Forbes just came out with their list of the highest paid women CEOs in the United States.

While these women saw their paychecks jump 13 percent last year, it made me sick to read there are still only 13 women among the 500 CEOs at this nation’s biggest companies.

13! That’s less than twenty.

13 women.

487 men.

That’s 2.6 percent.

This is pathetic!

Something is terribly wrong if women, after all these years, have barely been able to break the highest glass ceiling of them all.

Maybe we need to take a page from Norway. The government there told corporate bigwigs they had to include women on their boards or face being shut down.

I wrote about this last year:

The 500 companies listed on Norway’s stock exchange face being shut down unless they install women on their boards over the next two years in a radical initiative imposed by a government determined to help women break through the “glass ceiling”.

Norwegian companies face a two-year deadline to ensure that women hold 40% of the seats of each company listed on the Oslo bourse. New companies have to comply now with the rules and the government is considering extending the law to family-owned companies as well.

The requirement came into effect at the start of this year after companies were given two years to embrace the demands voluntarily following the passing of the law in 2003. State-owned companies are already obliged to comply and now have 45% female representation on their boards.

This makes sense. Corporations throughout the world have been run by men for years, and the Good Old Boys network that has developed will not be broken up without a fight. Yes, they’ll let a few token women — 13 in the U.S. it turns out — in to their little group, but why would they hand over power if they’re not forced to?

Look, it’s great to hear that Indra Nooyi, the CEO of PepsiCo, made $12.7 million last year, but most of the corporate riches for top dogs poured into the pockets of men.

While these bloated CEO paychecks also make me sick at a time when the average working stiff is struggling to make ends meet, I can’t help but think we may all benefit if there a few more of the so-called nurturing gender sitting on gold and running the corporate show in the corner office.

(UPDATE) People have lost their minds, and the media is partly to blame for it.

If I see another story about women getting plastic surgery or getting Botox injections in order to land jobs I am going to puke.

My friends, this is all media hype.

Let me tell you how this works. A TV producer, blogger or newspaper reporter is looking for a good story. They come across a press release from a plastic surgery group that says they’re seeing more people having procedures done in order to look more youthful for job interviews, or they meet one person that is so panicked about growing old that they would subject themselves to a medical procedure in order to stop the inevitable age bus; and presto, a story!

These types of stories get lots of hits for bloggers, and big ratings for so-called TV news shows because they have the “oh-my-god” factor and they deal with something so many of us are fearful of, growing old.

But people, not everyone is rushing out and dropping thousands of dollars on these types of procedures. And if you are one of those individuals who are now considering this because you can’t find the job you want, or you’re worried about losing your job to a Gen X hipster, use your money for something that will really pay off — job training.

Yes, go out and take a course or get a degree. Your money will be better spent improving your skills and improving your mind.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t reassess your wardrobe, or get a haircut. There’s nothing wrong with trying to look your best. But we shouldn’t be ashamed of growing old. People can smell this type of shame and that’s what doesn’t get you a job.

I know what many of you are thinking, when you look good and feel young you’ll be more confident. “I’m getting surgery for myself,” many say. In the latest Botox ad, actress Virginia Madsen is shilling for the company and the commercial is centered on how she’s able to express herself now. Give me a freakin break. She looks strange with her face all plumped up like a chicken on hormones. How is this expressing yourself?

Folks, confidence is something that you have to build from the inside out. Doing it from the outside in is just a painful, temporary fix that only diminishes us all as a society.

Change the world! Be proud of your wrinkles and gray hair. People want to hire candidates who believe in themselves and can get the job done.

(UPDATE: After this blog post came out a reporter from US News & World Report, Liz Wolgemuth, contacted me saying she was one of those writers who had written about people getting plastic surgery to enhance their careers. She offered me a chance to offer the other side. I have to say, she renewed my faith in journalism. You go girl!
Here is a link to her blog.)

