Sisters Doing it for Themselves?

With the imminent release of the feature film 'Made in Dagenham' the controversy surrounding the gender pay gap is being redressed.

Despite the stirling work of the Dagenham Ford ladies, who argued that men and women doing the same job should be paid an equal wage, it seems that gender pay equality is still rife in 2010. We may have comforting legislation insinuating that unequal pay is unlawful however this murky issue has found more insidious methods to perpetuate inequality.

Despite the fact that the Equal Pay Act 1970 sates that it is 'An Act to prevent discrimination, as regards terms and conditions of employment, between men and women.' (Equal Pay Act 1970, Chapter 41)and the EU Social Charter has further built upon this: "on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation"(The Directive 2006/54/EC)recent statistics show a great disparity between the earnings of men and women of similar age and career path.

Marie Claire magazine (always the more intellectual of the women's glossies) points out that: 'Male managers are paid an average of £6,076 a year more than their female counterparts, while male directors earn £49,233 more'. This is a horrific wage difference equivalent to several months earnings. It is as if they have decided to only pay some female managers for 10 months of the year and their male counterparts for 12. More worryingly this gap appears to be widening, as the same article cites:that in 2007 'The CMI's annual survey revealed that male managers were paid 12.2% more than females in the year to January 2007, compared with 11.8% the previous year.' with this level staying at 12.2% in 2009. The National Office of Statistics also reveals that on average in April 2009 the hourly rate for men was £12.42 for all employees while for women it was just £9.68 (a difference of £2.74 per hour and £21.92 a day). Women in all sectors are experiencing this painful inequality, even actors, as actor as Zoe Wannamaker revealed last year: 'Women are always at the bottom as far as pay is concerned - the equal pay business is a big struggle,' she told The Stage. So it seems men are not only considered better managers but better at playing make believe by pretending to be someone else on a film set. My own experience of strong, enterprising female managers and arrestingly talented actresses begs to differ.

So, we have the legislation in place and yet pay inequality is still very much a part of our lives 30 years on from the Equal Pay Act and the concerted protest of those feisty Ford workers. As the TUC recently revealed women today are twice as likely to be poor than men. The law is not the problem, but society clearly is.

We appear to harbour a business culture where it is not simply quiet success that is rewarded, but instead workers must prove themselves worthy by bending the bosses ear and haggling for the increase they 'deserve'. We see a very masculine, testosterone fueled culture where parading your worth instead of being truly recognised for a good job well done is financially rewarded. In this culture women lose out, with men working in the city receiving bonuses 5 times higher (on average) than city women. For further evidence you only have to look at the sky high bonuses awarded to the chief executives of failing banks to see the nonsensical nature of supposed 'performance related' pay.

The age old excuse of maternity leave is often wheeled out by managers who are criticised for not having more high paid women on staff. Evidence of this resistance from male managers to employ women at the point in their lives when they are most likely to start a family can be clearly seen in TUC research which revealed that 'Once women hit their thirties, they earn as much as 11% less than men'.

So women in their 30s are overlooked because they might disappear to have children. Well I'm 22 so surely I'll be fine? Apparently not, this blight of unfair pay even extends to the recent graduate job market. The Independent reports that:
Young, gifted... and unequal. During their first years at work, one group of young graduates can expect to earn around £2,000 a year less than their classmates. According to an Equal Opportunities report by Kate Purcell at the University of the West of England "women have lower average earnings, are less likely to be in the highest earnings groups, and more likely to be the lowest paid within the highly qualified group".

The picture painted is this:
At school girls consistently outperform boys, in the GCSE exams in 210 24.4% of girls' entries were awarded at least an A grade compared to 18.7% of boys' entries - a gap of 5.7%. In A-levels 26.1 per cent of A-levels sat by boys were graded an A, compared with 27.9 per cent of exams taken by girls. There is also a feeling amongst many women I have spoken to that in order to compete in a male dominated business environment they feel they must be seen to be working even harder than their male counterparts to compete and prove their worth, often taking on extra unpaid hours to gain favour. Women are attaining the best academic results and putting in extra hours while thier male counterparts reap the financial rewards.

I truly believe the British society is still patriarchal. Just glance at the government front bench and tell me how many women you can spot. The new cabinet is comprised of 17 men and a feeble 3 women. We, as a nation, need to take responsibility for this. It is an outrage that our cabinet is 85% male whilst adult women in the UK outnumber men: 50.9% women to 49.9% men. If we just rest on our laurels, maintain a traditionally stiff upper lip and continue to quietly out perform men in exams and then work ourselves into the ground for scanty rewards nothing will change. Don't lie back and think of England. Let us all take a leaf out of the Made in Dagenham book and take a stand, know our rights , start our own businesses and not take this blatant sexism lying down anymore.

Useful sites/references:
'Gender pay gap across Europe condemned' The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/gender-pay-gap-across-europe-condemned-1916862.html
Office of National Statistics Online: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/index.html
Image:anniebee, flikr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/anniebee/92853447/#/)

HMRC Update

Apparently I will not get my tax rebate until October now - Thank you scary Scottish lady.

Future Jobs Fund: Creative Solution or Statistic Manipulator?

The Government initiative 'Future Jobs Fund' has been causing grievance to lots of arts graduates recently. The initiative has created lots of paid openings and paid internships in the arts sector. These jobs are often with incredibly prestigious and sought after arts organisations, such as the National Theatre. Hurray I hear you cry. Finally these highly subsidised arts organisations with charity status are doing something pro-active by creating entry level jobs for the hoards of arts and humanities graduates in dire need of their first break. Oh no, that would be far too sensible. These fantastic jobs are only available to those who have been on jobseeker's allowance for 6 months or more. Which means that if you struggled to find a good graduate job but swallowed your pride and took on some hard graft waiting tables or working in a shop you have thereby scuppered any chance of getting into the industry you most desire to work in.

Take my friend for example, who for the purpose of this blog will be person A. person A does not have wealthy parents. She does have a good degree, a fair bit of uni based experience and a strong work ethic. She saved up the last dregs of her student loan and made the move to London. She took a job in a theatre bar to pay the bills and rent and in every spare second worked in admin for free at the same theatre to gain experience. Imagine her delight when a paid arts admin job opened up at her theatre - she could get paid for doing the work she had been doing for free, fantastic!

Hold your horses diligent person A, this is a Future Jobs Fund position and lets have a look at your background... No you were only signed on for two weeks before you foolishly found a job in a bar. Silly you. Now go back to pulling pints please, we'd rather take on someone who didn't want to stoop to taking on a menial job and working hard whilst getting experience at the same time, but instead sat on their laurels for six months or more. So now you can watch from behind the bar as they walk into work here and get paid for doing the same work you were doing for free while you do the washing up dear.

So the government statistics will look great - all these graduates off the dole. But at what cost? The deserving candidates are still stuck in dead end jobs barely able to pay the rent. The question here really is ~ should the 'achievement' of being on jobseeker's allowance for 6 months be rewarded in this way, while those candidates who have not been on benefit but are still very much struggling to survive are denied these opportunities?

Direct Gov. Information for Future Jobs Fund: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Jobseekers/LookingForWork/DG_184167

Creative Online Business

I enjoyed this article. The driving feeling is - if you're not getting anywhere jobs wise then be adventurous and set up your own business online. Be your own boss and use simple technology to carve out your own career.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/aug/28/graduates-business-selling-ebay

Internships and MPs

Hello!

Finally I'm back in the blogging world after a ridiculously long break to direct 'Derelict' at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

Working for free and freelancing on our own projects seems to be a staple task for us creative, recession hit youths. Consequently I am now substantially out of pocket post Edinburgh stress-spend-drink-everything-you've-earned month on madness. So I will be waving farewell to good old London Taan, not due to poor budgeting (well there was a bit of poor budgeting but I wasn't too laissez faire with my pennies!) but due to the fact that those pesky blighters at HMRC are refusing to give me my tax rebate (I am owed in the region of £500). Ironic really considering so many people have been overpaid!

I contacted them back in July and was assured they would pay me by mid-August. I called them on the first of September to be told 'they had no record of my calls'. It was pretty upsetting to discover that the money I was relying on for food and rent was not going to appear, the upshot of this will be a move back home away from my gorgeous young friends to live with my parents ~ who are very gorgeous in their own way but clearly not young. Not one to take such things lying down I dried my eyes and promptly emailed my local MP a horrid rant of an email to which I expected no response: 'I don't expect a response really, they don't really care about us normal little people they just eat caviar in their gilded palaces and laugh heartily at street urchins...etc etc'.

This is where I encounter a political crisis .... My MP responded overwhelmingly quickly, within 24 hours, and has since written to HMRC himself encouraging them to hurry up as well as sending me a copy of said letter by first class post. My MP is a Conservative. I am a staunch socialist lefty old-Labour type. This whole incident has left me very perplexed especially when I consider my mother's attempts to contact the Labour Party to ask very simple questions and their total lack of response... Well good one Mr Mike Freer MP, you have surpassed my expectations - however, I don't think I will jump from red to blue quite yet.

Benefits: the route to ruin?

