Abstract
Women’s labour market participation has increased markedly during the past 20 years, but women face an enduring ‘architecture of discrimination’ in the labour market: glass – or indeed ‘concrete’ – ceilings (where women find it difficult to progress to senior roles); glass walls (concentration in jobs that are undervalued); and ‘sticky floors’ (employment in low-paid, precarious work) (Cooper and Baird, 2009). This is a transnational phenomenon and spans most sectors, occupations and organizations. Of course, women’s workplace circumstances are intimately entangled with care responsibilities, which, as numerous scholars point out, fall disproportionately on the shoulders of women, whether they engage in paid employment or not (Baird et al., 2009; Parker et al., 2012; Pocock, 2003, 2006).
This special issue of the Journal of Industrial Relations brings together eight articles that address various aspects of women’s experience at work or of the regulation of women’s employment conditions and wages. The papers were all presented at a Symposium on Women, Work and Collectivism at the University of Sydney in May 2011, where there was a lively interchange between practitioners and scholars about the papers and the implications of the research presented in them. A common theme in the papers and in our discussion of them was that, despite many years of struggle by advocates for gender equality both within the workplace and beyond it, women’s work remains undervalued and is often structured in a way that conflicts with women’s care responsibilities. In addressing some key issues and problems, the articles in this special edition raise further questions that might be addressed in future by scholars interested in women’s work and its regulation. We now briefly introduce the eight articles.
In 2011, the gender wages gap (the difference between men’s and women’s earnings for full-time ordinary hours) in Australia and New Zealand sat at 18 and 15%, respectively. This inequity has been a rallying point for feminists for many years and in many contexts. A number of test cases prosecuted in state and federal industrial relations jurisdictions have raised hopes that there might be progress in attempts to remedy one aspect of pay inequality: the ‘undervaluation’ of feminized work. The opening article by Connolly, Rooney and Whitehouse analyses the outcomes of the 2005 and 2006 Queensland ‘equal remuneration’ cases, which sought to address the issue of undervaluation. These cases investigated the pay of two groups of low-paid, highly feminized occupational groups: childcare workers and dental assistants. While the two cases had positive outcomes for the pay of the occupational groups concerned, this article argues that, over time, the benefits were eroded. Connelly et al. demonstrate the vulnerability of pay equity advances when single-track solutions are pursued. They argue that, for longer-term gains in pay equity, a multi-pronged approach must be adopted, underpinned by a collectivist strategy.
In many settings, reflecting the feminization of the workplace and gender inequalities therein, women have moved from being ‘marginal’ unionists to forming near to and more than half of the aggregate union membership in Australia and New Zealand, respectively. In part, this reflects a commonplace retreat of unionism into the public (and significantly feminized) sector and the decline of some traditional ‘heartlands’ of union membership in the private sector, such as in manufacturing (see Foley and Baker, 2009). However, women’s overall presence as union members has seldom translated into an equivalent level of representation at all levels of the union hierarchy. In unions, as in public life more widely, women’s advancement has been painfully slow and patchy and, in some cases, ‘backsliding’ has occurred (New Zealand Human Rights Commission, 2010). This is despite the many long-standing campaigns for change by agents such as women’s structures within unions, and shifting levels of regulatory and institutional support beyond the union setting. Cooper’s paper points to the gender reconfiguration of Australian union membership, arguing that it follows the trajectory of most comparable economies. Despite this, she argues that senior leadership positions, and indeed the culture of unions, are far from feminized. Through her qualitative study, Cooper investigates the sense that women working as officials within Australian trade unions make of this situation. She finds that, despite high levels of commitment to and satisfaction with union work, female union officials feel sidelined from powerful positions within unions and see the downgrading of workplace issues that affect women within union agendas.
