Transcript Scratching Below the Surface of Gender Equality: understanding how local labour markets fail women Professor Sue Yeandle Director, CIRCLE Centre for International Research on Care,

Scratching Below the Surface of
Gender Equality: understanding
how local labour markets fail women
Professor Sue Yeandle
Director, CIRCLE
Centre for International Research on Care, Labour and
Equalities
University of Leeds, UK
Presentation to
Women and Work Research Group
University of Sydney, Australia
March 16 2011
Overview

Gender Equality in the labour market


The GELLM research programme


design, methods and output
Local Labour Markets


myths, problems and puzzles
Structures, contexts and public policies
Example: Ethnic minority women
Gender Equality in the labour market: myths, problems & puzzles
“Don’t women today have better jobs, more opportunities, choices and
options than ever before?”
Why do women ‘waste’ their skills in poor quality part-time jobs?
Women, welfare and work – the myths behind 3 policy errors which fail
women in poor communities
“Women outside LM ‘don’t want’ paid work”
“ Women ‘have broken through’”
GELLM Research Programme (Sept 2003- Aug 2006)
and publications

Gender and Employment in Local Labour Markets

European Social Fund core grant – plus match funding from 14 partners:
Equal Opportunities Commission, Trade Union Congress and
12 English Local Authorities

12 Gender Profiles of Local Labour Markets (Series 1)

6 Local Research Studies (Synthesis & Locality reports)







Series 2 Working below potential: women and part-time work
Series 3 Connecting women with the labour market
Series 4 Ethnic minority women and access to the labour market
Series 5 Career development for women in local authorities
Series 6 Addressing women’s poverty: local LM initiatives
Series 7 Local challenges in meeting demand for domiciliary care
Book (S. Yeandle ed.) published by Policy Press, 2009

Policy for a Change: local labour market analysis and gender
equality
6 GELLM
SYNTHESIS
REPORTS
plus 4 - 6
locality
reports on
each topic
12 Gender
Profiles
2005, 2007, Equal Opportunities Commission
2009, The Policy Press
GELLM Research Programme: design and methods

Multi-method programme of research, dissemination
and gender mainstreaming







£1.5m investment ; £750,000 from EU (ESF); rest from partner
contributions – 12 English LAs, EOC, and TUC
Analysis of large-scale data sets, including Census 2001
Documentary analysis and literature reviews
Qualitative studies, including interviews, focus groups and
workshops
Questionnaires /surveys – of employers, workers, key actors
Conferences, seminars, workshops and local action-planning
events, to raise awareness, share findings, support policy change.
The GELLM research team:


Directed by Professor Sue Yeandle, based at Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Dr Cinnamon Bennett, Dr Lisa Buckner, Karen Escott, Dr Linda Grant,
Christopher Price, Lucy Shipton, Bernadette Stiell, Dr NingTang.
Women’s LM experience: key structural issues



Demographic change
 Population and workforce ageing
 Changes in family structure, formation, maternal employment
 Increased unpaid care demands on people of working age
 Rising levels of illness and disability in the overall population
Migration
 Within-UK migration -some English localities have falling, others
have rising populations
 Net growth in UK pop. - migration ‘in’ higher than migration ‘out’
 Variable ethnic diversity - local composition related to colonial past,
EU membership, industrial structure, marriage, refugees.
Labour supply and demand
 Stable working age economic activity masks volatility
 Share of jobs held by women up steadily over 30 years (to 45% in
2001)
 Decline in manufacturing employment, growth in service sector jobs
 Increased importance of PT (less than 30 hours p.w.) jobs
Women’s LM experience: main policy fields




Labour market activation/social security reforms
 Activation policies in context of welfare reform and rising
employment rates – but many women remain ‘disconnected’
 Widespread low pay despite NMW, affects women most
 Approach no longer relies on male breadwinner model
Regeneration and social inclusion
 Neighbourhood renewal and local economic investment
 Very rarely gender sensitive
 Weak local economies persist despite many initiatives
Skills and productivity
 Main focus on increasing workforce and general skills levels
 Absence of a gendered approach, esp. in local implementation
 No attention to misallocation of skilled labour in poor quality jobs
Equality and diversity – including sex/gender policy
 Landmark equalities legislation in mid 1970s
 More attention to ethnicity & disability than gender in 1980s/1990s
 Gender policy typically EU-driven prior to Equality Act 2006
Approach - GELLM research programme