Trawling the world wide web for information about the recession's impact on young people I came across a Times Online article 'Recession threatens to create a beaten generation' written by Daisy McAndrew. This rather brief and out of touch take on the issue saw the author argue that:

'Others had more personal and serious worries. The stigma, as they saw it, of “ending up on benefits” was one. Some, through watching friends or family on benefits, were all too aware of its dangers, of the damage that it can do, not least leading to drinking and drugs — “either doing them or selling them”, as one said...All the options open to kids to make the best of their chances are pretty much money-dependant. For example: to get some valuable work experience on your CV you could get a job abroad, or do unpaid work here or voluntary work for a charity. But if your parents have a low income — or no income — how do you fund that?' (McAndrew http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6513328.ece)

Give the woman a cigar! If your parents have a low income you can't afford to work for free eh? Well thanks for pointing that out Daisy dear. This glaringly obvious assertion which concludes the vacant article seems to be the principle problem neglected by the welfare and benefits system. While government schemes such as Graduate Talent Pool match graduates with unpaid internships in order to boost their CVs, there is no provision for those who cannot afford to remain unpaid. Those of us born without a silver spoon wedged firmly between our teeth must take what paid employment we can get, whilst the privileged can idle away their time gaining 'transferable skills' as unpaid interns.

The suggestion that being on benefits leads to drug and alcohol abuse is deeply insulting, and only serves to perpetuate the very 'stigma' she sites earlier in the article. She also seems to insinuate that if you are from a low-income family and are on benefits you are somehow linked to a murky criminal drugs culture! It is this sort of petty narrow minded view that all those who receive benefits are criminal low lives, who wear tracksuits and walk rottweilers on ropes that stops bright youngsters from going out and getting the help they are entitled to. It is important that young people do not delay signing on for jobseeker's allowance if they are entitled to it as it gives the government accurate statistics of how many people under 25 are out of work.

I am under 25, from a low-income family and was (until recently) receiving jobseeker's allowance. I do not deal drugs or wear a tracksuit. However, I did feel ashamed signing on. Ashamed and useless, and it is simply not fair that young people should be made to feel like this. We were promised the world by our teachers and governors, worked hard in our exams, taken on part time work to supplement our loans, been saddled with debt - they owe us that measly £50 per week. If you need it then walk into that jobcentre with your head held high and claim what you are owed. And Daisy dearest, when describing the 18-25 age bracket don't call us 'kids' unless you don't mind us calling you an 'old fogey', not very flattering is it.

The 'New Deal'

NEWS FLASH - Hilariously named scheme from the government with the same name as Roosevelt's response to the Wall Street Crash of 1929!

So folks, don't panic we are apparently emerging from the Recession to quote Gordon "We are cautious but confident that growth is going to return towards the end of this year," ~ but just as a cheeky jest we'll make references to the Great Depression in the names of our unemployment programmes - we're sure you'll find this friggin hilarious and won't find this reference to the most horrific economic disaster in 20th century western history worrying in the slightest.

Falling Through the Cracks

The frustration of recent graduates in the UK today is building. My year group left sixth form in 2006. After following the guidance of teachers, parents and careers advisors we emerge with glowing A-levels and a plethora of extra curricular activities with which to ingratiate our UCAS form. After a gruelling round of interviews and open days we finally landed our prized places at top Universities. Fantastic, I have my glowing bag of results (A,A,A,B at A-level and a 2:1 degree from Royal Holloway) and now it’s off into the big wide world to find a spot of paid employment. After all, tuition fees seemed to have a sneaky way of increasing startlingly year on year during my course, rising from £3000 in 2006 to £3,225 for the 2009-20010 academic year. But no matter, who cares about being saddled with debt when you have been promised that you’ll be able to attain a highly paid job after graduation?

We all worked ourselves into the ground cramming for GCSEs, AS Levels, A Levels and finally our degree examinations. From the age of 13 I had to undergo stringent examinations every summer for 5 years (SATS, GCSE mocks, GCSEs, AS Levels, A-levels). The exams are not getting easier; no matter what trumped up statistics the tabloid and broadsheet journalists’ alike enjoy parroting, probably to make themselves feel better about their own inadequate results.

At every stage we must prove our intelligence, prove we are worthy of our place in the system with endless essays, research projects, verbal presentations, dissertations and exams. Until finally you emerge from the jubilant graduation ceremony convinced that you have once and for all proved to the world that you are an intelligent, skilled human being; an asset to society, and a sure investment for any company.

