>International Women's Day 2000 > >.... and the struggle today > >by Brenda Lee > > IN May 1997 working class people throughout Britain celebrated Labour's >victory, or to be more precise, getting the Tories out. No one expected >miracles. The ravages of 18 years of Tory rule would take time to repair. > > But with the election of many more women MP's we could be forgiven for >hoping that a working woman's lot would become a happier one. Even those of >us with no illusions about Tony Blair and his Millbank mandarins felt >things would indeed only get better. > > Three years on and the government leaders are still trying to bask in the >euphoria of those first few days and to convince us that everything is >rosy. But reality has a habit of hitting you in the face. > > It's 25 years since the Equal Pay Act became law and yet full-time women >workers earn an average 20 per cent less than men, while the rate for >part-time women workers is even less -- that is, 42 per cent less. > > Still worse, the 1999 New Earnings Survey showed that for the first time m >10 years the pay gap between men and women had actually widened, reflecting >the widening gap between public service and manufacturing pay rises. > > A recent study by the London School of Economics has shown that, on >average, a woman will earn £250,000 less over her lifetime than a man with >a similar level of skills. Whilst time out for rearing children plays a >part, the biggest contributing factor is that women are concentrated in the >lower band areas of employment. Work pre-dominantly done by women is still >very much under valued. > > Many sectors of the economy where women are a significant part of the >workforce are now under attack, for example, in our public services. > > On Ist April "Best Value" comes into force in local government >departments. This is a thinly disguised version of the Tories' compulsory >competitive tendering, which will lead to a deterioration in pay and >conditions for council workers and possibly major job losses unless a big >offensive is launched by public sector unions. > > The decision by Marks & Spencer to cut orders to William Baird and Daks >Simpson clothing manufacturers has put the jobs of 6,000 clothing workers >in jeopardy. M&S say they had little alternative due to a drastic drop in >their profits last year. > > But research conducted on behalf of the GMB general union who represent >the clothing workers, shows that their "mere" seven per cent profit on >sales compares very favourably with competition at home and abroad, making >a pre-tax profit of £548 million. The real reason behind the move was City >greed. > > The orders taken from these two British firms are instead to be placed in >the developing world where clothing workers get a fraction of the pay of >their British counterparts. > > M&S shareholders hope to pocket the difference but they may be in for a >rude awakening. Loyal M&S customers are generally prepared to pay their >high prices for British made clothes. So this could end up being a false >economy for the bosses and, worse still, lead to further cuts in jobs in >both garment manufacturing and in shopwork. > > Shopworkers union USDAW are also concerned about the takeover of Asda by >the US retail giant Wal-Mart, who run the US chain and others abroad with a >high percentage of casual and temporary staff. > > An area of work where women can earn relatively good pay is in banking and >insurance. Here again, future prospects are uncertain. Thousands of jobs >were lost last year with the merger of Lloyds Bank and the TSB, and 4,000 >are to go in the merger of Norwich Union and CGU. One merger which has been >positive for workers in this sector is that of the two former unions BIFU >and Unifi to form UNIFI. This can only serve to strengthen the fightback. > > New technology which could be used to free workers from drudgery is, in >the hands of the capitalist class, being used to create modern day >sweatshops known as Call Centres. > > Workers are stuck for hours on end in front of a computer terminal, under >great pressure to handle a maximum number of calls in a minimum amount of >time. Your PC can even be used to monitor the time you take to go to the >loo! Staff are caught in a dilemma of wanting to assist callers with >difficult problems but needing to fulfil a target. This can lead to great >stress. > > But the bosses aren't having it all their own way. A one-day strike in >November by 4,000 members of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) at BT >Call Centres has led to an increase of 800 full-time jobs, a reduction in >the use of agency staff, improved annual leave arrangements and team >targets for call handling, rather than individual ones. The CWU are now >targeting Call Centres belonging to other companies for recruitment. > > Women make up 75 per cent of the workforce in the NHS. The serious >underfunding of the service, despite Labour re-assurances to the contrary, >was clear from its near collapse under the strain of the flu epidemic >earlier this year. > > The flu crisis is over, yet still thousands of operations are being >cancelled, sometimes on the day they are due to take place. That causes >great distress to patients who may have "psyched" themselves up for surgery >that they were nervous about undergoing. > > This is stressful for staff who have to present such patients with the >disappointment, increasing the length of pain and suffering for the patient >and the strain on those -- mainly women -- who are caring for them at home. >The delays for some patients tragically result in their condition >deteriorating to a stage where it becomes in-operable. > > In the meantime, the government are hell bent on pursuing PFI as the >method of financing the building of new hospitals. It is presented as the >private assisting the public sector. In reality, fat cat developers are >poised to reap substantial profit out of the service -- money which >otherwise would go on patient care. > > There is evidence that in some hospital trusts volunteers who used to >provide the little extras that made a stay in hospital more pleasant, are >now actually doing some jobs formerly done by paid workers -- low paid >women being replaced by those who are unpaid. > > Education is another area of public service being menaced by >privatisation, with several Local Education Authorities -- typically those >in deprived areas -- already being sold off to the private sector. For >profits to be extracted in areas where there has been serious underfunding >for years, we can expect a greater exploitation of staff and worsening >services for our children. > > Another issue which is affecting low paid workers in education is the >recent social security commissions' decision to deny term-time only staff >the right to claim Job Seekers' Allowance for the weeks they are not under >contract to their school or college. > > The excuse that has been given for this decision is that this is "a >pattern of work accepted by the employees". Whilst it is true that there >are some women who seek term-time only work to fit in with child care, many >others employed in these jobs would like a 52 week contract, but have had >to