A Parliamentary inquiry headed up by Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard is preparing to recommend a series of industrial relations reforms to close the wage gap between men and women.
According to The AFR:
Expected recommendations from the committee include tougher powers for Fair Work Australia to rule on gender pay inequality, more obligations on business to disclose the number of women at senior levels and their pay compared to male colleagues, and special consideration of gender issues in new minimum wage decisions for low-paid sectors with a large female workforce.
Other reform options under consideration include measures to lift female participation in the labour market and increase retirement incomes by extending the superannuation guarantee to include all low-paid workers.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the average woman earns $729.80 for a week of work, while the average man earns $1109.80. That’s $380 more than the woman gets, or $19,760 over the course of a year. And it all adds up to a 17% pay gap between women and men.
Crikey put our career counsellor hat on to check out which careers have caught up with the 21st century, and which sectors are the worst offenders.
And the results are surprising:
| Average Weekly Earnings as at May 2009 | ||
| Employment Category | Women | Men |
| Mining | $1500 | $2206 |
| Manufacturing | $851 | $1121 |
| Electricity, Gas, Water Supply | $1156 | $1534 |
| Construction | $852 | $1264 |
| Wholesale Trade | $791 | $1066 |
| Retail Trade | $462 | $608 |
| Accommodation, Cafes, Restaurants | $472 | $591 |
| Transport and Storage | $806 | $1195 |
| Communication Services | $900 | $1224 |
| Finance and Insurance | $990 | $1611 |
| Property and Business Services | $805 | $1241 |
| Government Administration and Defence | $1001 | $1252 |
| Education | $841 | $1055 |
| Health and Community Services | $737 | $1184 |
| Cultural and Recreational Services | $488 | $810 |
| Personal and Other Services | $710 | $1104 |
| All Industries | $729.80 | $1109.80 |
(Table extracted from Australian Bureau of Statistics data on average weekly incomes by industry for men and women (630200, table 10c and 630200, table 10f). Both can be found on the ABS website.)
You’ll notice that there are exactly zero categories in which women earn more than men.
It’s no surprise that men are paid better in traditionally male-dominated sectors like mining, manufacturing, and construction, but women are lagging behind the men even in traditionally female-dominated sectors like health, community services, and education.
Now for all of you who think that a woman’s place is in the home, here’s a few numbers to play with. If a woman decides that she would prefer to stay at home, the Federal Government — by way of the family benefit, baby bonus and childcare tax rebates — will generously pay her to have children, care for them, and do the housework. They value this work so much that they will pay her a maximum yearly income of $18,011.90 or $346.38 a week.
This discrepancy is reflected in women’s superannuation and retirement income. As the recent Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) report Accumulating Poverty has found, the average woman can expect to retire with $62,600. The average man will have $135,810.
That’s a difference of $73,210 or more than twice what a woman retires with:
| Estimated Retirement Income by Age | ||
| Age group | Males | Females |
| 25-34 | $19,780 | $14,060 |
| 35-44 | $46,890 | $25,580 |
| 45-54 | $93,920 | $48,250 |
| 55-59 | $126,090 | $58,760 |
| 60-64 | $135,810 | $62,600 |
| All ages | $69,050 | $35,520 |
(Table extracted from Accumulating Poverty (p. 6), which can be found on the AHRC website)
The AHRC report points out:
Women’s decisions to take time out of paid work, to trade salary for flexibility or to work in a low paid job are often viewed as a matter of individual choice and responsibility. Yet, these choices are very often constrained by a range of external factors such as inflexible workplace structures, family dynamics, cultural pressures and gendered stereotypes.
Critics will argue that the market — recession or otherwise – can’t afford equal pay or flexible working arrangements, but the reality is that childcare and housework — like pollution and environmental damage — are hidden economic costs, and women are paying the price in superannuation for this market failure.
As the AHRC report argues:
While women’s choices are influenced by external constraints, it is important to also acknowledge that many women do want to take on caring roles and that non-financial benefits flow from these decisions. However, this paper contends women who take on the responsibilities of unpaid caring and domestic work — work that delivers enormous wealth to other individuals and to the overall economy — should not be rewarded with poverty.
So there’s the choice — poverty or being paid less to do the same job as your male co-worker.
Sorry but this story is rubbish. Of course men in general -for each industry- will on average earn more. They have been in the industry longer. Statistics can do whatever you want the outcome to evidence. As a realistic comparison. Try mining industry grade 3 diesel mechanic or teacher 5 years experience. This is the sort of rubbish that gets up my nose. If you are going to do a survey compare apples with apples.
At the risk of being accused of beating up on interns again, this all comes undone in the last sentence. You can’t say “paid less to do the same job”. Clearly women are not doing the same jobs, and that’s the real story here.
MARK DUFFETT – “Clearly women are not doing the same jobs, and that’s the real story here.”
Not necessarily so. Years ago, my sister trained a young man in her particular area of the business she was employed in. Not only did she spend time training him, she also had to do her duties too! After several weeks, he received a higher income, a company car and a more esteemed title! She left in disgust shortly after. Nothing I’ve seen or heard in the years since has reassured me, that this sort of thing doesn’t happen these days. One clever way of paying women less, is to call their job something different. It’s a reality! That’s why it’s hard to prove, “paid less to do the same job”? Easy! How convenient!
Agree with Mark, one anecdote notwithstanding, that the big hole in this story is the last sentence. Nowhere do the figures or the author’s subsequent analysis suggest that women get paid less to do the same job.
The figures do show that they get paid less within industries but that can be explained by factors such as career gaps due to raising children, trading higher wages for flexibility, or just generally prioritising other goals above a career. None of these factors indicate sexism on behalf of employers and I’d suggest that the actual incidence of that would be very small (and is in fact illegal)
The question comes down to whether it’s a choice on behalf of women or systemic or cultural biases that ensure that they’re more likely to be the primary care giver for children and hence on average earn less at a point in time or over a career. Government should look to resolving any systemic biases but the goal is not necessarily a zero pay gap if that is in fact what women choose in return for the non-monetary benefits.
I am glad the men in the audience find it so easy to explain away an enormous statistical gap between men’s and women’s salaries, and to “suggest” that actual incidence of sexism is quite small. None of this accounts for why even male graduates earn more than their childless women counterparts, or that internationally, as the policy environment edges towards providing genuine equality of opportunity, the gap between male and female salaries really does approach zero. Or why, for that matter, it is still women who are expected to take time out of their professional careers to look after the kids.
But whatever. Chalk it up to the great white male delusion that they are not disproportionate beneficiaries of the current system, and that even if they are, it’s only cos they deserve it. Nice work folks.