That Trevor Phillips, he does actually state the truth sometimes:
“There is one
fact that above all else leads to women’s inequality in the labour market —
becoming a mother."
From all of the research into the subject that really does seem to be the case: the taking time out of the workforce to have and to raise children (and to some extent the perception that women will do so) is indeed the reason for the persistent gender pay gap. The thing is, what, if anything at all, should we do about it?
His review recommends more flexible working hours, job sharing and childcare
facilities in the public and private sectors.
I have no problem with flexible working hours but the problem with the other two is that they won’t actually work, however delightful they sound. For, as the Women and Work Commission (think I’ve got that name correct) pointed out, employing people on a job share basis costs more per unit of labour than employing a full timer. Thus, clearly, people on job shares will get paid less pro rata than someone working full time. Similarly, child care facilities cost money: there will thus be less to pay wages to those who avail themselves of such childcare.
So while I’m absolutely delighted for there to be childcare, flexible hours and so on, the problem here is that they won’t solve the problem as identified.
There is indeed a gender gap in pay: it is caused by the demands of child rearing. By insisting that employers absorb some of those costs of child rearing we will be perpetuating the gender pay gap, for said employers look at the total cost of employing someone, not simply the wage packet.
Or another way of saying the same thing. We measure the gender pay gap by looking at the difference in wage income between men and women. If we insist that employers pay higher non wage costs to employ women then we are ensuring that their wage income will be lower, thus insisting upon what we found to be so objectionable in the first place.
Well done Trevor!
Leave a Reply