In respect of women and collective bargaining, extant research indicates that high levels of unionization strongly correlate with a lower wage differential and a lower gender pay gap (Hyman, 2008). Further, women generally fare better in terms of their wages and working conditions under centralized and collective-based bargaining than they do in individualized or decentralized contexts (Frances and Nolan, 2008). In part, women’s workplace circumstances reflect their relative under-representation and/or level of influence in unions, discussed by Cooper (this issue), with men tending to predominate in the powerful roles on key structures such as negotiating bodies (Colling and Dickens, 1998). However, they also underscore many women’s location in low(er)-paid, smaller and non-collectivized workplaces (Van Wanrooy, 2009). Williamson’s article addresses the practice of union collective bargaining over family provisions, such as paid parental leave, and questions what facilitative conditions are necessary to progress such examples of ‘equality bargaining’. She presents case studies of bargaining enterprise agreements in two organizations with female-dominated employment: one in the retail sector and the second in the public sector administration. In these cases, very different processes, and indeed bargained outcomes, emerged. Williamson points to the importance of the existence of an ‘opportunity structure’ for making equality bargaining possible. She identifies contextual factors (e.g. public policy debate) and agency factors (e.g. feminist union leadership) as important prerequisites for equality bargaining. She also investigates the forces that militate against the process and identifies issues such as the economic environment and a centralized union leadership.
In their article, Charlesworth and Heron examine the regulation of working time in the context of the Australian ‘safety net’ – the National Employment Standards (NES) and Modern Awards – created by the Fair Work Act 2009. Through a case study of how this re-regulation has affected workers engaged in paid care, they argue that the ‘gendered legacy’ of previous frameworks has been replicated in the Fair Work system. Despite the prevalence of non-standard, non-full-time employment in the care sector, Charlesworth and Heron argue that assumptions of standard modes of working have been reproduced in the minimum standards applied to the sector. After comparing the provisions of care worker awards with awards applying to a male-dominated sector, they conclude that the new Fair Work regulatory system reinforces the relative labour market disadvantage of those female employees with low levels of working time and income security.
Donnelly, Proctor-Thomson and Plimmer’s empirical study examines a perennial issue for many working women: access to and uptake of flexible work arrangements (FWAs). In New Zealand, flexible working arrangements have been couched in ‘right to request’ legislative and organizational provisions and framed as a matter of individual choice. However, this choice is often constrained or ‘forced’, shaped as it is by a complex array of institutional, organizational, managerial and non-work factors. Drawing on a large survey of female members of the Public Service Association (PSA), New Zealand’s largest union, the authors find that many women exercise considerable choice in how they perform their tasks and when they take breaks. However, they have limited ‘voice’ with respect to the organization and pace of that work. This is particularly significant in a context of increasing workloads and time pressures on public service workers following job cuts in the sector. It also resonates with contemporary and wider debates in many countries on how best to attain ‘flexicurity’ or the combination of labour market flexibility in a dynamic economy and security for workers. Donnelly et al.’s research suggests the potential of indirect or collective representative voice and the institutional assumption of responsibility for the management of FWAs to help offset the limitations of policies based on individualized notions of choice.
Kaine also highlights regulatory alternatives beyond labour law in her study of the collective regulation of wages and conditions in Australia’s aged care workforce. Following other developed countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2005), this sector has come under increasing scrutiny as concerns grow about its sustainability, given the growth of the aged population. As the author notes, the gendered notions that underpin historical industrial relations law and instruments in Australia have seen caring work undervalued. Yet neither moves away from this system nor bargaining arrangements have resulted in substantial improvements in outcomes for women working in aged care. Based on her critique of regulatory alternatives, Kaine asserts that the integration of labour standards and outcomes into the existing accreditation standards and funding mechanisms for residential aged care warrants attention.
Parker, Nemani, Arrowsmith and Bhowmick focus on the relationship between collective employment regulation and women’s relationship with paid work. They observe continued inequality in certain areas of work for women and men, and for different ethnic groups. Drawing on interview and documentary evidence, their analysis confirms extant findings that a ‘thinner’ regulatory fabric tends to complicate efforts to substantially improve women’s work and wider circumstances, particularly in a context of high income inequality and low unionization. The authors thus call for a regulatory response that is ‘not only multifaceted, but also coordinated and affirmative in character’, noting fledgling efforts in this direction. They also argue for a reframing of regulatory efforts in ‘positive-sum’, rather than conventional cost–benefit, terms. At the time of writing, New Zealand is a week away from a general election. The continuation of the existing leadership would broadly translate into the continuation of ‘voluntarism’, while a replacement government could introduce a (re-)regulation of employment relations in what is expected to be a more buoyant economic climate. Recent regression in areas of women’s participation in governance and professional and public life in New Zealand stresses how critical the path that is chosen will be for women’s future relationship with the labour market.