Sometimes I’m amazed and full of pride at how far this country has come when it comes to equality among workers. But sometimes I’m anything but proud.

There was a lot of hoopla over Michelle Obama’s comments recently about American pride.

“People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Many people were outraged that she would say such a thing, that she hasn’t been proud all along. But those people apparently have no clue about the prejudice that still permeates throughout our society.

Today, The American Medical Association, the largest and most respected physicians’ group in the nation, is issuing an apology to African American doctors throughout the country because of decades of discrimination against them.

Today they are doing that. This is 2008 folks, not 1958.

The Washington Post writes that the AMA is “expressing regret for a litany of transgressions, including barring black physicians from its ranks for decades and remaining silent during battles on landmark legislation to end racial discrimination.”

It’s a great thing that such an organization is expressing remorse, but it should also be a wake up call to all of us that we still have a long way to go when it comes to equality in this country.

Discrimination against African Americans in the workplace is actually on the rise. If well-educated, well-off black doctors can’t get a level playing field, what hope do rank and file minority workers have?

I wrote about a rise in workplace racism for MSNBC.com a few months back:

Many of us are marveling at how seemingly far our society has come given a man with an African American heritage is being considered a serious candidate for president. But in the workplace, attitudes toward many black workers are anything but inspiring.

Racial harassment is up to record levels in offices and factories across the country, and we’re not talking just the use of the “N” word. Racist graffiti, Klu Klux Klan propaganda and even physical threats including the display of hangman’s nooses are included among the intimidation tools.

“It is shocking that such egregious and unlawful conduct toward African American employees is still occurring, even increasing, in the 21st century workplace, more than 40 years after enactment of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964,” says David Grinberg, spokesman for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, also known as the EEOC.

It’s hard to stand up and claim to be prideful when you hear this. It’s a disgrace that in this day and age we’re still dealing with such ignorance.

We should always question injustices, just as the AMA’s past president did in a publication for the group. Ronald Davis wrote that many of the organization’s questionable actions reflected the “social mores and racial discrimination” that existed for much of U.S. history. But, he added, that should not excuse them.

“The medical profession, which is based on a boundless respect for human life, had an obligation to lead society away from disrespect of so many lives,” Davis wrote. “The AMA failed to do so and has apologized for that failure.”

Failure is a fact of human life. But we shouldn’t allow failure to go unchecked and pretend everything is great when it’s not.

So don’t be surprised if someone says they are finally proud of America when it seems, as a nation, we’re trying to right the wrongs of the past.

It’s easy to identify someone who has a disability if they’re in a wheel chair or walking around with a seeing eye dog.

But what about a worker who wears a hearing aid or an employee who has epilepsy?

Can a manager fire someone with a hearing aid because they use a hearing aid? Can a boss demote a worker who has an epileptic fit?

Today, the answer is pretty much “yes.”

Under the Americans With Disabilities Act the law is pretty clear on those easy to spot disabilities. You can’t fire someone because they’re blind or unable to walk.

For all those other disabled employees out there who have what seems like less constraining physical issues or for those who are able to deal with their ailments through the use of medicines or prosthetics, for example, they are not typically covered under the ADA.

All that may change soon. The House passed a bill this week that would expand the ADA to cover disabilities that didn’t come under the really disabled umbrella.

This from the Washington Post this week:

WASHINGTON — People who take medicine to control epilepsy, diabetes or cancer or use prosthetic limbs or hearing aids could use the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight workplace discrimination under legislation the House passed Wednesday.

Lawmakers said the Supreme Court has limited the ADA’s reach since it was signed into law by the first President Bush in 1990. “For some the ADA is failing to live up to its promise,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee.

The bill, passed 402-17, is designed to bring people back under the ADA’s protection. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Under the ADA today, a disability would have to “substantially” impact a person daily activities. Under the new legislation the wording would be changed to “materially restricts”, opening up the door for many disabled individuals who are challenged by their disability but can do many day-do-day functions we all do.

