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.