Making it work for women
Speech delivered by Pru Goward, Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the Recruiting and Consulting Services Association Luncheon Series, Sydney, 30 April 2003.
35 minute speech
30 April 2003
Recruiting and Consulting Services Association Owner/manager
Luncheon Series
Four Seasons Hotel, 199 George St
Sydney NSW 2000
- Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for inviting me here today.
- I am delighted to have been given the opportunity to speak at the Recruiting and Consulting Services Association Owner/Manager Luncheon Series.
- Today I have been asked to discuss a number of issues that affect women's workforce experience.
- It's a popular topic or is that just me?
- Why? Because women are in the workforce to stay.
- Currently women make up 44 per cent of Australia's labour force. (1)
- In the recruitment industry - an industry which is Australia's largest employer over 3/4 of those employed are female.
- Women are and will continue to be an integral, necessary and crucial part of Australia's workforce.
- The issues pertinent to women in work will therefore have ramifications for the entire workforce - particularly as our workforce is set to decline in real numbers by 2005-07.
- In this shrinking marketplace workers will become the sought after commodity.
- And companies will be forced to create and offer workplaces that are attractive and responsive to employees' needs.
- A looming labour shortage is not only a problem for Australia. It is part of a global trend.
- So it will not only be companies competing for workers - countries too will have to offer desirable working conditions in the global scramble for the young and employable.
- As global shifts of labour illustrate, the young, mobile, sought after members of today's workforce can and will go anywhere - they change employers, professions and countries without hesitation - especially when more attractive offers are made.
- If Australia is to compete at an international level and function at a national level it therefore becomes increasingly important to offer and have in place a workforce that works for everyone.
- And at the moment, the Australian workforce is not working for women.
- Just look at paid maternity leave, pay equity and the general lack of support for workers with families.
- These issues can be dealt with separately, yet they are also inter-related - women experience discrimination in the workforce, mainly as a result of their child-bearing role. Lack of access to paid maternity leave furthers this discrimination and equal opportunity in employment addresses some aspects of this discrimination.
- Let's look at paid maternity leave and the debate that has surrounded the issue.
- With the launch of my interim paper outlining options for a national scheme of paid maternity leave mid last year, paid maternity leave became the focus of Australia's work and family debate.
- Currently, Australia does not have in place a national scheme of paid maternity leave.
- Rather, it is provided for on an ad hoc basis, at the discretion of employers.
- The result is that only 38 per cent of women in paid work report having access to paid maternity leave - while 62 per cent go without.
- Under this system those most likely to receive paid maternity leave are highly skilled, employed full time and working in the public sector or large organisations.
- Those least likely to be provided with the benefit are less skilled, in part time and casual work and marginal employment - included in this group are the most vulnerable members of our workforce.
- Therefore whenever I hear people describe the wonderful arrangements being made possible for highly skilled workers like lawyers, I always feel sorry for the vast bulk of women who are unskilled hospitality or retail workers, who will never have access to flexible arrangements unless they become casuals or part timers.
- That of course is what governments are for- to bridge the gaps for people who don't have quite the same bargaining position but whose needs are nevertheless as important.
- That is why I have recommended the introduction a government-funded national scheme of paid maternity leave.
- Australia has devoted much air time, print space and public debate to this policy proposal.
- In my final paper on this issue, which I released in December last year, I recommended that such a scheme be a government funded benefit of up to the minimum wage for women who had been in paid work for fourteen weeks, to enable them to stay at home after childbirth.
- The minimum wage is $431 per week.
- It was a very modest recommendation; I proposed that women who received this benefit would not receive others and some may even choose not to take the paid leave.
- The net cost of the scheme was calculated at $213million a year; this would have to be the cheapest family support programme in the country.
- What's more, it's one of the few social support schemes opened up to this sort of scrutiny. Can you remember having your say on the half a billion dollar baby bonus, or the Family Tax rebates, or even the 1993 maternity allowance measure?
- No, this scheme however, the community has pulled to pieces and put back together again several times.
- Employers, unions, industry groups and the public all had their say, voiced their concerns and expressed their views on the issue.
- Of greatest interest for you here today is the employer perspective.
- From the outset, of gravest concern for employers was that they would have to fit the bill.
- While a legitimate concern, it was unnecessary - no one ever said they would have to pay for such a scheme.
- Government ministers said that business should not have to pay.
- In the proposal I outlined and in the speeches and media interviews I have given on the issue I too said this many times over.
- As has the Industrial Labour Organization - not usually supportive of business.
- We all recognised that women would suffer under an employer pays scheme.
- Employers, especially small business, kept tell us they would stop employing women of child bearing age - which today is well over forty on the rare occasion, closer to fifty - to avoid paying for maternity leave.
- Even though this would be discriminatory and unlawful, any scheme which in real terms would result in women being further discriminated against in the workforce is obviously unacceptable and must be avoided.
- Paid maternity leave is contributed to by governments - either through direct funding or social insurance scheme contributions - in every Westernised country in the world, except the United States, where it is provided only at the state government level, and Switzerland, the tiny country with tiny taxes, where business pays directly.
- If it works in the rest of the world, and has done so for decades, you have to ask why can't it work here?
- Eventually the message seemed to get through- this should be a social benefit, not an employer provided one.
- This said, employers will benefit greatly from the implementation of a government funded scheme of paid maternity leave as it will enable women, who decide to do so, to maintain their labour force attachment in a way which allows them to maximise their skills and experience.
- This has obvious benefits for employers.
- Benefits which employers are currently missing out on without the provision of paid maternity leave across the board.
- Our current arrangement has three downsides.
- One, women are leaving the workforce permanently after the birth of a child. They take with them valuable skills, knowledge and experience.
- Considering the age at which women in Australia commonly give birth today is between 30-34 years, many women are leaving workplaces with at least ten years experience.
- Two, women who cannot afford to, or do not want to, leave the workforce, are not having children, or having less children later in life - hence our disturbingly low fertility rate which at 1.7 sits well below the necessary replacement rate of 2.1.
- This is a disturbing trend as the future of our economy is ultimately dependent on the existence of a next generation.
- Three, without paid maternity leave being provided across the board, women often find themselves in a different line of work following the birth of a child. They may go from leading their field in IT to a part time job in a less skilled area - but one that offers more 'family friendly' hours.
- The hospitality and retail industries for example, characterised by casual hours and shift work are dominated by students and mothers.
- This labour force shift - of our highly skilled experts into low skilled casual work - means that employers lose a valuable commodity and Australia loses part of its most competitive workforce. Something we cannot afford to do in the increasingly competitive global market.
- There is conclusive evidence from a number of OECD countries that providing a universal paid maternity leave scheme enhances female labour force attachment - in most countries, mothers are back at work by the time the child is aged three.
- This increased labour force attachment also means reduced staff turnover costs for employers.
- According to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) turnover costs can range from 50 to 130% of the employee's salary.
- These costs include the direct costs of recruitment and retraining new staff as well as loss of productivity.
- While the need to recruit is obviously what drives your industry your success lies in assisting companies and businesses to hire the best people for the job - and to keep them there.
- As an employer, the provision of paid maternity leave will mean you receive the same benefits at no cost as other employers.
- The same applies to the firms for which you recruit.
- Your industry also needs to have a pool to recruit from.
- At the moment recruitment is characterised by a large and extensive pool of long term temporary workers.
- If Australia continues to fail to provide paid maternity leave, there will potentially be a smaller pool available for you to recruit from.
- This occurs for a number of reasons.
- One, skilled women will go and work overseas where family friendly practices - and the provision of paid maternity leave are the norm.
- Because in the global scramble for human resources countries will offer attractive packages to our highly skilled, trained and educated young people.
- Linda Duxbury, a Canadian academic researching work and family issues, believes there is only one question that Australia should be asking in this debate - and it is not "what will it cost to have paid maternity leave?"
- It is "what will happen if we don't introduce it?
- Duxbury believes that the cream of the Australia's female workforce will be poached by overseas bosses if Australia does not introduce such a scheme.
- She predicts that Canada, also facing labour shortages - and currently offering new parents up to 50 weeks of leave, paid by the government at the rate of 55 per cent of average weekly earnings - will have tremendous luck in recruiting good women from Australia.
- This clearly has trickle-down effects for less skilled women.
- We need to be able to match these provisions - not just to keep our workers but to attract others.
- Two, young women are and will increasingly leave their workplaces to set up their own small businesses from home.
- A recent survey of 1000 Australian women which revealed that one in three women (38%) plan to 'sack their boss' and start their own business within the next three to five years should be a warning to employers. (2)
- Small Business Minister, Joe Hockey agrees. He recently told a small business conference in Parliament House that women under 30 were the fastest-growing demographic in small business.
- And the top reasons for the move from workplaces to own business?
- More flexible working schedules (54 per cent); greater financial security (19 per cent); and greater autonomy (nine per cent).
- Interestingly eight per cent wanted to change to ensure long term security while seven per cent were frustrated with the lack of promotion opportunities in the corporate life.
- All of these reasons - but in particular these last two - highlight some of the discrimination women experience in the workforce.
- Before moving onto this topic of discussion, it is worth pointing out that paid maternity leave will address some of the workplace disadvantage experienced by women.
- Because the reality is that women lose their immediate income, often jeopardise career prospects and reduce their lifetime earnings when they leave the workforce to have children.
- With one child, a woman with a high level of education (12 years) can expect to forgo up to $239,000 in life time earnings.
- Without denying the non-remunerable rewards of bearing and raising children, this income loss directly contributes to women being three times more likely to be welfare recipients than men; having retirement incomes of 50 percent less, on average, than men; and acquiring markedly less superannuation.
- While paid maternity leave cannot make up for this loss of income over a lifetime, it can provide some form of income replacement.
- With no universal scheme of paid maternity leave in place, the majority of women lose their entire income for at least the first few months following the birth of a child.
- What is more, since it's predominately public servants and well paid women who receive paid maternity leave from employers, it's low income families who are most likely to be missing out.
- Paid maternity leave will mean that women can afford to be out of the workforce, while recovering from childbirth, establishing a breastfeeding routine and bonding with a child without the stress that they cannot financially afford to be doing this.
- Unfortunately not all of the discrimination experienced by women in the workplace today can be remedied through the introduction of paid maternity leave - Even a supporter like myself knows the scheme has its limits!
- It is however one part of the solution to the workplace discrimination experienced by women.
- Why?
- Because the disadvantage that women experience in the workplace today is largely based on the fact that they are the bearers of and remain the primary carers for children.
- This gendered biological and social function translates into workplace disadvantage in the form of a gender pay gap; less opportunities for promotion for female employees; and very few women in senior and management positions .... And this is before a woman is even pregnant!
- The discrimination she may then experience because of her pregnancy and the resulting family and caring responsibilities is illustrated in cases that have come before courts and in a large number of the complaints made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
- Let's consider each of these forms of discrimination more closely.
- The gender pay gap: despite having had equal pay legislation in place for 34 years women continue to earn less than men.
- When the full time average weekly earnings of men and women are compared for those doing the same jobs, women earn on average 84.3c to the male dollar.
- When part time and casual workers are added into the equation - the majority of whom are women - this gap increases to 66.3c in the male dollar.
- This gender pay gap occurs across the board.
- Consider the legal profession. After a decade of outsmarting them at university, young female lawyers outnumber their male counterparts 53.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent.
- They are however yet to translate this success into cash - the median income for a female lawyer aged 25-34 without children was $1201 a week at the August census. This was 11.7 per cent below her male equivalent, earning on average $1342 a week.
- A female doctor - in her twenties or thirties with no children will be earning 10.8 per cent less on average than her male counterpart.
- In each of these comparisons we are considering women without children. This shows us that employers discount a woman's wage even when she doesn't have a child simply because she might - how else do you explain it!
- Her mere potential to bear children turns her into a less worthy, less valuable employee - despite an equal or in some cases better performance on the job than her male colleagues.
- Less opportunities for promotion: Our workforce is structured and historically designed by men for men.
- It accommodates their life experience - you get a job, put in the hours, months, years and are rewarded by working your way up the ladder.
- You can have a family without even pausing for a moment on the way up.
- In fact your workplace need never be aware of their presence (at most they may assume that the child's faces bouncing on your screensaver belongs to you).
- The only way to climb this ladder in a skirt is to remain childless.
- Even in the unlikely scenario that a woman has a child and is not responsible for it's care at all, some time off work to give birth ... be it just an hour.
- Don't forget that women carry an unborn baby for nine months.
- Walking around the office pregnant means that she may be subjected to other's assumptions about what the presence of this unborn child will be in her life. How it will affect her work? Will she become less career focused? Mushy in the head? Often this is decided by the employer, rarely is she asked for input on this matter.
- The current 'do the time and be rewarded' promotion path does not accommodate the life experience of women who work and mother.
- It does not look kindly on flexible working arrangements or periods of time off work to care for a child.
- In fact these things serve as obstacles on the path.
- The end result?
- Fewer women in senior or management positions: Men outnumber women in managerial positions by more than three to one. (3)
- Women comprise only 13 per cent of generalist managers and 27 per cent of specialist managers. (4)
- They make up only one in every ten board members on private sector boards. (5)
- And there are only two female CEOs in Australia's top 200 companies.
- Women in Australia hold only 8.2 per cent of board directorships in top 500 companies - by comparison women in the US and Canada hold 12.4 per cent and 9.8 per cent of these positions respectively.
- The 'rules' just don't let women get there often enough. That's discrimination. That's the big picture.
- The complaints received by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on the grounds of sex discrimination illustrate discrimination, direct or indirect, as it occurs on a daily basis.
- An analysis of these complaints bear out the big picture.
- 85 per cent of the complaints received in 2001-2, were employment related.
- The majority concerned sex discrimination (33 per cent), pregnancy discrimination (30 per cent) and sexual harassment (28 per cent). (6)
- Between 2000-01 and 2001-02 the number of pregnancy related complaints received by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission rose by 150 per cent.
- Even if this increase is a result of raised awareness of pregnancy based discrimination since the launch of my campaign for paid maternity leave last year, it highlights that this type of discrimination continues to occur at unacceptable trends.
- Putting together the big picture and the day to day scenarios we find ourselves with a workforce that is not designed to accommodate women's life experiences - not in its overall structure, nor in the individual workplaces.
- What can you, as recruiters do to manage and address this issue?
- First and foremost do not discriminate yourselves.
- As Australia's largest employer, and one with so many female employees, be innovative.
- Put in place family friendly policies and practices that set you up as a best practice industry.
- It's easy to do. It just requires foresight, commitment and attitudinal change. Let me give you an example.
- On 1 March 2002, the global pharmaceutical company, Aventis, introduced a new parental policy for its 500 Australian employees.
- As part of the policy primary caregivers may claim up to $1000 per month for up to six months to help with the childcare of very young babies.
- Aventis introduced this policy because it was faced with a workforce where less than 50% of women who have children returned to work.
- They realised that in a globally competitive marketplace this is too great a loss.
- There was therefore a strong business case to look at radical and progressive changes to ensure the company retained the corporate knowledge, skills and relationships.
- Aventis saw that if they continued to fail to make it easier for women to have children and return to work they would continue to lose their best workers.
- Factor in turnover and recruitment costs and there is no doubt that from a cost analysis point of view the company made the right decision.
- There are also innovations which can be implemented at no cost- just a change in attitude.
- A mother, or for that matter a father, needing to pick up a child from day care at 3pm, who suggests that he or she take their lunch break from 3-3.30pm rather than 1-1.30pm should be seen as coming up with a solution that will work for both the employee and employer.
- And seeking such solutions should be encouraged and applauded.
- As recruiters you can also refuse to follow your client's instructions to discriminate.
- In the same way that newspapers will not run advertisements stating 'young women need only apply', or 'this position is available for men only', you can refuse to recruit for clients based on discriminatory principles.
- In fact an employment or recruitment agency that does so may still be held liable even if it was acting on behalf of another person or organisation.
- Likewise, a recruitment agency may be held jointly liable with a client who hires them to oversee an entire employment process, yet the agency does not pay attention to ensuring that the process is conducted in non-discriminatory ways.
- This applies even if the organisation is off shore and providing instructions for an office off-shore.
- Therefore a recruitment agency operating in Australia that runs the Emirates airline advertisement for female air stewards where 'proportionate height/weight and good complexion' are "essential criteria" may find itself breaking the law.
- Ensuring non-discrimination extends to the way in which you choose your candidates.
- You are probably all aware that under the Sex Discrimination Act it is unlawful for employment agencies - including recruitment companies - to discriminate against persons on the ground of sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy by refusing to provide them with any of their services.
- This means not accepting a woman as a candidate because of her sex or the fact that she is pregnant or could become pregnant or is married or single is unlawful.
- Take this one step further. Be an equal opportunity employer - and encourage your clients to do so to.
- The importance of encouraging equal opportunity in employment for women is the final issue I would like to discuss today.
- As long as we have in place a workforce structured to accommodate the work and life patterns of men, it will never be an arena where women can or will achieve success - unless of course they adopt the life and working style of men.
- Therefore until we change our workforce structure all we can do is make it easier for women to access the current system.
- And this is what equal opportunity does.
- It allows all persons access to the workforce.
- And for those already in the workforce, it provides equal access to the opportunities that are available at work and in workplaces.
- It means all employees are treated with fairness and respect in that they are not subject to discrimination or harassment in the workplace.
- Equal opportunity in employment is an outcome, not just a process.
- It has tangible measures - the number of women in positions of influence, decision making and power. The number of women in leadership positions, in management and non-traditional occupations.
- As a large employer and as a facilitator of employment you are in a position to promote and ensure that this occurs.
- In fact your role is crucial - objective and unbiased recruitment and promotion procedures are vital if we are to attract, develop and retain a skilled female workforce.
- If we can do this, what will be the end result?
- A diverse workforce and therefore diversity in workforce leadership.
- A pool where 100 per cent of the talent pool is being tapped into.
- This will benefit your industry and the industries, businesses and organisations of your clients.
- Customer service will improve as staff diversity moves to reflect customer diversity.
- Leadership, problem solving and innovation will improve as people with diverse experiences, discourses and approaches sit down together to discuss issues.
- That this will benefit your clients ensures your profitability today.
- The flow on benefits - both in the short and long term - for the workforce and the economy ensures your profitability, as employers and as an industry, in the future.
Thank you
1 ABS 6203.0 Labour Force Australia August 2001, 26.
2 Goss cosmetics survey.
3 ABS 6203.0 Labour Force November 2001, Table 51.
4 ABS 6203.0 Labour Force November 2001, Table 51.
5 ABS 6203.0 Labour Force November 2001, Table 51.
6 HREOC Annual Report 2001-2002.
Last updated 1 May 2003