Yet, so many of us found ourselves signing on this summer, unable to find paid employment despite our glowing records of achievement. And let us be clear here, we were not being picky. This was not a case of ‘the jobs on offer are beneath me’. During the depressing, dark days when my friends and I were making that thirty minute trek to the job centre (we could not afford the bus fare) we would have taken any job which would pay the bills and indeed we did. It is, as anyone who has been in this situation will remember, the most dispiriting experience visiting the bizarrely titled ‘Jobcentre Plus’. What exactly the ‘Plus’ stands for is unclear, potentially it stands for ‘Plus extra ineptitude’. For anyone who has never had the joy of making the fortnightly jaunt to the jobcentre let me enlighten you… Every two weeks you must meet with an ‘advisor’ (again a hilariously inappropriate term) at an allotted time. You enter the centre clutching your little paper progress booklet (inside which your job hunting exploits are neatly inked) and approach the jobcentre employees working at the entrance. In Hendon Jobcentre Plus these people were invariably chatting about last night’s drunken exploits or on their phones to their friends chatting about the same topic. When you would bend over backwards just to get any job it is overwhelmingly frustrated to be greeted by people who are doing their own jobs so badly. After this encounter your tiny paper book is taken off and given to an advisor and you are required to wait for your meeting. Considering they have these meetings booked in, in allotted time slots, you would expect a prompt response. This was never the case. The longest I was left waiting for my advisor meeting was an hour and a half. The meeting itself lasts a mere one minute, the ‘advisor’ checks your book with a swift glance to see if you have applied for anything, hands you a piece of paper to sign to prove that you turned up and then waves you on your way. So much for the advice Mr ‘advisor’.

Once or twice I was referred to a woman whose task it was to get young people into work. Finally, I thought, someone who will help me and give a damn about my situation! No such luck. She told me that it was great that I had a degree and said I would have no trouble finding a decent job. She then proceeded to give me a job application to work in WH Smith at a main London railway station staking shelves at night for minimum wage. I was desperate so I applied.

The Jobcentre did not help me find a job. I eventually got a Christmas temp. job at the stationers Paperchase. I was filled with a sense of fierce optimism on my last trip to that wretched place. I had been told, after quizzing the ‘advisor’, that once I had found a job the jobcentre would pay a contribution towards my travel and help me buy appropriate work clothing. This struck me as a very sensible scheme, as it meant that once you had secured a job you could afford to get to it and be dressed appropriately. If you remember that on jobseekers allowance you are paid only £50 per week, which is immediately withdrawn as soon as you find a job, and your new job won’t pay you till the end of the month then you do get caught in an impossible situation - unable to afford to get to work and cling on to the job you have finally secured. My ‘advisor’ assured me that when I came to sign off arrangement for travel expenses and clothing could be made. I strode into the jobcentre with my head held high, and was ushered into an office to sign off with some woman who I had never met before who seemed to be more senior than the lowly ‘advisors’ in the open plan main room. She took down the details of my new employer and then bid me fair well. Hang on, I enquired, what about the extra financial help so I can actually get into work for the next four weeks? She then calmly explained that as I had already worked one day with the company I no longer qualified for any help. According to the jobcentre, if you can afford travel in on one day you can clearly afford it for a whole month. No, I was not going to take this ridiculous assertion especially as the ‘advisor’ had not told me any of this information. He had explained that as long as I came into the jobcentre as soon as I could all would be well. This senior woman seemed to expect me to have told my new employer – ‘No, sorry, thanks for the job offer and all. But I can’t come to work for you tomorrow, despite having been unemployed for months, as I have to go and grovel for travel benefit from my local Jobcentre Plus.’ Now that is not a conversation that is going to bode well with a new employer, nor a conversation someone desperate for work wants to be having. I was so eager to get back into the workplace and start earning money from myself instead of leaning on the welfare state that I was penalised. The senior advisor refused to believe that one of her employees had told me I could claim support as long as I came into the jobcentre at the next available opportunity, even after I described the man in question in great detail.

Not only did I receive no support with travel, but the woman entrusted to help young people in the area get back into work made me certify that I had been taken on by Paperchase on a Work Trial – this had in fact been a training day for a job I had already secured but she clearly needed to up her figures of young people in work trial placements.
Great, so she was taking credit for my hard work; scouring London, CV in hand, for months with no support from her, whilst her organisation refused to even help me get to this new job. A tactic that would have perpetuated my unemployed status had my friends not been charitable to lend me money to buy a travelcard. So much for ‘Jobcentre Plus’, a more appropriate title would be ‘Jobcentre Minus’.

The only piece of parting advice I gleaned from the unsympathetic senior advisor was to apply for working tax credit as soon as possible to help me on my low earnings. I dutifully called them, only to be informed that as I have no children and am not disabled I do not qualify as I am under 25. On such low earnings if I were four years older I would qualify. Are they presuming that as I am under 25 I eat less, travel less and don’t need a roof over my head?

The Welfare State has failed us, the education system has failed us and we are left to fall through the cracks in the system. The bright young things of Britain, full of talent and imagination, are now clinging on to dead end jobs for dear life. Our concerns used to be: ‘can I learn the financial policies of King Henry VII in time for my exam?!’ Now we worry ‘Will I be able to afford to eat by the end of the month?’.