Closing Scotland's Gender Pay Gaps - if not now, when ?

Recent research shows that changes in the law in Scotland on how public bodies must report on gender pay gaps have not helped accelerate the rate at which pay gaps are being closed.

Although more bodies than before are reporting what the gender pay gaps are [see this blog post], what they are reporting and the picture it builds is not cause for breaking out the bubbly.

At 10^th May 2013, out of the 92 public bodies examined in the research, 16 reported a pay gap within +or-5%.  Put that another way.  Just 17.4% of public bodies could claim to be delivering equal pay in the broadest possible sense.

At January 2013, the equivalent figure was 10 public bodies, meaning just 11% of the public sector could claim to have been delivering equal pay at that point.

At May 2013, 58 public bodies report gender pay gaps of between 5.13% and 31.9%.   Just a few months before that, research showed that 19 public bodies were reporting gender pay gaps of between 5.3% and 36%.  

While the number of public bodies providing gender pay gap data has increased dramatically, the scale of pay gaps being reported has barely changed.  One might reasonably conclude that the introduction of a specific duty to publish gender pay data has not accelerated the pace at which the gender pay gap is being closed.

What would Gwen Davis, Sheila Douglas, Eileen Pullan and Vera Sime have made of these figures, 45 years on from the strike action they and many other women took on equal pay as workers at the Dagenham Ford factory in 1968 ?

Scottish Government lacks the political will to close the gap within any defined period of time.  The STUC shows no passion for leading direct action across workers and demanding an end to the pay gaps, even in the lifetime of today's women workers.  Is it time for the sisters to look in  the mirror, draw inspiration from the women of Dagenham, and ask themselves on equal pay with men, 'If Not Now, When ?'.

Equal Pay - the good, the bad and the downright ugly

Scotland's public bodies have had plenty of notice that by end-April 2013, they should publish data on their gender pay gaps. The regulations published by government, better known as the specific equality duties, could not have been clearer:

.... a listed authority must publish information on the percentage difference among its employees between men's average hourly pay [excluding overtime] and women's average hourly pay [excluding overtime] ....

Even the only idiot in the village would get what was needed.  You would have thought.

But then the public sector in Scotland has had years of practice in ducking and diving away from the delivery of what it should have been doing.  Equal pay for women has been a legal obligation for over 40 years now, and still it remains out of reach for most women.

Recent research shows that out of 92 public bodies scrutinised, at 10^th May 2013, 74 had published gender pay gap data.  This represents an 80% compliance rate.

At January 2013, the results of previous research into councils, health boards, universities and other public bodies showed that out of 91 public bodies surveyed, 29 had published gender pay gap data.  This represented a compliance rate of 31.8%.

One might conclude on this part of the evidence that the introduction of a specific duty to publish gender pay gap data has had a positive effect.  Not when you go on to examine what has been reported - more on that in another blog.

What is astonishing is that 18 public bodies had ignored their legal duty to publish by 30th April.  Two-fingers were waved at the law.  The Equality & Human Rights Commission [EHRC] reaction when advised of the research outcomes ?  A sucking of teeth and a sniffy dismiss to the research, claiming that they could only act on research they had commissioned and that if any public body was found to be non-compliant details "would be passed to legal".  

It beggars belief.  Elsewhere in the real world, more and more credibility is being given to the role of whistle-blowers in calling time on bad/illegal/unsafe/unlawful practices.  Not in the EHRC apparently.  More time must be allowed to pass, more scarce public funding to be spent, more sucking of corporate teeth before deciding if non-compliance should result in a big stick being wielded, as against a nice, friendly, informal word on the quiet in the drawing and dining rooms of suburbia where Scotland's middle-class state apparatchiks regularly meet and decide how 'people like us' will continue to portray a vivid picture of reform and action which, when the smoke clears, presents a picture of equality for and power-sharing with 'people not like us' which is not significantly different from that of 30 years ago.

Equality and the golden showers of tax avoidance

This week someone drew my attention to one of the 'Big Four' of the UK's accountancy consultancies announcing the launch of a National Equality Standard.  Hailed as a 'groundbreaking initiative' it is a tool for the business world and claims it fills a gap because there has been no industry recognised standard for equality, diversity and inclusion.

For those who doubt the accuracy of my reporting, read the web site statement for yourself here.

Ernst & Young have developed and sponsored the national equality standard with 18 other UK and global companies.  It is supported by the Equality & Human Rights Commission.  It just keeps getting better, doesn't it ?  Those of us devoting years to slaying the dragons of inequality can all pack up and go home.  Ernst & Young have got it sorted.

Or have they.

No evidence is offered of the EHRC backing, supporting or endorsing the national equality standard for business.

No mention is made on the EHRC web site of this must-have tool for business.

No evidence is offered that the tool requires the deep, permanent involvement of people from the equality communities to change the daily lived experiences of prejudice, discrimination and barriers encountered by people when using services provided by the private sector.  And when you look at the graphics [below] used on the Ernst & Young web site, you might find a clue.

There are no people.  No people going in or out of the business entrance doors.  No people even passing by in the street.  Just how this is supposed to project a sense of private sector business being open to and ready to meet the different needs of a diverse population is deeply puzzling.

Given the current debate around the minimalist tax bills paid by such as Amazon, Google, Starbucks and the rest, it does seem strange that one of the 'Big Four', who helps business minimise tax bills and so leave the rest of us pay more tax to make up the shortfall, should be interested in equality at all.  Their core business is the very deliberate creation and protection of inequalities in the distribution of wealth.  It is only a few months ago that Ernst & Young agreed to settle a court case in the US and pay a fine of $123 million for the promotion of abusive tax shelters to rich individuals.  

I have asked both Ernst & Young and the EHRC for evidence of their partnership in what feels suspiciously like yet another golden shower from the private sector.

In just under 24 hours since posting this blog, the EHRC senior press officer has confirmed :

"we support the initiative".

Not only has the EHRC sold its soul cheaply, it has paved the way for government to hand over what little work it really wants done on equality to the private sector and wind up the toothless, heartless and now soulless Commission.