Managing_Diversity_and_Equal_Opportunities

|STUDENT NUMBER: |##### | |Module: |Diversity and Equal Opportunities: | |Assignment: |Critically review the reasons for the existence of the gender pay gap and evaluate the | | |measures that organisations should and could take to eliminate it. | |Module leader: |## | |Due: |## | In considering the reasons for the continued existence of a disparity in the earnings of men and women this piece will explore the historical context of the role of women in the workplace and its effects upon their earning capacity. It will look at the social influences which determine women’s roles and explore the effects of measures to address the disparity by combating discrimination with incentives and legislation. To understand the reasons for the existence of the gender pay gap, one must examine how it came about and the reasons for the continued suppression of women’s pay and earning potential. Until 1918, women did not have a vote, being subject to a patriarchal society. Their contribution to the war effort during the first war helped to bring about their right to vote (The National Archives), but their work was neither valued nor rewarded. During the Second World War women served in roles that had been traditionally seen as 'men's work'. They could join the auxiliary services, serving as volunteers or on British farms in the Land Army. By 1943 around 90 per cent of single women and 80 per cent of married women were involved in war work. (Spartacus Educational) In 1951, The International Labour Organisation adopted the Equal Remuneration Convention whose purpose was to bring about "equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value" referring to rates of remuneration established without discrimination based on sex. Article 119 of The Treaty of Rome, 1957 required that “each Member State shall during the first stage ensure and subsequently maintain the application of the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work”. This commitment to the principle of equal pay between women and men was considered “the starting point for the EU policy on women’s rights”. (Hoskyns, 1999. p 37) Nonetheless, the traditional roles for women’s and men’s paid work continued and were perpetuated by patriarchal control of wages and recruitment practices in specifically excluding women as candidates for higher paid work, as observed by Brunner’s report on US pay inequality: “Until the early 1960s, newspapers published separate job listings for men and women. Jobs were categorized according to sex, with the higher level jobs listed almost exclusively under ‘Help Wanted—Male.’” Similar practices were practiced in the UK, where women were still seen as working for ‘pin money’, ie to pay for the little extras that they may need, their husband being the main earner or ‘breadwinner’. It was not until 1970 that The Equal Pay Act, coming into force in 1975, legally required employers to pay women the same as men for similar or equivalent work. The Act was amended by the Equal Value (Amendment) Regulations 1983. Thirty years on from the Act, the gender pay gap, though narrower, continues to exist and the reasons for this were explored by the 2006 Women and Work Commission (WWC) report - Shaping a Fairer Future which found that “Women are crowded into a narrow range of lower-paying occupations, mainly those available part time, that do not make the best use of their skills” and that “Women and men tend to do different jobs, a pattern which is usually referred to as ‘occupational segregation’. Women tend to work in lower paid occupations, in particular dominating the five ‘c’s – caring, cashiering, catering, cleaning, and clerical. The occupations which are regarded as ’women’s work’ are under-valued”. Gender Pay Gap Gender pay gap narrows [pic] Pay gap between women's and men's median hourly earnings excluding overtime (employees on adult rates, pay unaffected by absence) According to the Office for National Statistics the gender pay gap narrowed from 12.6 percent in 2008 to 12.2 per cent in 2009 for full-time employees. Employers clearly need to be incentivised to employ women in better paid positions and to pay women the same as men for work of equal value, other than by the requirements of legislation. The cost to the economy of the loss of women’s contribution to the workplace has been estimated by the WWC at between £15 billion and £23 billion or 1.3 to 2.0 per cent of GDP. Employers failing to meet or recognise their duties under the Act may be subject to court enforcement: Pay justice for women workers in equal pay win against council. 1,200 low paid women - including cleaners, support workers and cooks - stand to gain thousands of pounds each after UNISON fought and won an equal pay claim against Bury Metropolitan Borough Council. Following a four-week hearing, the council’s claims that the men were paid more because of a genuine material factor, rather than because of the workers’ sex, were rejected. (UNISON). Similar cases have been brought for example by the GMB union winning a case in 2007 for dinner ladies. Such cases as these, usually in local government where comparators are more readily identifiable, tend to deal with the lower paid job grades. An employment tribunal will hear cases brought where the interpretation of legislation requires clarification. The Equal Pay Act 1970 allows a claim to be brought if the man and the woman are employed in: like work; work rated as equivalent; work of equal value (Daniels & Macdonald, 2009, pp 156-159). Cases brought under the Act have established precedent to address such factors as the determination of like work; the claimants successor as a comparator; comparators outside the organisation. At the other end of the employment spectrum, in senior management positions, women continue to have low representation with boardrooms of top companies dominated by men, as reported in Ruth Sunderland’s article for The Observer, “Women occupy only 242 out of 2,742 seats on the boards of FTSE 350 companies…” The Co-operative Asset Management report commissioned by The Observer finds relative equality at junior levels, whilst women’s representation declines at the point, presumably as seniority is achieved, where flexibility in