[page 7]
The Equal Pay Act, introduced by Barbara Castle and brought in by the Labour government in 1970, provided for equal terms and conditions for men and women workers working in the same establishment or in other establishments owned by the same employer or associated employers, if they are employed on "like' ('the same or broadly similar') work. The ruling about other establishments does not apply unless the employees concerned have "common terms and conditions of employment" between the establishments, either generally or within each class, e.g. men and women; otherwise women could only claim equal pay with men in the same establishment. "Equal conditions' doesn't apply to retirement, marriage or death matters. The final decision on whether work was "broadly similar" would be taken by an Industrial Tribunal. The Act also provided for equal terms and conditions for work rated as 'equivalent under a job evaluation exercise, but did not enforce job evaluation.
The EPAct was supposed to come into force on 29th December 1975; if the Secretary of State thought that 'orderly progress" was not being made by 31st December 1973, he was empowered to make an order for women's rates to be raised to at least 90% of men's. Before doing this he had to consult "such bodies appearing to him to represent the interests of employers or of employees as he considers appropriate" A report published by the Office of Manpower Economics at the beginning of August gives evidence of deliberate circumvention by regrading and the separation of men and women workers-with union agreement general lack of progress, and a widespread attitude among employers that they would wait for the Act to be enforced before doing anything. Only 4 out of 200 small companies investigated had made any plans at all.
A report from Incomes Data Services in July estimated that equal pay was ten years off at the present pace. According to a report in Socialist Worker (26.8.72) when the Secretary for Employment, Maurice Macmillan, approached the CBI and TUC on whether to use his powers to enforce progress in the light of the OME report, (pointing out the dangers of inflation and so on) the TUC representatives (Feather, Jones, Scanlon, George Smith, Sir Sidney Green and Lord Cooper) agreed that their £20p.w. minimum basic wage proposal was merely a 'guideline', and that they would not push for enforcement of Equal Pay. As we pointed out in the last issue of Socialist Woman, the provisions for equal pay for equal work under the Treaty of Rome of 1957, with special procedures for implementation within three years added in 1961, have not so far led to equal pay for women at any level in any of the six EEC member countries. A survey conducted in France in 1970 showed an average 33.6% discrepancy between the pay of men and women. France has had equal pay since 1946.
It now seems that the combined resistance of the employers and inertia of the unions has resulted in the indefinite postponement of the implementation of theEqual Pay Act. Apart from proving yet again, as in the case of the jailed dockers, that the sanctity, etc. of the Law is only a matter of the class relationship of forces-and in this case the working-class so-called representatives weren't bothering we need to have a closer look at the many and varied kinds of "equals" that have been dragged in to befog the discussion so far and have helped to prevent any effective action from being taken.
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK The Equal Pay Act, even if implemented, and even without the numerous loopholes devised by ingenious employers, Management Advisors and the like to get round the wording, would affect at best only about one-third of the female workforce, for the simple reason that the majority of women do not do "the same or broadly similar work" to male workers.
Traditional female areas of employment are women-only jobs at the bottom end of the manufacturing industries over half the female working force are in semi-skilled and unskilled manual jobs and this percentage is increasing-or in the badly organised distribution and service sectors. So while we must of course fight for the "rate for the job" for women in all cases, this really amounts to little more
[page 8]
than smoothing out a particularly glaring anomaly- despite the shrieks and groans of employers and sex-conscious male workers and is no favour for us to be thankful for.
EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE This is a slightly more liberal interpretation of "equal work"; it is the definition used by the International Labour Organisation and is a possible meaning of the part of the EPAct which allows for Equal Pay for equivalent work as rated by a Job Evaluation exercise. For this reason it is a more dangerous interpretation, and one that has caused confusion in the labour movement.
To talk of "value" and "evaluation" raises the question "value for whom?". And as we live in a capitalist society where individual workers must sell their labour power to individual employers for, more likely, concerns, but the principle is the same) in order to survive, it would be the individual employer who would determine the value to him his profit.
And since we are working for him because we have to, and not because it makes us feel all warm inside to think how we are contributing to the company profits, we are not in the least concerned with how valuable we are or are not, or for that matter whether we are employed upon making genuine artificial garbage of no value at all, as long as we get our wages. (Though in a socialist society where we would be producing for the benefit of all, we would be very concerned to make a valuable contribution).