Myths about women in employment which have
wide currency and have influenced policy
Puzzles where there are competing theoretical
positions or gaps in understanding
Problems which have been tackled at the practical
or theoretical level (or both), but which have not
gone away

Access to employment for women
 Degrees, senior jobs and ethnicity
 Part-time work and working below potential
Why local level analysis matters: issues




Most people – and especially mature women – work
‘close to home’
Local labour market opportunities – and the nature and
pace of change – differ from place to place, affecting
the structure of opportunity at both the industrial and
occupational level
Population characteristics vary from place to place –
age, ethnicity, movement/migration, health and wealth,
household and family structure
The infrastructure supporting paid employment varies –
transport; childcare; adult care services;
information/advice/guidance; skills and training;
education
Why local level analysis matters: examples

In England 55% of women work either at home
or within 5km of where they live

65% of those working PT
 48% of those working FT
This varies from place to place: for example….
 In Leicester, 77% of women work at/very close to
home (81% of PT workers, 75% of FT workers)

In Thurrock, 46% of women work at/very close to home
(61% PT workers, 36% of FT workers)
(Source: 2001 Census SAM)
Economic inactivity and unemployment amongst
women of working age, 2001
Unemployed
women (% econ. Act.)
Economically
inactive women
4
29
Birmingham
7
39
Camden
7
36
East Staffs
4
28
Newcastle
5
37
Sandwell
7
35
Somerset
3
26
Southwark
8
34
Thurrock
5
27
Wakefield
5
31
West Sussex
2
25
England
Source: 2001 Census Standard Tables, Crown Copyright 2003
Source: 2001 Census Standard Tables, Crown Copyright 2003
ENGLAND
WEST SUSSEX
Pevensey
Marine
Hotham
WAKEFIELD
Whitwood
Glasshoughton
Ferry Fryston
THURROCK
West Thurrock & South Stifford
Grays Riverside
Aveley & Uplands
SOUTHWARK
Newington
East Walworth
Chaucer
SOMERSET
Victoria
Sydenham
Hamp
SANDWELL
Soho and Victoria
St Pauls
NEWCASTLE
Walker
Monkchester
Byker
EAST STAFFS
Shobnall
Eton Park
Anglesey
CAMDEN
Kentish Town
Havestock
Gospel Oak
BIRMINGHAM
Soho
Ladywood
Aston
Percentage of economically active women
Female unemployment rates (as proportion of all
economically active women of working age) – local data
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Women of working age by ethnicity, excluding White
British women: selected localities and England
All other ethnic
groups
60
Percentage of women of working age
Black African
50
6
8
40
6
2
5
30
3
1
2
1
Bangladeshi
17
Pakistani
3
3
20
Indian
9
1
2
3
27
19
10
2
2
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
2
Leicester
Newcastle
Somerset
0
Camden
Black Caribbean
10
Southwark
Mixed
2
1
1
1
White Other
2
1
3
White Irish
England
Source: 2001 Census Standard Tables, Crown Copyright 2003, as
presented in Yeandle, Buckner and Stiell (2006).
Economic activity rates of women aged 16-59,
selected ethnic groups
England & Wales
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source: Buckner, Yeandle and Botcherby, 2007
ad
es
hi
Ba
ng
l
an
i
Pa
ki
st
an
In
di
Ca
rib
be
an
Bl
ac
k
W
hi
te
Br
it
is
h
EA rate
Unemployment rates of women aged 16-59:
selected ethnic groups
England & Wales
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
W
te
i
h
UE rate
h
s
i
rit
B
ck
a
l
B
a
C
n
a
e
b
rib
d
In
n
ia
is
k
Pa
i
n
ta
Source: Buckner, Yeandle and Botcherby, 2007
g
n
a
B
i
h
s
e
d
la
Clustering of women in local labour markets

Among all women in employment:






28% of Indian women in Leicester worked in plant, process and
machine operative jobs;
40% of Bangladeshi women in Camden worked in sales and
customer service jobs;
42% of Black African women in Birmingham worked in health
and social work occupations;
33% of Pakistani women in Newcastle, and 49% of Chinese
women in Sandwell, worked in the wholesale, retail, restaurants
and hotels sector;
31% of Black Caribbean women in Southwark worked in
administrative and secretarial jobs
In the social care sector, in all the districts studied (and
in England as a whole)

Black women were disproportionately concentrated in jobs as care
workers/care assistants
 Asian women were under-represented in this segment of the labour
market (Yeandle et al 2006b).
(see also GELLM Gender Profiles; Buckner et al 2004-06)
Women’s employment in Leicester’s
manufacturing sector: % of employed women

12% of White British women
 34% of Indian women
 26% of Pakistani women
 25% of Bangladeshi women.

In Stoneygate ward

33% of Indian women
 6% of White British women

In Spinney Hills ward

38% of Indian women
 9% of White British women.
Within Leicester’s manufacturing sector

67% of Indian women employees work in plant,
process and machine operative jobs
(compared with 52% of White British women)

19% of Indian women employees work in elementary
(unskilled) occupations
(10% of White British women)

4% of Indian women employees work in managerial,
professional and technical jobs
(18% of White British women)
This data was derived from the 2001 Census Controlled Access Microdata. The support of the Office for National
Statistics, CCSR & ESRC/JISC Census of Population Programme is gratefully acknowledged. The authors alone
are responsible for the interpretation of the data. Data from the CAMS remain Crown copyright.
Households with dependent children*
Leicester and selected wards
%
All
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
White
British
Spinney
Hills
45
60
62
80
17
Stoneygate
36
57
64
79
14
Leicester
33
55
58
77
26
England
29
50
67
75
28
* Includes 1 family households with dependent children, lone parent households with dependent children and
other households with dependent children.
Source: 2001 Census Standard Tables, Crown copyright 2003
Employed women qualified to degree level: Birmingham,
London Borough of Southwark and England compared
Birmingham
Occupational
level
Southwark (LB)
England
White
British
Black
Caribbean
White
British
Black
Caribbean
White
British
Black
Caribbean
1
5
3
11
0
14
5
2
17
6
19
18
29
10
3
58
65
52
50
38
61
4
11
19
10
24
6
14
5
2
0
3
0
6
1
6
2
1
1
2
4
2
7
4
4
3
4
2
5
8
1
1
1
2
1
1
100
100
100
100
100
100
ALL
1: Large employers and higher managerial occupations
2: Higher professional occupations
3: Lower managerial and professional occupations
4: Intermediate occupations
5: Small employers and own account workers
6: Lower supervisory and technical occupations
7: Semi- routine occupations
8: Routine occupations
Source: Yeandle (ed.) 2009 Policy for a Change p 93– data derived from 2001 Census SAM – Small Area Microdata for England
Rates of employment – FT & PT: women aged 25-59,
selected ethnicities and districts (and England)
White
British
White
Other
Indian
F
T
PT
FT
PT
FT
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Black
Caribbean
Black
African
PT
FT
PT
FT
PT
FT
PT
FT
PT
Somerset
- county
32
32
30
23
35
25
..
..
..
..
49
28
..
..
Leicester
- city
39
25
38
16
35
17
18
12
8
7
43
18
20
9
Newcastlecity
38
25
38
12
34
13
12
10
5
6
38
15
30
8
LB of
Camden
48
10
43
9
47
8
37
6
7
5
45
13
29
9
LB of
Southwark
46
14
46
10
45
11
33
10
11
6
46
15
40
14
ENGLAND
37
28
40
15
39
17
12
8
9
6
50
16
37
12
Source: Yeandle, S, Stiell, B & Buckner, L (2006) Ethnic Minority Women & Access to the Labour Market: synthesis report, Sheffield,
Centre for Social Inclusion, Sheffield Hallam University, UK – p 14. [Data from 2001 Census Standard Tables, Crown Copyright 2003.]
Myths, puzzles and problems: “Don’t women today have better
jobs, more opportunities & more choices/options than ever before?”

Educational attainment – a translation problem?