employment diminishes. As McGolgan (1997) stated in relation to vertical segregation, “ …to the extent that pay depends upon the occupational level reached by an individual, discrimination suffered by women in terms of promotion within the various occupations will impact on the overall relationship between men’s and women’s pay.” According to Kakabadse et al (p. 99) despite the changes to employment patterns for women: one in four being likely to remain childless; more returning to work after a maternity break and more women working full-time for much of their career, women are still not gaining management opportunities. Where women do manage to break through the ‘glass ceiling’ to achieve senior positions, they may have had to adopt a ‘masculine’ attitude or have had to demonstrate achievements well beyond what would have been required of a male candidate just to be considered on an equal footing. It is also often the case that a woman executive finds herself at the helm of a failing organisation or in a ‘glass cliff’ position, where succeeding in the executive position is unlikely. Human-capital theory holds that earnings in the labour market depend upon the employees’ information and skills maintaining a link to the determination of wages. The idea that workers embody information and skills that contribute to production and their earnings potential was first put forward by Adam Smith. Human capital can be seen as having general skills, such as being able to read and write, or in the acquisition of specialist skills. The opportunities for women to acquire these specialist skills, giving rise to career advancement opportunities are more limited as their career paths may be interrupted for having children. The emphasis on career development during employees’ 20s and 30s, at a time in their lives when women are taking a break for having children (Sutherland), further disadvantages women in that their opportunity for acquisition of career advancing skills is missed. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) report (2008) shows that while the pay gap experienced by women continues to narrow, the underlying causes of the pay gap persist. Women’s work continues to be undervalued, the employment penalty for mothers and family responsibility persists, occupational gender segregation remains, and discriminatory treatment in the workplace continues to hamper efforts to further reduce the pay gap. Career advancement or access to opportunities may be inhibited by the attitudes of the people involved in the selection procedure. There is the stereotype perception where the attitude of recruiters obstructs the advancement of women in that they assume a senior position is better filled by a man – “Think manager, think male”. This stereotype is reinforced by the absence of positive role models with successful women often portrayed with negative personality traits. Because of the lack of senior women, bosses tend to be male and to “recruit in their own image” (Sutherland). Women are pressured by social reinforcements of their roles in society. Defined by Foucault as bio power, it is seen as generally unacceptable or socially deviant for women to aspire. Such aspirations may be achieved by a woman defying the prescribed roles, but this is usually at a personal cost in other areas of her life. As a result of lost opportunity in terms of earning power, women’s earnings being lower over their lifetime, they are able to accrue less contributions to personal pension funds and many women find themselves less well off or in relative poverty in retirement compared to their male counterparts. Organisations need to recognise the lost advantage in the failure to promote women. Senior management should reflect the entire workforce and the population served by the organisation if it is to develop strategies for growth and improved performance. A company which values diversity in its workforce and seeks to ensure representation by women will be one which embeds diversity into its corporate strategy and ensures responsibility is reflected throughout the organisation (Kakabadse). Many organisations persist in practices which are discriminatory towards women and measures need to be introduced which remove these. In recruitment for example, as described in Hollings & Rimmer 2007 (p.294) “managers feel they need to know…whether a (young woman) is married. …(or) how old a person’s children are.” Discriminatory assumptions may be made from such knowledge and the interviewer may not request it and application forms should not require such personal information. Public bodies are required to carry out equality impact assessments and to be assessed against the equality framework for local government in their internal policies and in service delivery. All assessments of Local Authority performance include a requirement to demonstrate the level of achievement against the equality framework and materially affect the authority’s rating, adding to the incentive to achieve compliance as a good Audit Commission rating can result in a better financial settlement and reduce frequency of inspection. The legislation will require private sector employers to publish information about differences in pay between men and women with penalties being imposed for non-compliance after April 2013. Employers are incentivised to offer flexible working to their employees. Interest among private sector employers in family-friendly working arrangements is most likely to be driven by concerns about retaining skilled staff and keeping up with competitors. New legislation offering rights to unpaid parental leave and time off caring for dependants have also persuaded companies to adopt more flexible working practices, according to research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Bond et al). The Equality Bill 2009 extends the scope to use positive action and extends the permission for political parties to use women-only shortlists for election candidates until 2030. Positive action is a means by which employers may seek to redress the lack of representation of women or other groups amongst its employees. Positive action is important in equality and diversity processes. It attempts to engage employees and potential employees who are members