So to argue for pay to be based on "value of work performed" can only end up in everyone competing to see who can be of most value to the employer a recipe for low pay all round. It is also a particularly irrelevant argument for women in that it cannot take account of the reason for their inequality on the labour market in the first place the value of their contribution to society in unpaid domestic responsibilities and child-rearing.
PAY FOR WORK In actual fact, of course, as labour-power is a commodity for sale like any other, rates of pay are ultimately based on the state of the labour market. It is the traditional function of trade unions to defend the living standards of the working class by restricting the number of workers willing to work below certain wage: the greater the unity and solidarity of the working class, the better the price.
But we also have to take account of the many other complex factors which determine what the union membership considers a "fair wage" to hold out for, beyond which the necessary unity cannot be maintained. These will include custom-for whatever historical reasons and factors such as training, or unpleasant or dangerous conditions, which again push up the scarcity of the labour power available for a particular job, and therefore its price. One important idea in negotiating for wage claims is that of comparison with other workers-not necessarily those in the sam: area, or even the same country, so it is not just a case of threatening to go to an employer who pays better -via parity claims or "leapfrogging"
The use to the employers of the different methods of payment peddled as being more "just" or "rational" than each other once PBR now MDW, "national Job Evaluation Schemes". threshold agreements, etc. -is simply to introduce confusion into this last, subjective factor, and profit by dividing the interests of the working class hence the introduction of grading schemes where each has his bit extra to defend against the one below, merit payments, etc.
This of course is where women workers lose out, as with all the weight of everyday social relationships and pressures, backed up the media, reinforcing the idea that women's domestic role gives them different interests from those of employed workers, the trade union movement in general (including women workers themselves) cannot see the interests of the working class as a whole and fails to take up seriously the question of equal pay.
A recent glaring example of this was the dropping of the Engineers' Equal Pay Claim, first in most of the local negotiations, and then at national level. The Engineering Employers" Federation's concession of a "higher % increase" doesn't even bring women up to the labourer's rate, with the result that the acepted level of pay for women is lower an it was years ago. In additon, divisions may be rereinforced inside the unions, with graded membership according to sex and skills.
So the trade unionists who maintain that equal pay an only be achieved through industrial action (and not through legislation, job evaluation, etc.), while entirely correct in one sense, rather beg the question of how such industrial action is to come about, since the TUC has been calling for equal pay for the last 80 years or so without noticeable results.
EQUAL WORK/EQUAL WORKERS In fact this problem higlights the basic contradiction in the position of the trade unions in a capitalist society like ours: that they defend the standard of living of the working class against capital the employing class but at the same time by operating within that framework reflect the basic social structures and ideologies of capitalist society within themselves.
So having said that the gaining of equal pay is a matter for the unions, we are going to run into the union version of the "relative value" principle we dondemned above, with the familiar arguments about "women can't lift heavy weights, aren't available for awkward shifts, don't work nights, retire earlier, take days off when their children are sick, have gentlemen stand up for them on buses, etc. etc."- in other words, no one minds women having acces to equal and equal pay along with it as long as they're prepared to pretend that they re really men.
This opens the door to the favoured few (and should be taken advantage of), but does nothing to improve the situation of the mass of women workers who because of their social role and family responsibilities to say nothing of probable lack of training and confidence-are not in this position. Such fear for the loss of privilege if women are admitted to be equally part of the working class can only arise from the belief that you get your little slice of cake by kind permission of the management (and you don't want to share it), instead of seeing that you should have control of
[page 9]
the whole bakery.
The union movement (and the left in general) will have to take the problem more seriously than that. The present economic crisis is forcing the government to pull out all the stops to break the unions' independence-their traditional freedom to organise in self-defence. So union members must see the choice before them clearly: if the unions don't take up seriously and fight for the needs of the working class as a whole, but instead go on upholding sectional privileges and prejudices, ghen they lay temselves open to the only alternative-division and control by the state. On the basis of what we said earlier about not tying pay to boss's profits, the organised working class cannot be concerned with the relative merits of men and women workers, any more than black or white, or old or young workers, from the employers point of view. By organisation and collective bargaining, certain minimum rates are fixed for certain jobs; once you start conceding that women should be paid less because they're a "bad bargain" (e.g. because of domestic commitments), you must agree that Ron Smith must also be paid less because he's got a weak bladder and spends more time in the toilet, or that the Ford workers must be paid less because they waste their employers time going on strike.
