Advance Australia Fair! I can't think of a better title for a session exploring issues affecting women in the workplace.
Because we want a fair deal for women. We have not had that for far too long but we can hope that, with the election of the Rudd government, that is going to change.
In the time available to me today, I want to remind us of what we lost under the Howard government and what we want restored to us under the Rudd/Gillard government.
In November 2003, I published a book called The End of Equality, which documented the reversal of women's rights under the coalition government. It made three key points:
- That the Howard government brought an ideological perspective to women and tried to send us back to the 1950s; in particular, it tried to bribe us into having more babies and it used policy to deter mothers from working, unless they were single mothers in which case they were given no choice.
- The Howard government also downgraded, disempowered or outright abolished key agencies and offices designed to advocate for women's equality and to monitor our progress. As a result, it sent a strong signal to the community that women's status was no longer of concern.
- As a result of these key moves, women's status declined in almost every area, their earnings dropped, and their opportunities for promotion and leadership were constricted.
Today that is still the case. We know that women still are treated unequally in employment, both with the jobs they get (or, more accurately, don't get) and the remuneration they receive. Women still receive on average around $300 a week less than men, and the situation is getting worse.
ACTU President Sharan Burrow released a report in March this year that showed that women earn 84 cents for every dollar earned by men, down from 87 cents in 2004.
It seems the higher up you go in an organisation, the worse the pay discrimination is. A recent report from the Equal Employment for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) revealed that women CEOs receive only 67 per cent of what male CEOs get, while Chief Financial Officers are even worse done by, getting just 49 per cent of the salaries of their male counterparts.
As an example of CEO pay disparity, you just have to look at the case of the newly appointed CEO of Westpac, Gail Kelly. According to reports at the time of her appointment, Kelly was to have an annual salary of $2.1 million. Last year, David Morgan, her predecessor as CEO, took home $8.41 million.
We know that despite women graduating in equal, or even greater numbers, from universities that they soon fall behind in the workplace. The higher up you go in any organisation, the fewer the women. At the very top, the numbers are pathetic: less than 10 per cent of senior management positions, and less than 10 per cent of directorships are held by women. And the numbers are not improving.
When it comes to the new government, the questions we all want answered are:
- Will women be better off under the Rudd government?
- In what ways will they be better off?
- Is there need to worry that in some ways we could be worse off?
While there have been some early indications of the government's willingness to respond in a positive way to enabling women to participate on an equal footing with men socially and politically there have also been some worrying oversights. I think we were all pretty stunned when the government neglected to achieve anything remotely resembling gender balance in the selection of people to chair sessions at the 2020 Summit.
There was a surprisingly strong and angry reaction to this news. It became a big story in the media and put the government on the back foot in an area where it had tried to demonstrate its equality-promoting credentials.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to having our history ignored or distorted; we know that our present is still subject to discrimination, violence and enduring double standards. But, we could console ourselves with the hope that at least the future would be different.
Then the government planned a huge event to discuss the future of Australia and women were almost entirely excluded from the running of the event, and gender issues were nowhere to be found in the agenda of topics being discussed.
In other words, we are not even going to have a say in our own future. No wonder so many women felt sick with anger and disappointment. I have met quite a few women who say this fiasco prompted them to write their first-ever letter to a Prime Minister.
Obviously, it did not occur to the men who signed off on the Committee list that there was anything wrong with it. Let us hope that this blunder by the Rudd government will be an early wake-up call that it needs to be mindful of gender balance when making appointments.
Anne Summers is a best-selling author and journalist who has had a long career in politics, the media and the non-government sector. Her political background includes her time as a political adviser to Prime Minister Paul Keating prior to the 1993 federal elections and she ran the Office of the Status of Women for Prime Minister Bob Hawke from 1983 to 1986.
Ms Summers also presented these ideas at the 20th annual Women, Management and Employment Relations Conference, held in Sydney in July.
Printer friendly version
Comments
The problem with being mindful
It is problematic to entreaty the government to be "mindful" of gender balance.
The request runs the risk of being misinterpreted as a plea for women to be given special consideration. This isn't necessary, the duly qualified women are there. What is required to acheive a more equitable gender balance is just even consideration, based on merit.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are a culture where confidence is generally valued over merit. We are so easily seduced by people who "believe in themselves", that we often fail to critically evaluate their credentials.
