Julia Gillard’s speech
On 26 June 2007 I had the good fortune to be present at a breakfast organised by the Maurice Blackburn Cashman Women's Law Section, where Julia Gillard was a guest speaker. The speech has now been published on Gillard's website, so I thought now is a good time to discuss it without much risk of misstatements.
I must say that Gillard is quite an impressive speaker. If the Labor party had a few more pollies like her I might have considered voting for them in the next election (although they are likely to get my vote on preferences anyway). Ok, enough small talk.
At the start of her speech, Gillard reaffirmed the Labor party's promise to reform and harmonise legislation to protect outworkers in the textile industry (most of them migrant women). She gave examples, from her work as an industrial lawyers, of these vulnerable workers being cheated of entitlements such as annual leave, redundancy, long service leave, or even wages as their unscrupulous employers frequently changed their corporate identities or closed up shop without notice. Labor's promise to reform regulation of outwork is a positive step, as is the plan to "kickstart the development and promotion of the Homeworkers’ Code of Practice and the "No Sweat Shop" label."
One of the most interesting and topical parts of Gillard's speech concerned the impact of AWAs on women in the workforce. She cited recent ABS data which showed "that women working full time on AWAs take home on average $87.40 per week less than their colleagues working on collective agreements based on their rate per hour. Women working on AWAs in casual jobs earn $94 per week less than women on collective agreements."
Women on AWAs also worked longer hours. Gillard referred to a Victorian Government report released in March which revealed "that female full-timers received 5 per cent less per week on an AWA than on a collective agreement even though they worked an additional 1.3 hours per week."
When you think about it - its not that surprising. AWAs have drastically shifted the balance of power between employer and employee. It can be expected that the greater the power imbalance, the more likely it is that the employee can be compelled to accept inferior working conditions. Unfortunately women still have less power in the workplace than men - they are more likely to be found in part-time or casual jobs because of family commitments, they are more likely to be absent from the workforce for extended periods of time to have and care for children, thus reducing their employability. They are also predominantly concentrated in lower paid, lower skilled jobs such as hospitality and retail (which incidentally are the industries that use AWAs the most), making them more "replaceable" and easier to coerce. And women sometimes lack the confidence the bargain as effectively as men (wonder if it has to do with the social conditioning that we should be sweet, non-confrontational peacemakers)
In fact, in her speech, Gillard referred to a report into women in the professions conducted by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, showed that more than half of respondents reported that they were "not very confident" or "not confident at all" in negotiating good remuneration and working conditions with their employer. And these are professional women, who would be expected to be more confident in bargaining that women in non-professional employment. As Gillard pointed out this is a "truly worrying result when the existing industrial laws are predicated on individuals bargaining with their employer."
Julia Gillard talked about Labor's IR policy and parental leave policies designed to make it easier for parents to balance work and family. This policy included 12 months unpaid parental leave to each parent (which may hopefully encourage more men to take up parental leave and give them the opportunity to spend more time with their children) and flexible work arrangements for families with young children. Gillard gave an excellent response to Howard's suggestion that providing parents with more flexibility would discourage employers from hiring women.
When asked about Labor’s policy by journalist Laurie Oakes, the Prime Minister claimed that it would result in employers refusing to employ women with young children.
"You run the risk, Laurie, if you put it into legislation that some employers will avoid employing women, in particular with young children" [Prime Minister John Howard, 29 April 2007]
The Prime Minister used exactly the same argument that was used back in 1979 in connection with the Maternity Leave Test Case of that year. Since that Test Case, women’s participation has increased by more than 30 per cent.
It was a knee-jerk reaction from a man living in the past who thinks women are at the margins of our workforce and employers can simply overlook their participation. A man who fails to recognise our economy’s twin needs of skilled labour and supporting those who are bringing up the next generation.
A callous response from a man who does not even try to understand the anxiety of young women torn between the need to return to work and the desire to see their child take their first steps.
She may have also added that it is a highly hypocritical reaction from a man whose government uses family or children's interests as political slogans when it is convenient, but fails to support policies that would enable parents to spend more time with their children (and with each other) while still being able to participate in the workforce.
Gillard also spoke about other matters, such as superannuation and childcare. Just click on the link above for the whole speech. It's worth a read, as I said, it was a very good speech which I wanted to share.
I am planning to do a series of posts on WorkChoices and AWAs, so if anyone's interested, please keep visiting and, as always, thanks for reading :-)
RSS