take what's on offer. Unions representing these staff are pursuing this >issue through the European Court. > > The 'Fairness at Work' legislation brought in by the government has had >some positive effects. For example, the lowering of the qualifying period >to claim unfair dismissal from two years to one. This particularly helps >women who need to change employment more often than men due to childbirth >and childcare. But the positive impact of this legislation does not >counteract the detrimental effects of the Tory anti-trade union laws which >are still in place. > > Over the last three years women have played a prominent role in a number >of major disputes, such as Magnet kitchens, Critchley labels, Hillingdon >hospital and the current Skychefs dispute. And, of course, who could forget >the magnificent efforts of the "Women of the Waterfront". They travelled >far and wide speaking on behalf of the community of sacked Liverpool dockers. > > There was a lot of public sympathy for these disputes and regular >financial donations. But what would have brought them to a quick and >successful conclusion was the kind of solidarity action denied them by >legislation. > > Renewed pressure must be brought to bear upon Labour to repeal these laws >or we must be prepared to make them ineffective by collective defiance. > > The government have brought in a number of measures under their "Welfare >to Work" scheme designed to get people off benefit and into jobs. In >October, for instance, the Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) was >introduced to give families with at least one working parent a minimum >income of £200 per week (not exactly a fortune). > > Unfortunately, what is given with one hand is taken away with the other. >Increases due to WFTC can be lost from Housing Benefit. Undeniably, there >will be some working class families who gain from WFfC. But the biggest >beneficiaries will be skinflint employers who can continue to get away with >poverty pay in the knowledge that it will be topped up by taxpayers' money. >Yet again, that amounts to a re-distribution of wealth amongst the working >class and not from rich to poor. > > A much more effective re-distribution of wealth could be achieved by a >policy of progressive taxation which would collect revenue from those who >could most afford to pay. > > Then there is the "New Deal" -- yet another in a long line of measures >brought in over the years to take people temporarily off the unemployment >register under the guise of training. This scheme is not much better than >the old Youth Opportunities Scheme (YOPS), the so-called Community >Programmes, and other such schemes of the past which have offered even less >to young women than they have to young men. The scheme might more >accurately be called "Raw Deal". > > In the Financial Times recently, Oxford economists Esra Erdem and Andrew >Glyn explained that such efforts to get people off benefits can't succeed >in areas where there is simply no work. Merseyside, for instance, needs an >extra 134,000 jobs to bring the region up to the same level of employment >as the south of Britain (excluding inner London which is itself an >unemployment black spot). > > The Oxford researchers and also recent research at Hallum University in >Sheffield, show the government unemployment statistics to be extremely >misleading. In many areas where traditional industries have been destroyed, >men not classed as employed are nonetheless "economically inactive", in >other words not working. > > Many are on Incapacity Benefit either through stress caused by the >inability to find work, or because they have been left with health problems >due to poor health and safety in their previous jobs. These men would work >if suitable jobs became available -- counting them would add another 2.9 >million to the true figures for the jobless. According to research, the >figures are worse still: women in areas of scant employment don't even >enter the labour market so they don't appear in any statistics. > > One year on and the National Minimum Wage has been reviewed to give a rise >of a paltry 10p per hour. This comes second only to the 75p per week rise >to pensioners as an insult to our class. As Mum used to say when we got our >pocket money: "Don't spend it all in the one shop!" > > Pensions is another area where women lose out due to missed contributions >or not having paid any National Insurance at all due to part time and >casual work. Women make up a large percentage of our older pensioners and >many are living in abject poverty. > > The £100 fuel payment paid to pensioners is welcome, but they wouldn't >need it if pensions were related to average earnings. > > There have been recent improvements in statutory maternity rights and yet >many pregnant women are still unfairly dismissed or suffer other forms of >discrimination at work. And once you've had your baby, childcare is the >major headache. > > Legislation has provided parents with up to three months leave for caring >responsibilities, but this is unpaid so it is a concession that most >working parents won't be able to afford to take up. > > We are told there is no money for free nurseries, school repairs, hospital >beds, better public service pay, and so on, yet no expense was spared on >bombing Yugoslavia which ran into millions of pounds per day. > > We started this article reflecting on the last General Election. Next >year, we will be due for another. Despite all the criticisms of Labour, >voting for any other party is not an option for our class. Instead, we need >to use the next 12 months to exert real pressure on the Labour leadership to: > > Stop further privatisations and start a programme of taking privatised >utilities back into Public ownership; > > to implement a progressive taxation policy; > > to repeal anti-trade union legislation; > > to pursue a truly ethical foreign policy; > > to cancel Trident and start a programme of arms diversification; > > to use the money released to fund a proper state welfare system. > > Putting mass pressure on Labour will lead to improvements in our quality >of life under capitalism, and to build a truly just and equitable society >for all working class people, we need to struggle to build socialism. > > Whenever socialism has been built and where it is still being defended and >developed today, women have made and are making a vital contribution. For >example, our sisters in Cuba, who celebrate the 40th anniversary of the >founding of their Federation this August, are as active now defending the >gains of the Revolution against the US blockade as they ever were. > > We need to show our solidarity with them and other women around the world >struggling against imperialism, as they are against terrible hardships in >Iraq. > > Most of all we need to take up the struggle here to build a new society >for ourselves. If you are committed to building a socialist future for >Britain please think about joining the ranks of the NCP. > > >New Communist Party of Britain Homepage > >http://www.newcommunistparty.org.uk > >A news service for the Working Class! > >Workers of all countries Unite! __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