Girls overtook boys in attainment (end of compulsory ed.) in 1988
 Men’s participation in HE doubled, women’s rose 7-fold over 30 yrs
 BUT choices/attainments remain gendered, graduate GPG persists

Gender Pay Gap – a persistent puzzle?






Persists despite equal pay legislation
Size of gap varies widely by type of work, locality and job type
Standard explanations can’t fully explain graduate PG in first 10 years
Low pay only part of the problem – high pay uncontrolled
Women never make up lost ground
Valuing work – puzzle: why does occupational segregation persist?

Historical legacy with three dimensions, at root of both low PT pay and the
glass ceiling :



It’s assumed work is ‘not so important’ for women
Widely believed family roles take precedence, reduce career commitment
Women’s labour is perceived as less skilled, important and valuable
Myths, puzzles and problems

Part time work - do women really choose to ‘waste’ their skills
in poor quality PT jobs?
% employed women PTE stable (around 37%) since 1981 – new PT
jobs have created opportunities for a ready supply of female labour
Why do so many choose PT, despite low pay, status, opportunities?
Preference theory debate/arguments
‘Working below potential’ – 2.8m women, half all PT, low paid workers





Women’s low pay and poverty – myths about welfare and work

Three assumptions, major failings in understanding poverty:
1 ‘Worklessness’ is largely a problem for men, not women
2 Many women are not dependent on their own (low) income
3 Low pay doesn’t matter for women who have a partner in work
Three policy errors which lead to hidden female poverty and policy
failure







difficulty in ‘connecting’ women with the LM
problems for lone mothers, older women, ethnic minority women and
those in deprived neighbourhoods
poverty and unemployment strategies ‘gender blind’
Myths, puzzles and problems

The myth that women outside LM ‘don’t want’ paid work
In a ‘job growth’ climate, debates about ‘limited horizons’ and ‘cultural
indifference’ fuel this myth
 WHY the LM works so inadequately for poor / socially excluded women
has not been addressed, and their diversity is unrecognised



3 processes explain why this problem is difficult to solve




made redundant; looking for work they cannot find; struggling to remain in
work, or have had to give it up; constrained by care responsibilities
Work as the route out of poverty, with the main focus on labour supply
Neighbourhood renewal policy has not addressed ‘spatial containment’
Poor quality and insecure jobs typify the opportunities available
Workplace cultures: myth that women have ‘broken through’

Women have entered higher-level occupations but struggle to progress



Our data challenge the view that women are not ambitious, committed and
interested in job rewards
Flexibility at work is not available in the most senior, intensified;’ jobs
Modern performance management and pay systems don’t operate equitably
for women and others needing to combine work and care
Some policy options indicated by GELLM study

Systematic analysis of gender & LM is needed


Tackle local socio-economic conditions


Deep inequalities indicate discrimination and barriers
Invest in support services/ local infrastructure


especially important if they are displaced from declining sectors
Address high unemployment in some neighbourhoods


Low pay, insecure jobs, limited structures of job opportunity, and
clustering in specific sectors persistently hold women back
Offer specific support to ethnic minority women


at local level – national is data profoundly misleading
Housing, transport, social care, childcare, health – holistic support is
critical in enabling women to achieve their potential
Tackle the low quality of PT employment

Widen the range of PT positions available, advertising higher level
positions on a flexible basis to attract the best talent
Further information

The GELLM research programme was funded by the ESF with match
funding from the EOC, TUC and 12 English local authorities

The programme was directed by Prof. Sue Yeandle; statistical work within
the programme/Census data commissioning was led by Dr Lisa Buckner.
 Special Census data were provided through the Cathie Marsh Centre for
Census and Survey Research (University of Manchester), with the support
of the ESRC and JISC.
 All tables containing Census data, and the results of analysis, are
reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery
Office and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Contact details
Prof. Sue Yeandle, Director (Rebecca Wilding, Administrator),
Centre for International Research on Care, Labour and Equalities
School of Sociology and Social Policy,
University of Leeds
LS2 9JT.
Tel +44 (0) 113 3435003
Email [email protected]
http://www.sociology.leeds.ac.uk/circle/circle-projects/completed-projects/genderand-employment-in-local-labour-markets-gellm.php