Workplaces lacking gender balance employ 60% of Australian workers, the same as 20 years ago - comments by Alison Sheridan and Kathy MacDermot

MacDermott, Kathy

Sheridan, Alison

LSE Research Online

Glass	walls:	Australia’s	highly	gender-segregatedworkforceThe	Australian	Parliament	has	recently	published	a	report	exploring	the	reasons	for	workplace	gender	inequalityin	the	country,	and	making	nine	recommendations	for	a	national	strategy	to	close	the	gap.	The	study	describesnot	only	the	existence	of	a	glass	ceiling,	but	also	glass	walls.	In	the	words	of	the	chair	of	the	Parliament’s	Financeand	Public	Administration	Committee,	Senator	Jenny	McAllister:“Australian	men	and	women	lead	very	different	working	lives.	Men	and	women	often	do	not	work	‘side	by	side’	—but	instead	work	in	industries	or	occupations	which	are	dominated	by	one	gender	or	another.	By	internationalstandards,	we	have	a	highly	gender-segregated	workforce.“In	2015-16,	six	in	10	Australian	employees	worked	in	an	industry	which	is	dominated	by	one	gender.	To	put	itanother	way,	60	per	cent	of	Australian	workers	don’t	know	what	it	is	like	to	work	in	an	industry	with	balancedgender	representation.	These	figures	have	remained	relatively	constant	over	the	last	twenty	years.”Senator	McAllister	writes	that	“the	resulting	segregation	is	one	of	the	major	sources	of	the	gender	pay	gap.”The	BroadAgenda	blog,	run	by	the	50/50	by	2030	Foundation	at	the	University	of	Canberra’s	Institute	forGovernance	and	Policy	Analysis	(IGPA),	asked	two	professors	to	offer	their	views	on	the	report’s	findings.Here’s	what	they	had	to	say:Talking	tough	on	gender	pay	parity	(by	Alison	Sheridan,	University	of	New	England)LSE Business Review: Glass walls: Australia’s highly gender-segregated workforce Page 1 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-14Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/14/glass-walls-australias-highly-gender-segregated-workforce/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/Given	the	enduring	gender	pay	inequality	evident	in	Australia,	we	need	more	people	to	keep	banging	on	about	it;as	only	through	pressure	by	public	figures	and	key	institutions	are	we	likely	to	prompt	any	change.	ThoseSenators	on	the	Committee	calling	for	action,	including	embedding	gender	pay	equity	as	an	overall	object	of	theFair	Work	Act,	shouldn’t	be	silenced	by	dismissive	statements	about	how	far	we	have	come;	while	gender	payinequality	continues,	we	haven’t	come	far	enough.We	now	have	the	catchier	name	of	‘glass	walls’	to	describe	the	clustering	of	women	and	men	in	differentoccupations;	with	those	occupations	in	which	women	are	found	paid	less	than	those	where	men	dominate.	Butthis	has	been	clearly	tracked	for	decades,	and	the	patterns	have	remained	remarkably	persistent.	In	Australia,	theEqual	Pay	for	Equal	Work	decision	of	1969	and	the	Equal	Pay	for	Work	of	Equal	Value	decision	of	1972	were	thefirst	steps	taken	to	close	Australia’s	gender	wage	gap,	but	with	public	policy	attention	waxing	and	waning	over	theyears	since,	we	have	yet	to	see	any	fundamental	improvement.Australian	gender	income	inequality	remains	above	the	OECD	average.	While	other	countries	have	reduced	theirgender	wage	gaps,	our	glass	walls	have	proven	remarkably	impervious,	so	this	latest	reminder	of	the	extent	ofthe	problem	by	the	(unsurprisingly)	predominantly	female	Senate	Committee	is	timely.The	undervaluing	of	women’s	work	deserves	our	attention;	not	only	because	it	is	unfair;	but	as	recent	research	Ihave	done	with	colleagues	makes	clear,	it	is	also	a	drag	on	the	Australian	economy.Certainly,	there	have	been	efforts	directed	to	attracting	and	retaining	more	women	to	male	dominatedoccupations,	and	to	better	paid	roles,	but	until	we	address	the	fundamental	problem	of	the	undervaluing	oftraditionally	‘female’	occupations,	and	work	to	attract	a	more	equal	distribution	of	women	and	men	in	these,Australia’s	poor	record	in	gender	pay	equity	will	continue,	with	a	real	cost	to	national	productivity.Until	we	address	the	fundamental	problem	of	the	undervaluing	of	traditionally	‘female’	occupations,	Australia’spoor	record	in	gender	pay	equity	will	continue.There	is	some	hope.	