In contrast to these national-level, contemporary studies, Brigden trains her analytical lens on rank-and-file women who emerged as honorary women leaders in the Australian women-only union, the Female Confectioners’ Union (FCU), in the 1920s. She draws together archival records and genealogical sources to produce biographical profiles for the women and fascinating insights into the junctures of their industrial, political and domestic lives. Through her contextualized and longitudinal analysis of the women ‘on whose shoulders the running of the union rested’, Brigden also refines several key themes for (trade union) scholarship. First, her blended methodology renders visible much about these extraordinary individuals that many might have assumed to have been lost with the passage of time and reliance on a single analytical approach. Second, her reflexive methodology helps to highlight what is missing – the women’s voices – alerting us to the need for inclusive histories with which to deepen understandings of (the) other(s’) situations and standpoints. Third, her case study is an important testament to the impact that women’s separate organizing can have in promoting women’s participation, representation and voice. However, as Bridgen herself emphasizes, its ongoing contribution to collectivism is contingent on a capacity to evolve to remain relevant.
Conclusions
The articles in this special edition investigate a number of vitally important topics for scholars and practitioners who seek to understand issues facing women at work in Australia and New Zealand in 2012. They raise a number of important themes that might well be the topic of future scholarship in the area and certainly could be important sites of policy development. In the space available to us, it is not possible to draw out all of the implications of the articles. We thus present three key themes.
First, a number of the articles point to the importance of regulation for understanding women’s work and for making progress towards gender equality in the workplace. For example, labour law and, indeed, test cases can be vitally important in changing behaviour and promoting different practices. However, in light of the research reported here, we would suggest that legislation is a useful, but insufficient, mechanism for improving women’s circumstances. Gains made via these regulatory routes can be superseded and eroded; on the other hand, they might actually entrench established discriminatory practice. Much of the research presented here suggests the need both for questioning the assumptions made in the construction of labour law and for a broader regulatory architecture that emphasizes proactive, cross-agency efforts. The re-regulation of employment relations at the workplace level (e.g. through strategies) does not provide a substitute for centralized national or industry-level regulation, but does have the potential to add another string to the regulatory bow.
Second, several articles highlight the importance of collectivist strategies for improving women’s experiences in the labour market. Trade unionism is very important in this respect. Unions can have a crucial impact on women’s wages, working conditions and their ‘voice’ at work, through bargaining, lobbying, campaigning and in many other ways. Although they have been the focus of recent investigations, the experiences and contributions of women within unions require further examination. As well as reminding us that wider, ‘mainstream’ industrial relations scholarship remains gender- and diversity-‘blind’, this call for further study of women in the union setting is emphasized by the various articles in this edition, which demonstrate that the presence of unions in a workplace is no guarantee that women’s voice will be heard or that their concerns will be adequately addressed. We thus need to develop a closer understanding of how, and the conditions under which, unions can become more effective for women. Indeed, feminist leadership of unions has been identified as an important contributor to union impetus to pursuing industrial issues of relative benefit to women. When women officials within unions report marginalization both of such agendas and of themselves as leaders, these are the sorts of dilemmas that need further investigation in order that they might be effectively overcome (Briskin, 2011). The articles additionally suggest that trade union strategies need to be enacted alongside other mechanisms (also Parker and Douglas, 2010), reinforcing the need for a multi-channel response whose goals are complementary and contribute to unions’ capacity to pursue ‘difference’ in a cohesive, inclusive fashion. Moreover, we can challenge and broaden our conceptualization of collectivism within and beyond the union context in this pursuit.
Third, the articles in this edition prompt us to focus on women and work in a manner that stresses the different yet linked contexts in which they operate. Women’s circumstances in the paid work sphere are interwoven with their roles and experiences in domestic and other settings. The articles underscore how these environments can be effectively and simultaneously examined from different standpoints via sensitive empirical and theoretical analyses. Conjointly, they consider an array of issues for working women via casework, survey overviews, thematic analyses and longitudinal studies, using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, and focused at the individual, organizational, sectoral, national and, at times, cross-national levels. This range of research approaches helps to reflect the richness and complexity of the phenomena under observation, while also helping to raise new questions for the development of broad and context-specific theory, policy and practice in subsequent research.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the referees who generously read and commented on the papers submitted for consideration for this edition. We also appreciate the support from the editors, Associate Professor Bradon Ellem and Professor Marian Baird, in producing this edition, and Rawya Mansour’s considerable assistance in helping us to compile this edition.