Often women fail to present themselves for selection with the same sense of entitlement as their male counterparts.
Similiarly with pay negotiations, salary increases are rarely granted unsolicited. I suspect much of the inequity arises because more men, ask for more, more often.
It would be wonderful if government, and business, could achieve a fairer gender balance by being more mindful; but I won't hold my breath.
Individual women need to take it upon themselves to be more mindful of what they're capable of and what they're worth. Then ask for it. Woops, I mean demand it !
Sally Rose
Expecting gender balance in power is unrealistic
I admire high achieving women. Gender equality in the workforce can, and should be, discussed in terms of equal remuneration and I'd certainly welcome any government move which would encourage and support women's willingness to get back to the workforce after they had their kids.
But I think to expect a 50:50 gender balance in power and top executive roles is unrealistic, simply because the ratio of men to women among those who crave that power and have appropriate leadership skills to handle it is different. Men are stronger leaders, cope better with pressure and stress that come with an executive title and simply have more time at hand. For most women, the family is, and always will be, their first priority. It's in our nature. The myth that you can have it all is just that - a myth. Executive careers for women come with huge sacrifices, of which the family is usually the first, and not many of us can and want to go down that path, except perhaps a very few with superhuman time management skills, an ability to thrive on 4 hour sleep and a very supportive and understanding partner.
Also, the level of stress in a men-powered executive environment is simply too much for many women to cope with - I know some very successful women in high level positions who at times are truly struggling to ‘play along' by the rules of men. And the biggest difference between ‘us and them' in that respect seems to be that the guys can have a fight in the boardroom and then shake it all off and enjoy a beer together. A woman is not easily 'switched off' - she will rewind and play back the discussion in her mind over and over again, and that tension can stay within her for hours, even days, resulting in tears, broken sleep and, in worst cases, a nervous breakdown.
I'll never forget the sad story of Audrey Fagan, one of Australia's most senior female police officers, with a successful career and a loving family, who was about to be promoted to the top job when she committed suicide - apparently after a dubious story was leaked to the media questioning her integrity.
She paid too high a price. To me, it's just not worth it.
Looking at it from the other point of view
Having begun my career in the era following the gains made by Ms Summers and her counterparts, and having watched my mother struggle through a period in which there were gradually being claimed I am like many a bit frustrated by the ground lost in the last decade.
However, I would suggest, especially in times of a skills shortage, the onus is on women to force their employers to consider seriously the terms of their employment, and ask for what they are worth - rather than just passively accepting scraps. It's well known that women undervalue themselves in and men exagerate their worth - and while I'm not in the least bit motivated by money - I'm now prepared to come into a job interview and ask for an extra $15 K or $20 K simply because I know that's what my male counterparts are being offered.
If women want the high powered positions they actually have to be prepared to play the games of office politics and the rest - and I don't agree that women are any less or more capable to contend with the stress of an executive role - plenty of men have topped themselves, or slowly worked themselves into an early grave because they simply couldn't handle the stress of their jobs. Quite frankly, it's a stupid way to operate either as a male or a female. But I understand anyone's retiscience to get involved in damaging office politics at any level.
When I am apraising a company - and considering whether it's somewhere I want to work - or report on, I look at the executive management and the board - if all I see are men I simply assume the company is neither innovative or forward thinking enough to seek diversity amonst its senior managment - which has serious ramifications in terms of the way it operates more generally.
No women at the top suggests it's a stodgy old enterprise - that can't attract the best and brightest - because we all know more women graduate from university with better marks - and the companies which are the most successful are the ones actually manageing to attract and keep these women. No women says to me no future - especially if there are no women at board level.
It's a bit like the whole flexible work practices debate - those that do do well and have a future - those that don't will simply fail to thrive - whatever the industry, whatever the output... you need women - more than they need you - and you're ignoring their capabilities at your peril.
interesting comments everyone but....
...while girls may out-rank boys when it comes to performance in education, this doesn't necessarily mean they have the personality or interpersonal skills to cope with the demands of a top job. Some of the highest achievers I have studied with were also the quietest and lacked confidence. There were also those who could do four unit maths with their eyes closed but cried under pressure and flew off the handle if the teacher offered constructive criticism.
I think as we begin our working lives we realise that brains aren't everything - you need a mix of things to be successful in a particular industry or role.
and as a follow-up