[page 8]
What are the effects of the present crisis on progress towards equal pay? How is Phase 3 interpreted in this connection?
Can women expect to see any further movement towards equal pay and opportunity in 1974?
In a period such as we are in now, it may seem like a luxury to insist that the question of equal pay is important.
After all, with large and important sections of the working class, such as the miners, engineers and railmen lined up to do battle with the Government, there are surely more urgent matters to be dealt with than equal pay.
The problem is that such big confrontations must involve the whole working class, or else are doomed to defeat. Whether as workers, or wives of workers, the support of women in the great struggles at present on the agenda is essential. Only one thing stands in the way of such support: not women's supposed backwardness, or unwillingness to struggle and become involved, but the many years of men's backwardness, unwillingness to fight for equality. and their positive discouragement to women getting involved If women are to be a part of the class struggle, then they must be certain that their interests are not yet again being pushed to the end of the queue, something to be achieved tomorrow, or even after the revolution. Especially at a time when the Government is deliberately pursuing policies designed to divide the class along both race and sex lines, it is more essential than ever that men understand the necessity of fighting for "women's demands' and that women realise that pursing those demands will ultimately add to class unity.
More immediately, the struggle for equal pay is important because, unless it is taken up in a determined way, as a part of the overall attack on phase 3, women's earnings will fall even further behind the men's, reversing the slight trend of recent years.
Just how slight a trend this is is clearly shown in recently published figures. They are for April 1973 and show fulltime earnings for men at 21 and women at 18.
MANUAL NON-MANUAL weekly hourly* weekly hourly * P E P MEN 38.1 81.7/79.2 48.1 121.6/121.7 24.7 66.2/66.1 *First figure includes overtime DEP Gazette, Oct. 1973 These figures are very revealing. They show that the blackmailing' manual workers, men and women, earn a good deal less than their non-manual equivalents. They also show that male manual workers make up quite a bit of their money through overtime. But, above all, they show that women are still taking home only about 50% of male earnings. In 1950, women's earnings were 55% of men's (hourly eamings 62%; in 1970, the year of the Equal Pay Act, only 50% (hourly earnings 61% and things have barely improved since then.
In 1972 the Office of Manpower Economics produced its first report on implementation of the Equal Pay Act. This report is expensive, out of the reach of most of those who should read it. What is important to note is that even in periods when pay laws did not operate (if you can remember that far back) the actual effect on women's earnings of the Act was negligible.
Thus, in low-paid industries, there has been a slow decrease (since 1939!) in the differentials of unskilled men's and women's rates. The report does not analyse the reasons for this, which are reasonably obvious. First, the men in such industries have fallen even further behind men in other, better-organised industries. Second, the influx of immigrant men (and women) into such work, through economic necessity, has been a factor in keeping wages low generally. Thus,it is far more a question of the men's wages not having kept ahead, than that the women's have gone up dramatically to join them!
In the whole of industry, at the time of the report, women's salaries were only 54% of men's; even in the public sector, insurance and banking. where 'equal pay' applies, they were only 77% of the men's. Salaried women are supposedly the most articulate, the most educated, in jobs where "superior' muscle does not count. What hope, then, for Since 1970, the DEP has kept a record of movements on the EP front. By mid-March 1972, 7% of the women covered by the records had had discrimination removed, 28% were covered by 'phased plans', 26% had had larger increases than the men (but with no promise of further imporvement) 19% had had equal rises and 21% had actually had lower rises than the men in their industry APEX workers Jean GEC in Rugby picket press conference on equal pay
[page 9]
There are several tactics open to an employer who wishes to avoid paying women wages on the same level as men. An ingenious one noted in the report is to be completely ignorant of the existence of the Act - a quarter of the employers investigated by the OME were in that happy position - or to be ignorant of its terms, as were 9 out of 10. The sample of 193 companies produced 60% who claimed that there were no instances where women were employed on work the same or broadly similar to men. (I cannot explain how such a high figure knew enough about the Act to make such a claim when 90% knew little or nothing about its contents). Only 12% considered it applied to their company, including one in five where some women were acknowledged to be on work comparable to men". Perhaps this was because, in nearly half of those cases where overlap occured they "surprisingly... claimed that equal pay was already in operation.
THE ROLE OF THE UNIONS What have the unions done about this state of affairs? Few have done anything except hold conferences. It is worth quoting on what has happened at local level:
...the attitudes of union representatives towards equal pay have sometimes tended to be equivocal. We found no clear association between the level of union membership in companies and the extent to which they had progressed towards equal pay. About a quarter of the companies we visisted .....had artment of Employment on Moni Photo: Pe APEX OUR PAT experienced union pressure for equal pay....... but about one in ten contended that its introduction had been blocked by the attitudes of male members. In some cases..... the men had resisted pay changes which would have narrowed the differentials between themselves and female employ.
ees and had successfully demanded the same percentage increases...' The report found that very few firms were organising their labour force in such a way as to avoid implementation of equal pay. This would be partly a reflection of the already high level of separation of male and female jobs in industry generally (it might also have something to do with the fact that "ignorant" employers do not know what are 'the same or broadly similar' jobs are): but the favourite method of avoiding the consequences of the Act is simply to have a wage structure which, whilst observing the letter of the law by not differentiating on paper between male and female rates, in fact ensures that those jobs normally done by women come at the lower ends of the scales.
The Report draws some interesting conclusions about the long-term effects of the Act. Thus, male workers "may have ways of ensuring by the allocation of work and allowances that their earnings kept ahead." Many firms thought that the Act would 'eventually reduce the employment of - women." because they would employ men in preference to women in the overlap areas. Other firms expected to introduce more machinery. The report is sceptical about the idea that employers might now be prepared to invest more in women in terms of training, etc.
All in all, the report confirms that 'equality through legislation is an illusion.
THE PAY LAWS: TWO STEPS BACK Basically, successive pay laws have not even allowed for the modest increases required to achieve equal pay by the end of 1975; this in spite of the much-quoted justification for the pay laws that they will help the lower-paid, the biggest group of whom are women. The Secretary of State did not exercise his power to make an order requiring employers to pay women workers 90% of the male rate in cases effected by the EPA by the end of 1973.
Under Phase 3, 'orderly progress" may be made outside the pay limit' towards EP. By the end of 1974 any differential existing between men's and women's rates at 7 November 1973 may be reduced by up to one-half (where the EPA applies). (This is always assuming that a new Phase does not alter things yet again, leaving those patiently waiting till the latter half of 1974 for their rise right back where they started.) To comply with the law, a mutually agreed evaluation scheme must be in In addition, para 124 of the Price and Pay Code for stage 3 says* No increase outside the pay limit is allowable under para 123 if any other increase effecting the group concerned has the effect of widening in percentage terms the differentials to which para 123 applies." (Emphasis in original)
[page 10]
What this means is that when the maximum increase allowable (7%) is negotiated for all workers, the percentage difference remains the same and another small increase can be negotiated for the women, all the other conditions applying, of course. In most cases, the effect on differentials in cash terms will be barely noticable. Of course, if the men were prepared to take less than 7%, whilst still allowing the women to go ahead and claim their bit extra, then the gap would decrease. But not only would such action be highly unlikely, especially as the full 7% is not enough for catching up with increasing costs of living, but as it would not at all challenge the pay laws, it is not the most effective way of getting equal pay! Only militant action can do that, but most unions have not even tried to get the little allowed under the various stages of the pay laws. One exception, APEX, led a number of strikes during Phase 2 and now says * .....we shall have more strikes on equal pay under Stage 3 than we had under Phase 2. The AUEW, on the other hand, has seemingly yet again quietly dropped coual pay from the current pay claim: at the very least, it is not putting any emphasis on it. Yet at present in engineering, though the basic female rate is 92% of the male, women earn only about half the wages of the men.
AN ACT OF INEQUALITY Reasons for this sort of discrepancy are not merely the ones mentioned in the report -bonus, overtime, etc - but are mainly due to the different nature of the jobs done by men and women in industry, and the lack of opportunity generally, so that even where equal pay applies women are be increasing, so that for example, more men are found in the higher nursing grades now than used to be the case only a short time ago. Whilst the Equal Pay Act is sub-headed *An Act to prevent discrimination, as regards terms of employment, between men and women, not even Barbara Castle could claim that it had done anything other than actually increase discrimination in many cases. In the Potteries, for instance, women have been 'eliminated" from skilled jobs, even some where they are acknowledged to be better than men. In general, it has hardened the demarkation lines between men and women at work.
Ever since the EPA was passed, and its shortcomings realised, attempts have been made by way of various private members" bills, to bring in legislation dealing with Anti-Discrimination, generally on the lines of the Race Relations Act. These moves have been supported by many "traditional" women's organisations, and by a section of the women's liberation movement, which has been actively collecting signatures to petitions, lobbying, ete. - Last year, the Government announced that it would itself be bringing in Anti-Discrimination legislation. Not only has this headed off what could have been a dangerous campaign (just as the Equal Pay Act effectively for the time being nipped an equal pay movement in the bud) but it also replaces weak proposals with others that are either useless, or positively danIf we understand the motives behind the Government's action in taking over this legislation, then we can see why it takes the particular form it does. Returning to the Manpower report, it says that between 1951 and 1971 'the increase in the number of women employed... represents almost the total increase in the labour force over this period. " Moreover, Recent projections by the DEP suggest that increases in the number of married women seeking work will be the major growth factor in the working population over the next decade," (It is true that this contrasts strangely with the later part of the report, quoted above, about the dangers of women becoming unemployed because of the introduction of equal pay, but that is the DEP's problem.) Recently (and leaving aside for the moment possible effects of the present crisis) unemployment has been dropping; in fact, in many sectors, there has been a shortage of labour, especially skilled labour, rather than in the unskilled grades to which in the recent past more women, as well as immigrant men, have been recruited. However, as both the report and other studies have made clear, sheer prejudice prevents employers taking on qualified and able women, or investing in their training. With increasing world competition, this is clearly not in the long-term interests of British capitalism. In addition, middle-class women, including those who affect to dispise "women's lib", have become frustrated at the lack of opportunity for them to use their education and talents. These women are an important part of the Tories traditional electoral base, but even this part is losing faith as prices rise and the Government show itself unable to deal with the problems facing it: By introducing legislation which does away with discrimitory job advertising and other minor reforms, the Government hopes to deal with both these questions: at a stroke heading off disaffection and improving the level of lower management, etc.
[page 11]
The way in which the proposed legislation will effect working-class women is less than beneficial. Although superficially it gives women working on the shop-floor, etc, the same opportunities for training, promotion, etc. as men, the way in which women will be required to take up cases of discrimination will be through resort to the National Industrial Relations Court.
This is, as it is intended to be, a highly divisive proposal. It is true that men have blocked, even more violently than they have blocked proposals for equal pay, the idea of women being allowed to do exactly the same jobs as themselves. This male chauvinism within the working-class must be fought. The way to fight it is by women organising themselves to struggle for their demands, and to get the men to take up those demands as part of the fight for class unity. The intention of the proposed Bill is that, on the one hand, women will fight discrimination as individuals. and on the other, that they will ese as a means, the hated class instrument of the NICR. Both men and women must understand understand the nature of this proposal, and realise the importance of struggling in a united, class way against women's oppression at every level. We should, however, be quite clear that, however much we may condemn women who go to the originates with their male fellow-workers, it is with the latter that the major responsibility lies. Where the discrimination originates with the employer, then the women must be able to rely on the strength of their unions, otherwise the male-dominated unions will in effect be lining-up with the employers on this question, as they have done too often in the past.
Of course, there is a material, historical basis for male chauvinism. But shutting our eyes to its manifestations, or chanting "Men and women, unite", when they only too often will not, or saying that the poor dears can't help it and they will get over it after the revolution -all these non-tacties only ensure the continuation of what is a cancer within the working-class.
Of course, the proposals are weak or worse than useless in many other respects, e.g. on education, but it is in proposing legislation such as the above that the real dangers of the bill can be seen.
The way to fight such proposals is for women - together with men - to start a massive struggle for both equal pay and opportunity: to demand training facilities, better pension rights and all the rest. This will also involve a struggle within the union in many cases.
In fighting for their demands, women will not be 'splitting" the class: far from it. By fighting Tory policy, women will be giving a lead. They have just as vital a part to play in defeating the Government as the men and they should realise that, whilst such struggles as those in which the miners and the other big battalions are engaged are obviously key to defeating the Government, they should not allow this to be used as an excuse to put off yet again the fight for those things which wonen consider important. In "Salt of the Earth' the women's insistence that their demands for decent homes, with running water ete, were not a diversion, but led to a strengthening of the struggle, proved to be correct.
The fight for women's liberation is no luxury - it is an intrinsic part of the class struggle Leonora Lloyd 1.Equal Pay. First Report on the Implementation of the Equal Pay Act, 1970. Office of Manpower Economics, HMSO, 1972. 90p
[page 12]
Sheila Rowbotham's work deserves particular attention in revolutionary circles because her books and pamphlets represent the most serious and sustained ish working-class in general, and women in particular. First of all, it drew a clear dividing line between the bourgeois and proletarian feminists, with the former enthusiast-
----- pull-quotes -----
OFFIGIAL DISPUTE BEc muc Pentos GIC LISBIES THE BANG A A