of particular groups which are under-represented in particular work. Discrimination in selection remains unlawful but measures to encourage applications for work from under-represented groups are appropriate. An example of this would be a statement of encouragement directed at welcoming applications from women. Positive action is not to be confused with positive discrimination, this being unlawful. The use of women-only shortlists in an attempt to address the under-representation of women in parliament is a contentious and at times a divisive issue particularly for The Labour Party. It was challenged and ruled illegal in 1996, but enshrined in the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. The use of this method and its associated publicity sparked debate and brought to the attention of the public the issue of the lack of opportunity for women to achieve senior positions. Action by government is appropriate and necessary to the continued reduction of the pay gap between men and women through improved opportunities for women. Government legislation is only necessary to address the failure of employers to promote pay equality. By making employers offer greater flexibility in employment to both men and women, the government seeks to promote the aspirations of women and under represented groups by doing away with traditional roles and perpetuated stereotypes. Measures introduced by employers which improve flexibility in employment can lead to increased morale amongst the workforce, reducing rates of sickness absence and thereby improving productivity. Ultimately the employer will achieve a benefit. Though some will continue to resist government intervention in employment practices such organisations are largely seen as unattractive to work for and will fail to attract the better candidates to vacancies. Whilst the pay gap continues to close it has not been converging nearly fast enough, disparity between men’s and women’s pay having been first identified in the mid-20th century. Attitudes need to be changed and stereotypical expectations overcome in order for women to achieve their full potential in the employment market and to achieve parity with men. Word count: 2278/2500 |Bibliography: | |Bond, S., Hyman, J., Summers, J. & Wise, S., (2002). [Online]. Putting family-friendly working policies into practice. Joseph Rowntree | |Foundation. Available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/putting-family-friendly-working-policies-practice [Accessed 13 January | |2010]. | |Brunner, B., (2007). The Wage Gap: A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act. [Online]. Pearson Education. Available at: | |http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html [Accessed 13 January 2010]. | |Daniels, K. & Macdonald, L., (2009). Equality, Diversity and Discrimination. Trowbridge:CIPD | |Equal Pay Act 1970, [Online]. HM Government. Available at: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1970/pdf/ukpga_19700041_en.pdf [Accessed 12 November| |2009]. | |Equality Bill 2009 – explanatory notes, [Online] HM Government. Available at: | |http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/005/en/2010005en.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2009]. | |Hollings, A. & Rimmer, J., (2007). Managing People and Performance. 2nd ed. Gosport:Pearson. | |Hoskyns, C. (1999). Then and Now: Equal Pay in European Union politics. In Gregory, J., Sales, R., Hegewisch, A., eds. (1999) Women, Work| |and Inequality. New York, USA: Palgrave Publishers, 1999. p 37. Available online at: | |http://site.ebrary.com/lib/staffordshire/Doc'id=2004464&ppg=37 Copyright © 1999. Palgrave Publishers. All rights reserved. [Accessed 12 | |November 2009]. | |International Labour Organisation, Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), [Online]. Office of the United Nations High | |Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/equalremuneration.htm [Accessed 12 November | |2009]. | |Kakabadse, A., Bank, J. & Vinnicombe, S., (2005) Working in Organisations. 2nd ed. England: Penguin. | |Kelly, R., & White, I., (2009). All women shortlists. [Online]. House of Commons Library. Available at: | |http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05057.pdf [Accessed] 13 January 2010. | |McGolgan, A., (1997) Just Wages for Women. Oxford:Clarendon Press | |National Archives, The, Gaining Women’s’ Suffrage: Women, Work and War. [Online]. The National Archives. Available online at: | |http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/britain1906to1918/g4/cs4/g4cs4.htm [Accessed 12 November 2009]. | |Office for National Statistics, (2009). Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. [Online] Available at | |http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ashe1109.pdf Office for National Statistics, [Accessed 12 November 2009]. | |Office for National Statistics, (2009). Labour Market, [Online]. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp'id=167 | |[Accessed 12 November 2009]. | |Spartacus Educational. Second World War: Women’s War Work. [Online]. Schoolnet. Available at: | |http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWwarwork.htm [Accessed 12 November 2009]. | |Sunderland, R., (2009) Women still face a steep climb to the top table. [Online]. The Observer 23.08.09. Available at: | |http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/aug/23/women-directors-gender-gap-survey [Accessed 13 January 2010]. | |Treaty of Rome, The, 25 March 1957. [Online]. Available at: http://www.eurotreaties.com/rometreaty.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2009]. | |TUC, Closing the Gender Pay Gap: An update report for TUC Women’s Conference 2008. [Online]. Available at: | |http://www.tuc.org.uk/equality/tuc-14435-f0.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2009]. | |UNISON, (2009) Press Releases. [Online]. Available at: http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp'id=1483 [Accessed] 13 | |January 2010]. | |Women and Work Commission, Shaping a Fairer Future, (2006). [Online]. Department of Trade and Industry. Available at: | |http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/Shaping%20a%20Fairer%20Future%20report.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2009]. |