The row over the misuse of the Office of National Statistics information highlights the dishonesty in the whole policy with regard to the “Gender Pay Gap”. Constantly presented as about women paid less than men for the same work it generates a feeling that women are treated unfairly in terms of pay.
Yet the Equal Opportunities Commission Reports produced in the early part of this decade identified little difference in pay rates for the same sorts of job. In fact the key factors were identified as time out of work and the popularity of part time work in a comparatively narrow range of occupations.
This drove the EOC to support “flexible working” and encouragement for young women to consider other occupational choices.
Of course at that point the debate becomes about the issues for mothers (and fathers) rather than all women. As there was found to be little “gap” for childless women partnered or not.
The other issue is then what drives the choices of occupation made by men and women?
The Office of National Statistics has published regional figures. There are some interesting patterns.
For instance the pay “gap”is very small in regions that have suffered the collapse of “men’s” occupations (mining, heavy manufacturing etc.). In those same areas, such as Wales or Northern Ireland the more prominent role for public sector employment (mainly female) means that as the recession hits private industry the “gap” is getting very small indeed.
A feature rarely commented on is that men are also more concentrated in low earning occupations working full time hours. This matches with the figures that part time men are paid less than part time women.
The men are much more likely to be in low skilled P/T work while the figure for women includes the many professional women who choose to work part time, for instance the new GP contract precipitated a dramatic increase in female doctors working part time.
In general women are concentrated in the public sector and have a narrower distribution of pay rates. There are of course men at the heady heights of the now discredited banking industry but many more in “dirty” jobs that pay little. In other words there is a much wider distribution. Portering, cleansing, labouring, delivering and so on tend to be both low paid and invisible but also men’s work.
Though the fact that full time male workers statistically work ten more hours per week than women is often taken to indicate preferences of men in management or professions. However a more accurate analysis of statistics would note that this is more often a reflection of low paid workers keen to earn more through overtime.
Of course the reality for most people is that choices and trade offs have to be made. Often these are made by couples and families. The patterns frequently change over the life courses of both men and women. Occupational segregation is an issue though the statistics show that the “female” occupations have been becoming more female over the same time many “male” occupations have become less male, so here again it isn’t a simple issue.
When one disregards simple averages and compares professional urban women to men in America, the women earn nearly 20% more than men of equivalent education and experience. This is the salient figure, it should be equal pay for equal work. If anything it's moved far beyond this. The only reason women earn less as an average is through their own choices.
Posted by: alphadominance | Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 05:40