So what will this mean for the American workforce? Simply, more people will be considered disabled under the ADA.

“This means more employees will be able to ask for an accommodation even when the medication they take or the device they use (such as a hearing aid) makes them fully capable to do their job,” says David Ritter, an expert on employment law and chair of Neal Gerber Eisenberg’s Labor & Employment Group. “Employers will have to grant accommodations and engage in an interactive process with many more employees.”

It’s unfortunate that we need a law to force employers to “engage in an interactive process” with their workers.

When I get to my desk every morning, I pull up an array of sites. I go to CareerDiva first, of course; then I log onto my Gmail account, my Hotmail account, my YouBiz blog on MSNBC, and I also log into my LinkedIn and Facebook accounts.

As you can imagine, I get a host of emails and messages that are work related and often address pretty serious issues. But this morning I got a message from my 12-year-old nephew Grant. He sent me a greeting card via Facebook.

It looks like the kitten is drunk and the message on the photo says: “Iz no drunk. Now givz me the keys.”

I called him and asked him why he sent it to me. He said, “I don’t know.”

I said, “What do you mean, you don’t know?” He then said, “I was trying to send something else and that one came through. I don’t know what happened.”

I wondered what he intended on sending me. He said, “It was a picture of a cartoon character saying, ‘Respect my authority.’” He added, “do you know South Park? It was Cartman.”

OK, I’m not totally an old fart. “I know Cartman,” I replied, a little miffed.

So why was he sending me this silly message? Grant, a pre-teenager, doesn’t think of social networking sites as a tool to get you ahead in your career.

“I think Facebook is for talking to your friends. It’s pretty fun. You can play games and stuff,” he says.

When I got his drunk cat message this morning, I cringed a bit. My column today on MSNBC.com is about how older workers have a tough time getting another job when they’re laid off, and a big chunk of the advice I offered these employees was to get on social networking sites.

But often job seekers, especially older ones, tell me they just don’t feel comfortable joining these groups. They see them as a haven for young kids who want to talk about hooking up and the latest cyber game.

Grant’s drunk cat lent a bit of credence to their claims.

I admit, there’s a lot of silliness on many of these sites, but don’t throw out the kitten with the spiked bath water.

You can obviously create a network of friends to help you in your job search, but you can also join different networking groups that are specific to your interests. I recently was asked to join a job-searching group on Facebook and it’s jam packed with helpful information.

And at my LinkedIn account I can actually see who’s looking at my profile. This is particularly handy for me when I want to know where I might get the most positive feedback when I pitch a story idea.

Anyway, among the silliness there is substance.

And, honestly, I love that I can hear from my nephew and find out what’s going on in his life. Ten years ago, do you think a 12 year old would have picked up the phone to call his aunt?

Thank you Internet.

Can your boss fire you if your spouse or child is disabled and their medical bills are high, or because your employer thinks you’ll slack off at work because you’re caring for a loved one?

Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, this is a legal no no.

Alas, some employers are doing this exact thing, or at least alleged to be doing this, according to an interesting story in the Wall Street Journal today.

The number of employees filing charges against companies who are firing or in some way discriminating against non-disabled workers because they care for disabled family members is rising. This is called “association discrimination” and it’s not allowed under the ADA.

Did you guys even know this protection existed? Probably not.

But you might be hearing more about it because there are two law suits pending that deal with this little known ADA provision and the outcome of these lawsuits will likely impact many employees who now care for a disabled loved one, or who cover that family member under their employer’s insurance.

According to the article, many of these lawsuits don’t end up benefiting the employee because it’s often hard to prove an employer took some sort of job action against a worker because of his or her disabled family member.

However, the two suits now in the courts “appear to have strong circumstantial evidence” to back up worker claims of discrimination by association.

One case in particular involving Phillis Dewitt whose husband had terminal prostate cancer appears to be strong.