EQUAL PAY AND EQUAL WORK So how can we go about turning the unions into real working class organisations? To help to put the principles of Equal Pay and Equal Work into practice - and so also increase the confidence of women workers that their demands are justified -there are many issues we must fight on at a very basic level: not only equal pay and job opportunities, but also the right to the training that can make this a reality (in 1970 there were 110 female apprentices to skilled craft occupations, compared with over 112,000 males: 8.9% of young women workers outside national and local government get day-release, compared with 39.7% of young men, and this falls to 2 or 3% in industries with a high female work force).
The fight for equality shouldn't only go one way, either: if women need protective legislation, restrictions on night work and retirement at 60, then so do men. Women lose out both at work and in taking an active part in union affairs by their home responsibilities: the unions must make sure that marriage or time off for pregnancy does not cost women their jobs. They must also make it possible for women to take part in activities by providing creche facilities where needed and by finding out at what time women can attend meetings- if the only time available is in working hours, so much the better. Reforms of this kind are valuable not only in themselves, but also in changing the attitudes of the people involved, in the same way that we report on women's involvement in militant trade union struggles- to disprove the myths about their apathy -or on their achievements in history for for that matter, in the same way as the Dolle Minas pinching men's bottoms in Amsterdam-it all helps).
And if we take these reforms seriously, we must also fight for the means to bring them about. So we must fight not only for women's right to equal union membership, but also for their right (and the right of other oppressed groupings) to have their own organisations inside the unions to fight around their particular problems and needs. Such organisations can only be active rank-and-file organisations: we must resist any attempt to substitute token "Women's Advisory Committees" and the like, as these have no effect and only serve to confuse the issue by taking women's questions out of day-to-day activity, rather than ensuring that that is where they are tought.
So the demands we would put forward for women workers inside the unions would include both on long-term goals the immeidate demands which will begin to achieve these goals. For example while we will always put the demand for "Equal Pay Now", we will also always fight against any increase in the % differential: equal increases for all, as a minimum. Other general princiles would include: -Equal Training and Job Opportunities.
No inequality of status between union members. -Proper representation of the interests of all workers affected in any negotiations.
Complete control by all the membership affected over any agreements made in their name.
The right of specifically oppressed sections-women, black workers, youth, etc.- to organise themselves to ensure these are carried out.
Finally, of course, as we said carlier, we must recognise that the trade unions themselves, by their very nature in representing the interests of the worker against the boss, cannot solve the basic problems of our society: that will only be done by removing the boss altogether and taking over ourselves. So as it becomes more and more necessary for the unions to go onto the offensive against the capitalist class merely to maintain the living standards and rights they have won so far, it also becomes increasingly obvious that we must extend not only the scope of our ideas, but also our organisations which express them, beyond the relationships of the workplace to take up the questions of the whole of society.
For example in the case of women workers, it is clear that, although we can help to free women to fight for their rights, nothing will really be solved until the central question of women's responsibility for housekeeping and childrearing is dealt with, and that will take a complete reorganisation of society, calling in far wider forces than the present membership of the unions.
The women's liberation movement has a vital function to perform here, and not just in the long term; it is important that those of us outside the union movement both support the efforts of women workers in getting the unions to represent them, and take up the wider issues relating to the oppression of women in the family and society childcare facilities, maintenance, housing, contraception and abortion rights, etc. so that given the balance of forces against us, these essentially interrelated struggles can lend each other strength. It is a siffficient comment on the nature of our society that it will take a thorough-going social and economic revolution to concede such seemingly basic democratic rights as equal pay and equal work. As a first step we must start to build the degree of political organisation that can achieve this by involving all the different forces concerned in work towards these goals on a day-to-day practical level.
Marilyn Scotcher.
GLOSSARY PBR-Payment by Results-piecework MDW-Measured Day Work-a fixed day's pay for a fixed day's effort, regardless of productivity.
Job Evaluation -a scheme to place all jobs at a given place of work (or within a company, etc.) within a rigid system of grading so that they are paid according to the value of their content. content, according to 'scientific principles.
Threshold Agreements-a scheme being discussed now berween the government, the CBI and the TUC to allow for wage increases if plices go above a certain % (with the idea of avoiding other rises, and pay rises above that %.
Dolle Minas-a women's liberation group in Holland a couple of years ago.
[page 10]
UNION OF