Women's Views on News |
| Posted: 19 Feb 2014 07:34 AM PST The TUC recently reported that women over 50 earn a staggering fifth less than men of the same age, and on average women earn £5000 less than men a year. And the gap widens in some professions; for example in the health profession the difference in pay is over 30 per cent. Interestingly, the only age bracket in which women earn – a small fraction – more than men is between the ages of 22 and 29. I'm embarrassed to add I was actually impressed that women do earn more than men in one bracket – and that's the point. Back to the facts. Other than that time in our twenties, we're earning less. Why? Is it simply the case that women are still valued less? Is it down to the lack of transparency and our naivety about what our male counterparts earn? I think it's simple – women are still treated as unequal. End of. And not only do we face inequality in pay, we still have huge inequality 'at the top': 23 per cent of judges in England and Wales are female; 31 per cent of Labour MPs are female – and that is higher than the other parties; 19 per cent of the FTSE 100 companies have female board members and only 3 have a chief executive who is female. This treatment of women hit me again today while I was watching the winter Olympics. The BBC celebrated that at last women could compete in the ski jump competition for the first time, but we still can't compete equally in all events. Crazy isn't it: because we have no male genitalia and can't grow a beard, for some reason we can't compete in the 'Nordic combined' (cross country skiing). I digress again. Back to pay. Like many, I think about this inequality of pay lots. I have always been interested to know why women earn less. I am a mum, and for the first 12 years of my children's lives I worked part-time. But why? Two reasons, I feel. The first is, as a woman, I was the only person who could expect a reasonable amount of maternity leave and maternity pay (at that time). Secondly, I genuinely wanted to stay at home and spend as much time as I could with my son and daughter. The problem is I don't know if this is something I actually wanted or something I was expected to do or whether I just didn't really have a choice. However, I can hand on heart honestly say that it is something I am glad to have done. I wouldn't change it. I can't beat the memories of making my first cardboard teletubby and placing a photo of my two year-old daughter in the middle, sending it off to the BBC and seeing her eyes as CBBC read it out. I would never have experienced my son's first food fight with mashed potato which covered the whole kitchen floor, his hair and the cat. But whose decision was this, for me to stay at home? For my friends to stay at home and for their partners to go to work? Who influences that many men miss out on the mashed potato mayhem? I was thinking about this today and about my friends and their work patterns. I thought of ten random friends and whether they worked full time. Out of the ten friends, three work full time (me being one), most of the others have much younger children and they are clearly the lead carer for the children in their family. Why? In 2014, why is this is still the case? I asked some of them and received various responses. One who works full time said she likes to work close to home because it means she can take her children to and from school and also that she earns less but she isn't bothered about that because she can do all the things she wants like making their tea, taking them swimming and also that when she has finished at work her job is done for the day so she doesn't have to think about it. She also added that when her husband isn't at work then he takes some of this role on. The other answers were very similar, in that the female earned less (although this wasn't always hourly rate – if they could work more they might have earned more ) but, predominantly, the women worked less because it was convenient and the men didn't work less or take on child care because they couldn't. But why? We have increased rights for fathers, but according to ACAS the take up is low. Paternity leave brings with it a low amount of money, a paltry £136.78 per week. Guess where this is going? Yes you guessed it, men generally earn more, so when it comes to deciding who is taking paternity/maternity leave – who are you going to choose? The one who earns the least or the most? Nappies aren't cheap… I don't think it is a coincidence that the age bracket where women earn slightly more is when they are between 20 and 29 when the average age in Britain of women having their first child is 29.8 years. It's all down-hill from there with the pay gaps, and the older you get the worse it gets. Women, like men but cheaper? Not just cheap, it seems. We're a real bargain.  |
| BBC ending all-male panel shows Posted: 19 Feb 2014 04:10 AM PST
Finally, the BBC is doing something about the gross under-representation of talented women on their embarrassment of testosterone-fuelled panel shows. In an interview with the Observer last week, the BBC’s director of television output, Danny Cohen, said the BBC needed to get more women on screen, and it would be beginning with its prolific panel show format. “We’re not going to have panel shows on any more with no women on them. You can’t do that. It’s not acceptable," he said. Shows such as QI, Mock the Week and Have I Got News For You have been banned from booking all-male guest lists in the future. The new decree, which comes following recommendations from the BBC Trust last year and the introduction of new sex-representation objectives, requires at least one woman be booked on each of the corporation’s panel show programmes. A spokesperson confirmed that episodes already filmed with all-male panels would still be shown, but any programmes filmed from now on would contain a female panellist or host. "There may be very rare occasions where shows that were already recorded… still have all-male line-ups, but hopefully the change should really become apparent,” they said. And about time too. I have long given up watching Mock the Week, which just seems to be an excuse for the same old (male) comedians to reaffirm their masculinity by attempting to out-wit or out-weird each other. One problem with most of the panel shows that just run and run on our screens today is that they’re filled with the same faces – which are invariably male and white. Flick from channel to channel and the same (male) guests are recycled time and time again – much as I love David Mitchell, I’m really getting quite tired of seeing him on every single panel show going. Both Jo Brand and Victoria Wood have criticised comedy panel shows in the past for their boys-club air. Back in 2009, Victoria Wood told the Radio Times that shows like Never Mind the Buzzcocks and Have I Got News for You were "male-dominated" and "testosterone-fuelled". “A lot of panel programmes are very male-dominated, because they rely on men topping each other, or sparring with each other, which is not generally a very female thing,” she said. At the same time, Jo Brand said: “I don’t do Mock The Week any more and neither do some male standups I know who have tried it once. We just didn’t like the prospect of having to bite someone’s foot off before they let us say something.” Caitlin Moran has said she turned down all the big panel shows because she refused to be “the token woman”. “I think that’s a boys’ game that works for boys. It’s not like they built it to screw women over, it’s just that boys built it so they made it to work for boys. If I go on there as a token woman, it’s not going to work for me,” she explained. The worry with the BBC’s new rule is that it will lead to just that; token women – probably the same old faces – being wheeled out to make up the quota. I don’t buy the argument that women aren’t funny enough, that there just isn’t the talent out there to match the male comedy ‘geniuses’ that clog up the never-ending run of TV-filler panel shows. I’m sure there are plenty of smart, witty women on the comedy circuit who could easily out-wit all of the D-list male ‘talent’ the TV-viewing public is subjected to on a regular basis. Bridget Christie, Roisin Conaty, Sara Pascoe, Isy Suttie. Just a few there. And to all the ‘PC-gone-mad ‘ brigade: unfortunately we can’t just sit back and hope that over time the situation will correct itself. Unless up-and-coming female talent can see examples of women making it in the mainstream media, how can they aspire to it? I really hope that the BBC will use this an an opportunity to unearth some exciting new talent, and give airtime to a greater diversity of views and opinions, rather than just tokenism. They should really be aiming for more than just one woman – one woman cannot and does not represent the voice of over half the population, even if at times she is expected to.  |
| The case for a living wage: interim report Posted: 19 Feb 2014 01:09 AM PST
That is 5.24 million workers in Britain – and is an increase of 420,000, or 9 per cent over the last 12 months. The Living Wage Commission was set up to look at the case for a Living Wage and how a significant extension of coverage could be used as a tool to tackle working poverty in Britain. Its interim report, published recently, sets out the problems of working poverty and low pay in detail. Further reports are due throughout 2014 and are to set out possible solutions. The reality of low pay, says the report, is that for the first time, the majority of people in poverty in the UK are working. One in every five workers is paid less than they need to maintain a basic, but socially acceptable standard of living: five million workers are set to be left out of the economic recovery. Working families are increasingly having to turn to food banks and credit to make ends meet. Stagnating wages and rising living costs hit those with the lowest income hardest. As prices rise and wages remain low, more and more low paid workers are finding it more and more difficult to get by. This report, called ‘Working for Poverty’, finds that: The number of people paid below a Living Wage has increased by more than 400,000 in the last 12 months; 5.24 million workers in Britain – which represents 21 per cent of the workforce – are paid below a Living Wage. The prices of 'every day' items have risen faster than high priced goods; Food costs 44 per cent more than in 2005 and energy costs have more than doubled, while vehicle costs have remained stable and the cost of audiovisual equipment has halved; Children of parents on low pay are less likely to achieve at school compared to their peers at every stage of their childhood education; A Living Wage employee gets nearly double the amount of family time during a typical working week as somebody on the National Minimum Wage. The juxtaposition between increases in economic output and the worsening problem of low pay is an important one, because it means that economic growth alone will not necessarily solve Britain's low pay crisis. The report also found that weekly household expenditure for the poorest 10 per cent of households has risen at more than double the rate of the richest 10 per cent of households over the last 10 years – and that the UK ranks among the most unequal countries in the world. Over the coming months the Living Wage Commission will look closely at the case for a Living Wage and at the role the Living Wage can play in tackling the UK's low pay problem. The interim report from the Living Wage Commission also said that economic growth alone will not necessarily solve Britain's low pay crisis. Remarking on the findings of the interim report from the Living Wage Commission, TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said: "The UK economy may be in recovery mode, but most people's pay packets have yet to experience a similar revival. "For those families firmly stuck in low-pay Britain, life is tough, and they continue to struggle to make their wages stretch far enough to meet the cost of food, fuel and other essentials. "Low pay is blighting the prospects of millions of workers, and we need urgent action to tackle the UK's serious, and worsening, low-pay problem. "One way of easing the financial pressures on low-paid families would be for more employers to pay the living wage. "Across the country, there are many companies and organisations which could afford to do so, yet they continue to pay their staff poverty wages. "If the recovery is to be one experienced by everyone in the UK, ending the squeeze on incomes and boosting pay – especially for those on low incomes – is essential. "As this report shows there are many people in Britain who very definitely need a pay rise." Living Wage Commissioner Professor Kate Pickett has published a paper on using the Living Wage to address health inequalities. The paper, 'Addressing Health Inequalities through Greater Social Equality at a Local Level: Implement a Living Wage Policy', is one of nine proposals published by the British Academy in their collection of opinion pieces on health inequalities from leading social scientists. In the report, Kate Pickett said that "the single best action that I believe local authorities can take to reduce health inequalities is to implement a living wage policy. "This will have a direct impact on the UK's income inequality, which in turn is a root cause of health inequalities and other social ills." She identified how implementing a 'living wage' policy would have a direct impact on income inequality, which in turn is a root cause of health inequalities and other social ills. She argued that paying a living wage would help to address 'in-work poverty', reduce income inequality, provide an incentive to work and enhance health and wellbeing. It also benefits employers: it may benefit work quality and productivity, reduce absenteeism and have a positive impact on staff recruitment and retention. In her proposal she sets out: • Why inequality matters. In the UK you can expect to live about 8 years longer if you live in the wealthiest rather than poorest areas. More unequal societies tend to have poorer outcomes on obesity, drug dependency, mental illness and infant mortality. They also have higher teenage births, lower child wellbeing, lower educational attainment and less social mobility. • Evidence demonstrating that the vast majority of the population do better in more equal societies. Runaway incomes at the top are just as damaging as inadequate incomes at the bottom. • How the current economic climate of stagnant wages, unemployment and welfare cuts mean that the lowest paid are seeing declining incomes in both absolute and relative terms, with knock-on effects for health and social problems. • The role of local authorities in addressing income inequalities, including the practical action being taken by Fairness Commissions across the country to investigate and implement ways of reducing inequality in their areas. • The case for the living wage. In the UK today, work does not always provide a way out of poverty – close to two-thirds of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works. Extending the living wage to everybody would reduce income inequality in society. Its impact would be strongly progressive, with the largest proportional gains to the poorest 10 per cent of households. People here would see their disposable income rise by around 7 per cent on average. It would also reduce income inequality within workplaces, assuming no changes in top wages. • Raising the wages of those on the very lowest incomes through paying and, importantly, encouraging others to pay, a living wage provides: a) an incentive to work; b) a way out of in-work poverty; c) improvements in work quality and productivity; d) falls in absenteeism; e) positive impacts on recruitment and retention; and f) a way of directly addressing inequalities in health and wellbeing. You can download her report by clicking here. Citizens UK and the Living Wage Foundation have won a Living Wage in over 500 workplaces across the country. For, as Prime Minister David Cameron recently said to an audience at the World Economic Forum, "Where companies can afford to pay the Living Wage, I think they should." Seems logical really.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |