|
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Issue No. 146 | 26 July 2002 |
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Crean-ite Is Not A Dirty Word
Interview: Trans Tasman Cole-Watch: The Full Story Unions: The Right To A Life Bad Boss: Phoenix Rising Politics: The Virtuous State International: The Champions History: Mandatory Mums Corporate: Network Governance Review: Navigating The Doublespeak Satire: Hector The Galah Found Hiding Poetry: Eight Days a Week
The Soapbox The Locker Room Postcard Week in Review Bosswatch
 No Need To Import IT WorkersKangaroo Court Horrifies ReaderSite Reunites Redundant WorkersCarr Off CourseThe Banners of GreedJoin The PartyShocks and Stares
|
|
|
History Mandatory Mums
********* Writers and activists such as Louisa Lawson and Maybanke Wollstenholme sensed the changes were afoot, argues Susan Magarey. In 1895 a letter writer to Woman's Voice argued that "the crux of social reform is the establishment of equal marriages and the individual responsibility of parents." Earlier, in 1890, Lawson's paper, The Dawn announced that 10,000 wives were to be called out on strike. The article was an extended analogy of the parallels of workers and wives. The Australian Woman's Sphere published a poem on the "double burden". Lawson called for wages for housework and women were called upon to look at their kitchens as analogous to a skilled trades workshop. Economic freedom was the foundation of social reform Lawson said. This was impossible for wives. The period that Lawson, Wollstenholme, Rose Scott, Miles Franklin, Vida Goldstein and many other activists were agitating and writing about was a significant turning point in the position of women in terms of suffrage and work. They were moving into the paid workforce in large numbers and whilst their wages were below male wages, for single women it allowed significant economic independence. Men still had "feudal rights" over their wives bodies, however. The period of the 1880s and 1890s saw a big drop in the fertility rate, a question that seems to exercise the minds of many who think white Australians aren't reproducing themselves quickly enough today. The drop was such a worry for the state that the NSW government had large inquiry into the issue in 1903. Between 1891 and 1901 the proportion of women aged between 25 and 29 who did not marry almost doubled, rising to more than 10% (except in Tasmania). Not marrying was about the only way women could have a chance to avoid unwanted childbirth (although certainly no guarantee). The Commission accused women who did not have children of being unpatriotic and responsible for the moral decay of the country. Men got no blame but women were selfish. The selfish desires of the negligent women meant that "a time must come when there will be a cruel awakening to a realisation of the truth. ... It is the duty of the present generation of Australians to see to it that their patriotism is not impugned in years to come; and that the loss of the fair heritage of the British race ... is not attributable to them". Marie Pitt, socialist-feminist poet described the falling birthrate as the "Greatest Strike in World History." The Commission was probably the start of the "backlash" of the time. Miles Franklin saw the first world war as the end of the idealism of her generation, and the sentiments of the Commission, where they also called for women to be aware of the needs of future generations to fight to defend the white race, evoked the militarist views that dominated the activities of the great colonial powers until the disaster of war. Women of the era were concerned to achieve an equal citizenship. The Commission's report led to the introduction of the first forms of child endowment, seen now as a sign of the progressive character of the new nation. For the New Women, this was a hollow victory, granting "maternal citizenship" instead of equal citizenship. The granting by Justice Higgins of the living wage for families, also seen as hugely important because it gave priority to a decent living over profits, could also was a means of keeping women at home and breeding. Jump forward to the 1970s. Labour market restructuring is taking place after the end of the long boom. Women have been increasingly entering the workforce since the mid 1960s and the new wave of feminists was demanding equality at all levels. Equal pay was granted in theory in 1972. Agitation for maternity leave was beginning and was granted in the federal public sector in 1973, with 12 months granted including 12 weeks paid. What are we arguing for today, 30 years later against a government who have declared they will grant such leave over their dead bodies (or at least Tony Abbott's) Under Malcolm Fraser, parts of this act were wound back in 1978. In 1979 the ACTU managed to get the Arbitration Commission to approve a test case that guaranteed a 52 week unpaid period of leave. No ruling was made on any period of paid leave. This is progress? Public sector workers in NSW and Victoria did gain some paid leave rights to match their Commonwealth counterparts. Many women were unaware of their rights to leave according to the Halfway to Equal report of 1992. This remains the case as far as I can tell from the email and phone calls I get at Labor Council. The co-convenor of the women's electoral Lobby WA called for a universal payment scheme in 1992 funded by a national insurance scheme or a government scheme topped up by employer contributions. The report also canvassed the need for more flexibility in the form of part-time work and job sharing schemes. So why does this all come around again. It seems to be 10 year cycles, which I guess is a sort of generational change time at senior levels of business, government and unions. Maybe we are getting closer to some real change with a federal report arguing for improvements from a big C conservative government, but given that the PM and the Workplace Relations Minister would probably have been nodding wisely as they read the 1903 report, we can't bank on them making moves for women's rights that would advance us 100 years, more the reverse. Other countries have set some good examples for progress, whilst others have perhaps been more of a model for the federal government. A brief guide to some moves overseas follows: From 2003 women in the UK will have 26 weeks paid leave, 26 weeks unpaid with an increase in standard rate payment to �100 per week (or 90% of average weekly earnings if this is less) with a 26 week qualifying period with the current employer. In Sweden, it has, since the 1990s, been possible for parents to take 450 days of parental leave with benefit. This period of leave may be divided in any way between the parents, though 30 days are reserved for the father alone. In Spain mothers now have the right to transfer to the father up to 10 of their 16 paid weeks of maternity leave, provided that they take six weeks after giving birth and unless this endangers their health. This possibility was earlier restricted to the last four of these 16 weeks. Fathers can now use these weeks together with the mother. In a move Howard and Abbott would have applauded, the Circle of Employers, a Spanish business group, suggested that women pay their employer's maternity leave costs. Sadly for them, the public outcry forced them to apologise. In the US women are regarded as disabled for being pregnant. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 provided a total of 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for the birth of a child and the care of the newborn. FMLA applies only to workers in companies with 50 or more workers. New Zealand has just introduced 12 weeks paid leave for eligible men and women. This leaves Australia and the US as the industrialised countries that do not have legislated paid maternity leave, according t the ILO. The ILO points out the importance of women's earnings for household income and living standards. In Europe 59 percent of working women supply half or more of their family's household income. In India 60 million people live in households maintained only by women. The ILO created the first global standard for maternity leave in 1919. In 1952 this was modified to recommend 12 weeks paid leave. The recommendation now is 14 weeks. 119 nations provide the 12 weeks minimum. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) recognises paid maternity leave as a specific measure that fulfils State obligations to provide women with equal employment rights. 158 of CEDAW's 163 signatories provide paid maternity leave. Only Australia, Lesotho, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland and the USA do not. So lets keep the 21st century alive, and leave the 19th century male gaze back in the 20th century at the closest! See: Susan Magarey. Passions of the First Wave Feminists. (Sydney: UNSW, 2001) ILO. Conditions of Work Digest, vol. 13, 1994: Maternity and Work. (Geneva: ILO, 1994) HREOC. Valuing Parenthood. See the website at http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/pml/executive_summary.html ILO Press release. More than 120 Nations Provide Paid Maternity Leave. http://us.ilo.org/news/prsrls/maternity.html lists the 120. Duration of Maternity Leave; Dialogue with Citizens (European Union Online) http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/citizens/en/d4.htm Lists rights in European countries Try the European Industrial Relations Observatory Online http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/index.html Australia. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Halfway to Equal: Report of the Inquiry into Equal Opportunity and Equal Status for Women in Australia. April 1992 (Canberra: AGPS, 1992)
|
| Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
|
© 1999-2002 Workers Online 
|
|
