Government is 'most female-unfriendly' in living memory, says TUC

[ttosca]

The Government was accused today of being the most "female-unfriendly" in living memory following new research showing how difficult it is for women to find well-paid part-time work.

The TUC said it expects another rise in female unemployment when official figures are published today, following last month's figure of 1.12 million.

A study by the union organisation showed that thousands of skilled professional women in the public sector were set to lose their jobs because of spending cuts, while jobs in private firms were often low-skilled and poorly paid.

Women's employment in the private sector remains concentrated in areas such as caring, catering, cleaning and clerical work, with a gender pay gap of more than 18%, twice as high as in the public sector, said the report, being discussed today at the TUC Women's Conference in London.

Half of women in private companies earn less than £15,000, compared to fewer than one in five men, the study showed.

General secretary Brendan Barber said: "Over a million women are now without work, with female unemployment rising by nearly a quarter in the North East over the last year.

"But this is not just about a jobs crisis. Women are twice as likely to be affected by the cuts as men. Child benefit and tax credits are being sacrificed as ministers look for ways to cut the tax rate for people earning more than £150,000, even though they get more in tax breaks than most women earn in a year.

"Women are being disproportionately hit by the pay freezes, pension reforms and massive jobs cull in the public sector.

"Basic employment rights are under threat and refuges for victims of domestic violence are being closed. The evidence is clear - this is the most female-unfriendly government in living memory."

A separate report by Women Like Us, which supports working mothers, found a lack of quality part-time jobs, which is hitting the kind of work skilled women could apply for.

Just 3% of part-time jobs pay £20,000 or more, putting women at a "distinct disadvantage" when looking for work, said the group, claiming there was a "blind spot" in official data on part-time vacancies.

Thousands of mothers face a "dead-end choice" between trading down their skills and experience, or not working at all, it was warned.

The lack of quality part-time jobs has a particular impact on mothers with fewer skills as they face competition from higher-skilled women, said Women Like Us.

Co-founder Emma Stewart said: "The creation of more quality part-time vacancies would help thousands of mothers from squeezed income families, enabling them to optimise their earnings in the hours they have available to work."

A government spokesman said: "The Government is making a real difference to women's lives by creating more opportunities and removing barriers to career progression.

"We are introducing flexible parental leave, extending flexible working, investing in childcare and taking action to reduce the gender pay gap. We have already exempted 1.1 million of the lowest paid workers - the majority of whom are women - from paying income tax.

"In addition, we have set up the Women's Business Council and are providing resources for volunteer business mentors who will support women who want to start or grow their own businesses."

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-is-most-femaleunfriendly-in-living-memory-says-tuc-7565897.html

Tory and tuc leaders are largely rich, white males.

Come off it, it's no accident that David Cameron couldn't think of any women to have in his cabinet. I think there were only two full members at the start, there are only five now. And one of them's Welsh secretary, so hardly a core role. Baroness Varsi isn't core either, being party chair. Out of 29 members - that's not even 20%.

It's no accident that the government is planning to abolish legal aid for survivors of domestic violence, either. Women's groups - sensible, middle of the road organisations you'd think the Tories would want to win over - have explained, carefully and in detail quite how bad the proposals are, in case it's sheer ignorance rather than malice. But the government doesn't give a flying fuck.

Oh, and as for rich, there are 26 millionaires in the cabinet. Out of 29 members. 'Out of touch' doesn't really begin to describe it.

Torries are all male, I would add, rich white and male. Nope, not really at all! Most of them are white & male I grant you. The leadership are almost all rich without a doubt. But so what? Would you rather have a rich succcessful person leading the country or some chav from your local council estate just because he's more understanding of your plight?

Why are people so happy to accept everything they are told? Why do we have to cut public services... Well personally I'm not happy about it. Not happy at all. But given the state of the public finances I can't see any alternative. Do you? Or are you suggesting that it's all one big conspiracy which all three main parties, all the rating agencies, financial institutions all other EU governments and even IMF are party to? And that we really don't have a big debt and a huge deficit to pay off?