This from The HR Specialist:

Phillis Dewitt worked as a nurse at Proctor Hospital. She received promotions and excellent evaluations that referred to her as an “outstanding clinical manager who consistently goes the extra mile.”

While Dewitt may have gone to lengths for the hospital, the hospital didn’t seem to have returned the favor. The hospital provided health insurance for employees and their dependents through a hybrid self-insurance and catastrophic coverage plan. The hospital covered medical expenses up to $250,000 per year, after which an insurance policy covered the rest.

The HR office regularly tracked expenses and noticed that Dewitt’s husband was racking up big bills for prostate cancer. At one point, Dewitt’s supervisor pulled her aside and suggested that she put her husband into hospice care rather than undergoing chemo and other expensive treatment.

Then, after a financial crisis in which the hospital invited managers to come up with creative solutions to budgeting, Dewitt was fired. Her husband died about a year later.

She sued, alleging association disability discrimination. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said her case should go forward. It reasoned that there was direct evidence of association discrimination. A jury will decide how much that might be worth. (Dewitt v. Proctor Hospital, No. 07-1957, 7th Cir., 2008)

Given the aging of the working population and the never-ending drumbeat in Corporate America to cut labor costs, I think it’s safe to say we’ll be seeing more of these cases…unfortunately.

I love happy endings, especially when they involve workers.

If I were a betting gal, I would have bet that this conservative Supreme Court would have sided with employers in rulings announced yesterday involving workers who were allegedly retaliated against by employers. But thankfully, I would have lost that bet.

In February, I wrote about an employee of restaurant chain Cracker Barrel who was fired for reporting to managers that another worker was being racially discriminated against. It seemed like a clear case of retaliation, which is thought to be a legal no no. Alas, the law is fuzzy in this regard, which is where the Supreme Court came in.

The high court was to decide whether Hendrick Humphries, the Cracker Barrel employee’s, claims of retaliation were indeed covered by existing labor laws, specifically an anti-discrimination statute that has no limits on filing time limits or damages.

And in another case, Myrna Gomez-Perez, a former postal worker in Puerto Rico, filed an age discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and then, she claims, her managers reduced her hours as a result. She to claimed she was retaliated against.

This case would have an ultimate impact on federal employees because the law was unclear on federal employers retaliating based on age discrimination.

In both cases, the Supreme Court decided Tuesday in the employees’ favor, giving them the green light to pursue their lawsuits.

Everyone seemed surprised by the rulings.

From the Associated Press:

An unexpected blend of liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices gave workers more leeway Tuesday to sue when they face retaliation after complaining about discrimination in the workplace.

I was also a bit dumbfounded.

In February, I wrote a blog post for The Huffington Post on how workers should be keeping an eye on the Supreme Courts agenda because the cases they were examining and their ultimate rulings would impact employees for years to come.

Maybe they knew you were all watching.

I get letters like this all the time from individuals who devoted a big chunk of their lives to serving our country, but end up in a job abyss when they try to get work once they leave the military behind:

“I am a retired veteran with twenty two years military experience. I have two Bachelors degrees, however I cannot find a decent job. I send in my resume, but I do not get many call backs. If and when I do they are to say thanks for your interest in our company.”

This letter was from John, who left the military in 2005. He sounds like a hard-working, smart guy, but he can’t get a break when it comes to finding a job. It’s probably even gotten worse for ex-military folks with the tough economy, but too often employers don’t give enough weight to a job seeker’s military background.

I addressed this topic in a column a year ago, and I offered advice to veterans on how they could revamp their resumes and their approaches to interviews to help them out.

But, the bottom line is all of us should start to realize how much great experience veterans have. If we’re hiring managers, employees, CEOs, we all need to think, “hey, this guy or gal was in the military. They probably have the kind of training most job prospects will never have.”

Many have incredible leadership skills, and talk about pressure under fire. Many soldiers also have to be on top of the latest technology, as all the armed services use systems that would make most techies heads spin.

