Tim Worstall

Women and Work Commission

So the Women and Work Commission published its report yesterday. The Torygraph Leader appeals to me:

Some of the commission’s conclusions should, though,
be treated with scepticism. The large numbers of women now in the
professions, and in highly paid jobs in other successful sectors of the
economy, prove that, for some time, careers advisers have been painting
a refreshingly complete picture of opportunities.

That
pay rates in some jobs that predominantly employ women – such as care
and ancillary staff – are lower reflects both the large reservoir of
labour available and the tendency of such posts to fit in with the
other responsibilities many women have, such as caring for children.
Society does not arbitrarily set wage rates: markets do.


For many women, lower pay is the price for choosing to have a family as
well, and it is right that they – and not their employers – should bear
the cost of that choice.

Also, women who have had
career breaks may be paid less because they have less experience as a
result. That, too, is only fair. Our economy needs women at all levels
in the workplace, and could not function without them.

Having actually read the report I’d say it’s actually pretty good in its fact gathering and not so good in its conclusions. They point out that direct discrimination does exist but is a small part of the problem (5% of the gender gap in the financial professions, for example). The careers point is well made above. What was true in the past, and is therefore still true for the older women in the workforce, is no longer so. The majority of graduates, entry level lawyers and doctors, are female, for example.

They also point to but seem to have trouble in acknowledging, the fact that part time and flexible jobs cost the employer more than full timers. Thus those doing the jobs will get less per hour.

The problem, if you want to define it as one, revolves around the amount of time taken out of the workforce for the raising of children. That plus a bit of employers’ worries that someone might be about to do that. Taking a year or two out means missing on promotions and pay rises, rusty work skills, more training required on return and so on. Do this two or three times and it’s not all that surprising that incomes fall.

As I say, this might strike you as a problem or it might not. You pays your money and you takes your choice to my mind. But say it is a problem in your mind. What might be the solution? If the problem is taking too much time out from building that career then reducing the time taken out would seem logical.

So, the solution to the gender pay gap: reduce maternity leave.

In

8 responses

  1. Petrona Avatar
    Petrona

    Yes it is a real problem and I wish there was an answer. I grew up in times where women were firmly told they were equal and should not seek concessions for being women. I felt guilty going on “any” maternity leave. my first such leave was 11 weeks, I returned to work a wreck, baby waking at night hungry, all that sterilising and preparing milk for next day’s work, feeling hormonal and miserable, but above all, totally exhausted. The second leave I learned by my mistakes and took 5 months. I kept my “career track”.
    I have seen other colleagues go through the whole range of “solutions” — quitting, career breaks, one-year maternity leaves, returning to part-time working, etc. As a manager myself, I appreciate the employer’s perspective, as a parent I appreciate the mother-as-person’s.
    One thing that I have seen over the years though, is that “IT IS OK FOR MEN”. I have not seen male parents taking the solutions listed above. After they have had a child, the usual solution for the male parent is “business as usual” out at the pub after work, long hours or whatever, while the female parent (again, in my experience) goes home early to see child for half an hour between childcare option and bedtime. This goes on long after the “biological need” for the mother (ie if the female parent has returned to work while still breastfeeding) has finished.
    I have not read the report — but it sounds from what you say as if it is an analysis of the issue rather than a solution.
    I am not sure whether your comment about cutting maternity pay is facetious or serious. If it was serious, I think a lot more women would just quit if they only got a few weeks’ maternity leave. It is very, very hard working when you have a tiny baby — I’m pretty tough and have experienced more of life’s tragedies than most, and I think I can say it was the most difficult thing I have ever done — the combined effect of the exhaustion and the hormones cannot be exaggerated.
    So more women will quit because they can’t take it. They’ll have to re-employ themselves as supermarket shelf stackers on the night shift when their kids are old enough for primary school (I know plenty who have been forced into this solution even though well qualified, becuase who wants to employ a deskilled mother when there are plenty of young graduates with up to date skills?). They’ll go mad, get depressed, have a vastly reduced standard of living as a family so wont’ be able to afford the odd holiday to make it all seem worthwhile. Divorce rate up, etc etc.
    In short, Tim, I don’t think you have thought through your solution of reducing maternity leave.
    But I don’t have a solution either.
    Tim adds: The US has 12 weeks maternity leave. They also have 45% of high flyers jobs filled by women compared to our 33%. Could be some connection there.