After	decades	of	women’s	low	representation	on	boards	being	tracked	by	the	WorkplaceEquality	Gender	Agency	with	little	change	occurring,	from	the	mid-2000s	we	saw	a	shift.	The	concerted	andsustained	efforts	of	key	women	to	strategically	employ	institutional	pressures	and	argue	the	case	for	more	womenon	boards	in	the	public	domain,	prompted	action.	The	pressures	brought	to	bear	through	the	efforts	of	these‘troublesome’	women	disrupted	the	status	quo.	From	eight	per	cent	of	ASX	200	directors	in	2009,	women	nowmake	up	over	25	per	cent	and	are	expected	to	reach	30	per	cent	by	2018.	We	need	these	sort	of	smarts	to	bedirected	to	achieving	the	goals	articulated	in	the	report	and	keep	the	pressure	on	to	urgently	deliver	tangible,measurable	action	on	pay	equity.LSE Business Review: Glass walls: Australia’s highly gender-segregated workforce Page 2 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-14Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/14/glass-walls-australias-highly-gender-segregated-workforce/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/Valuing	women’s	work	(by	Kathy	MacDermott,	a	member	of	the	Democratic	Audit	of	Australia	and	the	Centrefor	Policy	Development)It	is	important	to	be	clear	at	beginning	that	the	Senate	report	on	workforce	gender	segregation	was	prepared	by	aLabour-dominated	committee.	Coalition	senators	objected	to	it,	basically	arguing—despite	the	evidence	–	thatexisting	initiatives	will	fix	the	problem	of	gender	segregation	if	left	alone.In	fact,	gender	segregation	is	increasing	under	existing	arrangements.	According	to	recent	data	from	theWorkplace	Gender	Equality	Agency,	traditionally	female-dominated	industries	such	as	health	care,	socialassistance	and	education	and	training	have	seen	their	proportion	of	women	increase	further.	While	some	male-dominated	industries	(including	electricity,	gas,	water,	waste	services,	transport,	postal	and	warehousing)recorded	growth	in	female	representation,	others	(such	as	the	construction	and	wholesale	trade)	have	recorded	adecline.Yes,	glass	walls	exist,	standing	between	industries	and	between	occupations	within	industries.	They	restrictcareer	choices	for	both	women	and	men.	They	limit	productivity	by	reducing	efficient	labour	allocation.	They	alsoplay	a	significant	role	in	ensuring	that	full-time	women	continue	to	receive	84	per	cent	of	full-time	men’s	earnings.Studies	vary,	but	a	2014	report	found	that	the	segregation	of	men	and	women	at	work	accounts	for	around	30	percent	of	this	gap.A	substantial	earnings	difference	has	been	built	into	the	Australian	system	from	the	beginning.	In	1919	the	basicwage	for	women	was	set	at	54	per	cent	of	the	basic	wage	for	men.	This	was	not	because	of	the	value	of	the	work—it	was	because	women	were	not	regarded	as	breadwinners.		In	cases	where	women	were	not	competingagainst	men	for	jobs—cases	of	gender	segregation—skill	margins	above	the	basic	rate	were	set	at	54-75	percent	of	men’s.Even	after	the	basic	wage	was	reset	at	a	common	rate	for	men	and	women	in	1974,	the	wage	discount	for	beinga	woman	remained	embedded	in	their	skill-based	classifications.	In	many	cases	it	still	sits	there,	and	existingequal	remuneration	legislation	has	been	very	ineffective	at	getting	it	out.Ever	since	they	were	first	introduced	in	1993,	the	equal	remuneration	provisions	of	the	Fair	Work	Act	have	beeninterpreted	by	the	Commission	as	requiring	women’s	work	to	be	compared	with	men’s	work	to	establish	its	value.	