Military folks also have to do a bit of repackaging of themselves. One of the reasons employers are worried about hiring former soldiers is they believe they just can’t leave the Army, Navy, or Air Force behind. They want to know you can easily assimilate into the corporate culture. So, leave the “Yes, Sir!”, “Yes, Ma’ma!” at the interview door. And leave the military jargon off your resume. Make it as simplistic as possible so HR will not just toss your resume in the bin.

And I promise, I mean no disrespect by this. When I wrote similar things in my MSNBC.com column I got a lot of angry emails for people in the military that thought I was putting what they do and who they are down.

I’m not. I respect with all my heart what soldiers do. All I’m doing is trying to help you all with some reality-check career advice because there are people out there who will brush aside your military background, or even use it against you. Don’t let this happen. Be proud of your service and let them know you can adapt to any battlefield, even the corporate one.

Hillary Clinton brought up a great point this week on the campaign trail. She believes the media has ignored sexism against her campaign but have played up racism against Barack Obama.

It got me thinking about attitudes in the workplace. I’ve been writing about discrimination at work for many years, and it does seem sexist remarks don’t seem to carry the same weight as racist remarks among some individuals.

People seem to get more outraged when someone attacks a coworker for the color of their skin than their gender. I’m not basing this on scientific evidence, it is just what I’ve seen as an employee and in the stories workers have shared with me.

Here’s what Clinton had to say in a Washington Post article this week:

“There should be equal treatment of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head. It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.”

Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter, recently made an interesting point. She was referring to the “Iron My Shirt” t-shirt that an idiot displayed at a Clinton rally:

“Suppose somebody at that Barack Obama rally said ‘Shine my shoes,’” Ferraro said. “The person would have been swamped by the media saying, ‘what, are you a racist?’ Hillary barely saw press on this. It is not only the Obama campaign. It is how the press has handled this.”

I have to take issue with Ferraro on one part of this. The press did indeed pick up the story, but I can’t help but think there would have been more outrage if a “shine my shoes” shirt was making the rounds.

What I have found is there still is a lot of racism in the workplace but that tends to be more discreet, where sexism is often overt.

Many of the high level executive women I’ve interviewed for my book “From the Sandbox to the Corner Office” told me about public displays of sexism.

One CEO had a guy put his hand on her knee in a restaurant as he talked about how she probably slept her way to the top. And so many women in power have told me how they were asked if they were secretaries during meetings. If they had been black males, I’m assuming that would never have happened.

Why? We don’t think of women in authority roles.

My husband has an even more interesting theory. He says it’s all about the fear of getting beat up that’s ingrained in boys from a young age. They take that fear into their adults lives. Basically, they’re not afraid women will beat them up. They most fear other men so they’re not as inclined to get in the face of another male no matter what race.

That doesn’t mean they won’t discriminate behind the scenes, keeping other men down by not advancing them or paying them less. But with women, they not only hit a glass ceiling because of forces behind the scene, they are also being deriding face-to-face.

Now I think I’m pretty strong and can take on many men at Fight Club, aka, the workplace. But alas it’s not just about getting gals to lift weights.

Women still make up a small minority of top executives in Corporate America, and the numbers have actually been declining. We have to start seeing women, and I’m talking to women here as well, as leaders.

“All through my career I underestimated what I could do, until the last few years,” a high level, female executive from Wal-Mart told me. “You build a perception of your potential based on what you see, the people who break out of a mold. I grew up in a blue-collar town in the 1960s where the most successful women I saw were beauticians and administrative assistants.”

How did the women CEOs I got to know handle the blatant sexism?

They confronted the sexist individuals head on, and they also often let stupid comments slide. And they had to get to a point where they believed in themselves.

Clinton’s battle for the White House has been eye opening. Whether you support her or not, it has sparked an important national conversation.

I think she has moved us all closer to visualizing a woman as a leader. We just need to translate some of that to our offices and factories.