    Reply
  2. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    I also think you haven’t though it through. You also believe in scrapping all welfare benefits (I believe), and so essentially you would make it so that only women with rich husbands/partners would be able to have children. This might not be the optimum solution for the country.
    Tim adds: Scrapping all welfare benefits? Well, yes, but their replacement with a Citizen’s Basic Income. Not quite the uber right winger you think I am.

    Reply
  3. Mark T Avatar
    Mark T

    You are right there is no simple solution – but isn’t this the problem with all these reports? – millions are spent to gather facts and then they are used to support an existing agenda – in this case millions more to be spent on ensuring equal pay (presumably by employing lots more civil servants to monitor and arrange more task forces and ask for yet more money.)Common sense tells us that improving maternity leave has the effect of making small employers reluctant to employ women. They won’t say so directly of course (there are too many inspectors about), but where possible and with two equal candidates the male will increasingly get the job. Unintended consequences and all that. Anyone taking time out in their early to mid 30’s faces being overtaken not only by their contempories but those coming up behind them – male and female. If two equally qualified people are doing the same job, and objectively are doing it equally well, then they should be paid the same. Beyond that we must accept there are many reasons for different pay. Ensure there is no abuse but don’t try and control everything

    Reply
  4. Rob Read Avatar
    Rob Read

    Matthew,
    We simply don’t beleive that one person should live on the back of another by force.
    It’s called morality.

    Reply
  5. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Rob,
    A citizen’s income is paid to everyone, regardless of whether they work or not, contribute to funds or not, etc. So I’d drop the ‘we’ for start.

    Reply
  6. Rob Read Avatar
    Rob Read

    I like the idea of a citizens dividend, based on income received from selling non-renewable assets such as oil etc.
    I reject a citizens income, as it can only come from fining moral behaviour.

    Reply
  7. Petrona Avatar
    Petrona

    Re. your comment about the USA, Tim (in response to my comment on your post — pretty nested eh?)
    I work for a company whose main offices are in the UK and US. I have many close colleagues in NY, DC, SF and Boston. Over the years, far more of the US colleagues have quit becuase of the really short maternity leaves they get compared with the UK end.
    I am not a rabid feminist, I promise. Just a reasonable person wanting a reasonable deal for everyone. I am really shocked at some of the comments on your later posting on this topic (Thee Polly Toynbee one). Is that guy who says “mommy” (individual) should negotitate each individual leave for herself serious?
    Just remember, it takes two to get pregnant. Can any of you people with Y chromosomes come up with a solutoin that does not make a woman suffer in some way — quit or struggle on.
    Yes of course some women do manage — Mrs Thatcher was a career woman/mother — but I hope not typical.
    How about a proposal that will work to keep everyone working (economy good, lifestyles relatively reasonable) and not discriminate about the XXs who are left holding the baby whatever happens?
    Tim adds: Well, that’s really rather my point. We thought that giving longer maternity leaves would help to fix the problem. But it seems to be causing another one, the longer breaks from work making women less productive and thus they getting paid less. One of the painful points about economicsis that one has to make choices…and the available ones arenot necessarily the ones you would actually want.

    Reply
  8. Petrona Avatar
    Petrona

    PS the US labour market is very different from the UK/Europe. They workforce is far more flexible, people do not stay in jobs for as long. People get 2 weeks vacation a year (though more paid bank holidays — but does not add up to the number of European holidays). You can get fired instantly, and in any event are on 2 weeks’ notice (in the UK where I work, it is 3 months, in the US offices, 2 weeks).
    I don;t think you can make a direct comparison on maternity benefits becuase the two baselines are not directly comparable.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Mark TCancel reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading