Women's organisations concerned by reports that women are doing worse under Workchoices
“Two new research reports now show that women clustered in low pay low skill jobs are worse off under WorkChoices”, NFAW spokesperson Marie Coleman said today.
“This highlights the importance of the research and consultations currently underway under the auspices of national women’s organisations. New research from Dr Alison Preston of Curtin University and from Dr David Peetz of Griffith University highlights this worrying situation”.
The NFAW, in association with WEL Australia and YWCA Australia has commissioned a national study of Vulnerable Workers and WorkChoices, co-ordinated through Dr Barbara Pocock of the University of South Australia.
Dr Peetz has found that women are particularly disadvantaged by the inter-action of WorkChoices and the Welfare to Work changes :
“The fifth aspect of collateral damage derives from the interaction of WorkChoices with its close ally, the "welfare to work" legislation. Targeted particularly at women (as sole parents) and the disabled, the welfare to work legislation stripped thousands of the lowest income recipients of twenty to forty dollars each week, and imposed effective marginal tax rates well above what the highest income males face. But it is most pernicious through its interaction with its Coalition partner, WorkChoices, because if a sole parent is offered a job on an AWA that has no penalty rates, no overtime pay, no meal breaks, no shift allowances, no leave loading, no redundancy pay and only pays minimum wage, and she knocks it back, she is breached and without income for eight weeks. If she does not have enough savings then it is a matter of going down to the local charity, the relatives, or maybe the ex-partner, cap in hand. There does not seem to be much work choice there.”
Dr Alison Preston, of Curtin has found that in a new study of the gender wage gap researchers from the WiSER group – Women in Social & Economic Research, based at Curtin University – show that the biggest losers in the pre-WorkChoices system of individual bargaining were women non-managerial employees on AWAs.
Between 2002 and 2004 the gender wage gap amongst non-managerial employees on AWAs deteriorated by 19.6 percentage points to 79.6% and was larger that the observed gender wage gap amongst non-managerial employees on collective (federally registered) agreements, equal to 87.5%.
The researchers also found that the apparent earnings advantage accruing to women on AWAs in 2002 was nearly half that claimed by the OEA.
In explaining their findings Professor Alison Preston, Co-Director of WiSER and one of the authors of the paper called for a shared understanding of the term non-managerial employee. It would appear that notwithstanding a clear ‘warning’ by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on how to use their data, the OEA have been less than careful in their reporting of non-managerial earnings and have included a number of managerial employees in their estimates.
According to Professor Preston this has inflated the earnings of those groups of workers on AWAs. “When we use the ABS’ own conventional definition of non-managerial employees we uncover a completely different story” she said.
The authors also call for a review of data collection methods to ensure that the earnings and working conditions under different types of agreements can be adequately monitored. “It is particularly important we are able to monitor earning-condition tradeoffs” if we are to ensure the new system delivers decent work for all.”
In 2006 NFAW and WEL, in association with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, commissioned a study from the Women in Economic and Social Research (WiSER) unit at Curtin University, benchmarking women’s wages and conditions.
Currently NFAW, with the support of a coalition of over 60 national women’s organisations (What Women Want- see www.nfaw.org and www.security4women.com) is conducting a round of consultations in capital cities on the experiences of women to date with WorkChoices. Consultations have already taken place in Brisbane and Canberra.
Details of the next three upcoming consultations are below. Others are in planning for Hobart (16th March) and Melbourne and Sydney.
Perth
What Women Want: Fair pay, equal pay, what are the prospects for West Australian women
Friday 2nd March (8.45am to 1.00pm)
Organised by the Women in Social and Economic Research in conjunction with the National Foundation for Australian Women, this forum is part of a nation wide series of roundtables to investigate the experience of WorkChoices to date for women, work on what we want as refinements and modifications to protect vulnerable workers and look at the first determination of the Australian Fair Pay Commission and its impact on women.
To register or for more information contact WiSER on 08 9266 7755.
Darwin
Women and WorkChoices roundtable
Tuesday 6th March (2.00pm to 4.30pm)
Participants are invited to discuss the WorkChoices experience of women to date and to reflect on the essential changes required to protect vulnerable workers. Speakers include Justin Larkin, NT Workplace Advocate; Christine Short, researcher into pay equity issues; Tony Fitzgerald, NT Anti-Discrimination Commissioner; Marie Coleman, NFAW.
To RSVP or for more information phone 08 8981 8323 (YWCA of Darwin)
Adelaide
Women and WorkChoices roundtable
Friday March 9 (9.00 to 12.30)
NFAW, the What Women Want Project, the Centre for Work + Life at the University of South Australia have organised this roundtable to give various organisations an opportunity to hear from specialists in this area, share information & experiences, discuss implications of recent decisions and plan for the future.
For more information or to register, contact Jude Elton on 08 83024198
More information
Further information or comment: Marie Coleman 041 4483067