Making it work for women
Sex Discrimination
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
