Some dramatic figures which illustrate phenomena probably already well-known to many readers, from the BBC.
Mr Barber [General Secretary of the UK's Trade Union Congress] said: “We all expect our wages to increase as our careers progress. But women’s wages start to stagnate as early as their 30s.”Despite girls outperforming boys at school and at university, too many employers are still failing to make use of women’s skills.”The TUC study found that women of all ages earn less than men and that woman are twice as likely as men to be poor…Fawcett’s campaigns officer Kat Banyard said: “At every level in UK workplaces women are being paid less than men.”The paucity of senior flexible roles and the long working hours culture shuts women out of the boardroom and forces then into lower-paid, lower-status jobs when they have children.”
One thing I like about the TUC approach is the way that it highlights both the injustice to women and the loss to employers. Students all too often react to figures like these by insisting that it would be too impractical for employers to accommodate the needs to parents with heavy childcare responsibilities. It’s well worth noting what employers miss out on by not doing so.
Minister for women Harriet Harman said the government planned “tough new measures” in an Equality Bill to be published later this year.
Hope these measures really are both tough and new.(Thanks, Jender-Parents!)
It’s a shame. I don’t see what the government could do about it, though. It seems like something that needs to be worked out between the employers, their employees, and activists.
“What employers miss out on”?
Sorry, but what do they miss out on? If there were low hanging fruit, if there were extra profits to be had simply by changing the composition of or the terms of employment of the workforce, then they would do so wouldn’t they? They are, after all, profit maximisers.
The very fact that employers do not create “high value part time jobs” (as Fawcett and others demand) is that they cost the employer more than they are worth.
Even the Women at Work Commission recognised this.
Actually, there are many things that the government could do, starting with childcare provisions. One major reason for the pay-gap is that women are still (at least in the UK and US) the primary caretakers of small children. And workplace practices are hostile towards children’s primary caretakers. Furthermore, in the UK childcare is incredibly expensive; it is actually better for a family’s overall economic position for one parent to stay at home (either on full-time or part-time bases) to look after children, rather than pay for external childcare. Given that men tend to earn more than women, it often makes sense for women to stay at home, or work part-time – something that again has an impact on the pay-gap. So, the government could (and should) reform the childcare system. This isn’t that difficult; some European social democratic states have managed to do so. For instance, Finland has a universal bill of children’s rights that includes the right of children to have access to affordable, high quality day-care. Childcare provisions are state run and controlled, being a childminder actually requires 3-year college qualification, and childcare is progressively charged. So, each family (broadly conceived) pays according to their income, not the same lump sum. That the UK (and US) governments are unwilling to implement something along these lines simply demonstrates to me their unwillingness to really commit to social justice.
Are womens wages stagnating or are the new generation of women just being paid more?
I would be surprised if this was a longitudinal study.
Or rather I accept that womens wages probably are effected by something like that but I’m not sure this study proves it.