In	a	highly	gender-segregated	workforce,	comparator	classifications	of	men	undertaking	work	similar	to	women’swere	naturally	limited,	and	demonstrating	equivalent	work	value	between	classifications	of	women	and	men	doingdifferent	jobs	gave	rise	to	interminable	arguments	about	how	work	value	was	to	be	determined.LSE Business Review: Glass walls: Australia’s highly gender-segregated workforce Page 3 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-14Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/14/glass-walls-australias-highly-gender-segregated-workforce/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/Experience	in	the	few	successful	equal	remuneration	cases	–	mainly	at	state	level	–	shows	that	women’s	workwill	continue	to	be	undervalued	until	the	current	legislation	is	amended	to	recognise	traditional	undervaluation	ofwork	on	the	ground	that	it	is	female	dominated.	Not	comparators,	but	sex-based,	historical	and	ongoingundervaluation.This	is	what	the	recent	Senate	report	recommends,	and	this	is	what	the	Coalition	dissenters	are	resisting.	Theirgiven	reason	for	this	is	that	the	proposals	‘potentially	duplicate	or	weaken	existing	initiatives’.	But	it	is	certainlyalso	relevant	that	much	of	women’s	work	is	in	industries	associated	with	what	the	Government	likes	to	call	‘baddebt’	–	that	is,	industries	with	recurrent	costs	such	as	health,	education	and	social	support.	Fortunately	for	men,they	predominate	in	work	that	is	associated	with	‘good	debt’,	such	as	building	and	construction.Will	Australia	meet	its	G20	target	of	reducing	the	gender	gap	in	workforce	participation	by	25	per	cent	by	theyyear	2025?	From	a	gender	segregation	perspective	it	does	not	matter.	Gender	segregation	does	not	restrictwomen’s	workforce	participation	–	what	it	does	restrict	is	women’s	access	to	career	choice	and	to	fair	pay.	Andit’s	increasing.The	consensus	among	jurisdictions	comparable	to	Australia	is	that	unequal	sharing	of	family	responsibilitiesbetween	men	and	women	continues	to	consolidate	feminised	industries,	because	those	industries	have	beenconfigured	around	part-time,	casualised,	and	undervalued	work.		This	means	that	women	congregate	insegregated	industries/occupations,	and	that	men	will	not	enter	them.Did	we	need	another	parliamentary	report	on	this?	We	certainly	need	to	amend	our	ineffective	equal	paylegislation.	Even	if	the	Coalition	Senators	are	uninterested	in	pursuing	change,	it	is	at	least	now	clearly	on	thetable	and	may	even	stay	there	through	the	next	election.♣♣♣Notes:This	blog	post	merges	three	articles	from	The	BroadAgenda	blog,	run	by	the	50/50	by	2030	Foundation	atthe	University	of	Canberra’s	Institute	for	Governance	and	Policy	Analysis	(IGPA):	1)	Gender	segregation	inthe	workplace	(a	very	brief	summary	of	it);	2)	Talking	tough	on	gender	pay	parity,	and	3)	Valuing	women’sworkThe	post	gives	the	views	of	its	authors,	not	the	position	of	LSE	Business	Review	or	the	London	School	ofEconomics.Featured	image	credit:	Photo	by	Clem	Onojeghuo	on	Unsplash,	under	a	CC0	licence;	Talking	tough	ongender	parity:	Strong,	by	OpenClipart-Vectors,	under	a	CC0	licence;	Valuing	women’s	work:	Photoby	WOCinTech	Chat,	under	a	CC-BY-2.0	licenceBefore	commenting,	please	read	our	Comment	Policy.Alison	Sheridan	completed	her	undergraduate	degree	in	agricultural	economics	at	the	Universityof	Sydney.	Prior	to	completing	her	PhD,	she	worked	as	an	agricultural	economist	in	Australia	andthe	US.	Since	joining	University	of	New	England,	Alison	has	taken	on	a	number	of	roles,	the	mostrecent	being	the	Head	of	the	UNE	Business	School.	Her	research	interests	span	gender	andhuman	resource	management,	corporate	governance	and	regional	development	and	she	haspublished	widely	in	these	areas.Kathy	MacDermott	has	taught	in	universities	in	Australia	and	the	United	States	and	worked	in	thesenior	executive	service	of	the	Australian	Public	Service	in	the	areas	of	industrial	relations	policyand	public	sector	governance.	She	is	a	member	of	the	Democratic	Audit	of	Australia	and	theCentre	for	Policy	Development.LSE Business Review: Glass walls: Australia’s highly gender-segregated workforce Page 4 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-14Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/14/glass-walls-australias-highly-gender-segregated-workforce/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/

Glass walls: Australia's highly gender-segregated workforce

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online