance of motherhood for ethical, moral, social, cultural reasons and that our very existence, our being, our lives are centred on this has far greater value. It does not need a price tag or barcode. It simply needs to be fully and comprehensively appreciated and respected.
To do this we must dismantle the misinformed assumptions about women who are mothers and their ability, capacity or desire to work. This includes getting rid of the new systems of assessment, performance appraisal and targets that generate the metrics used to discriminate against mothers in the workplace. These metrics – now driven by generative AI – will cause further discrimination, demoralization and demotivation, greater psychosocial harm, greater economic losses for women who are mothers, and still end with the absurd assumption that motherhood is the cause of the motherhood penalty.