And when paying off your debts can you magic up money? Or do you have to cut back elsewhere and live without the things you've grown accustomed to?

The leadership are almost all rich without a doubt. But so what? Would you rather have a rich succcessful person leading the country or some chav from your local council estate just because he's more understanding of your plight? YES!

The leadership are rich & successful but this is because most have had the advantage of a top private education and all the advantages of a wealthy upbringing, in an entitled class. They have the confidence of their elite upbringing and the attitude of entitlement, which is why they feather their nests and look after their own class and deem themselves up to the job of presiding over us.

As for Chavs, I think that is a thoroughly discriminatory term used to put down the working class, who haven't benefited from any of the aforementioned privileges.

Education is the obvious problem, every four years our elected elite of super intelligent twats tell us that state ed sucks, so far they have't turned their super inflated education and superior knowledge into a concrete desire or will to improve upon the education they inflict upon offer our children.

Am I a chav?

the lads in the union did not give a stuff about women until the 'mens' work in heavy industry and car making disappeared. they need womens union dues to keep themselves in £200,000 a year jobs.

So mini. Given that there are very very few rich people around and many more poor/average people. Why do the electorate continue in voting rich people in?

I mean you, me, even your neighbour can all stand to be an MP. My local MP isn't a rich man by any stretch of the imagination. Best you could probably say is that he's comfortable.

The current bunch may have had a privileged upbringing but we've definitely had those who were not. Margaret Thatcher, John Major, John Prescott, Tony Blair to name a few. None of them were born into riches yet worked their way up the ladder. Ultimately winning enough votes from the nation to lead us.

I think making sweeping generalisations about how the rich 'preside' over us and only cos they've been brought up that way displays a very ignorant attitude. Wasn't William Beveridge, one of the founders of the welfare state one of the very rich and successful men you seem to despise?

If all the rich are interested in are feathering their own nests, trust me.....politics isn't the easiest way.

mini - i find how you talk about the 'the rich' closer related to a text book than reality. do you actually know anyone 'rich'?

"The policies are only "hitting women the hardest" because they use the welfare state more than men do."

That's a really stupid argument, because there is only one reason someone 'uses the welfare state' more than another person and that is because they are poorer. So you're effectively just saying that the government are only hitting women hardest because they are poorest in the first place. Do you really think that is a good argument in favour of their policies?

Incidentally the main reasons women are poorer are because they do the majority of childcare and are then dumped by irresponsible men, and because they live longer on average. The latter I agree is an issue that needs to be addressed in that everyone is living longer and this does burden the welfare state more than previously unless we lower pensioners' expectations of income and lifestyle, but the former could only be addressed by forcing men to live up to their responsibilities to provide for their families, which the government is clearly not in favour of as they are now charging to use the CSA and have not increased maintenance rates.

Oh honest to god, Tony Blair went to Fettes college. I really cannot be arsed arguing with someone who's going to claim that's a 'normal background' ffs. Get a grip!

Don't know where to start with this one....

...because there is only one reason someone 'uses the welfare state' more than another person and that is because they are poorer.

That's my point. That the reason the policies hit women the hardest is not because the govt have some woman hating agenda but simply because they are poorer than men.

The current austerity measures are not being pushed through because of some woman hating agenda but out of economic necessity. There simply isn't a way to reduce our welfare budget without adversely affecting women more than men. That's all I am saying.

Noone is disputing that women are more affected. Nor am I even suggesting it's fair. In an ideal world I'd love to have an all singing all dancing welfare state where everyone gets the money they need and the NHS service they deserve. But until money grows on trees then we must draw the line somewhere. And when we have a £150billion deficit, the line has to be drawn shorter.

Hopefully somebody more patient and able to type faster will be along soon. Will just point out that accusing a few individuals of being hypocrits/rich/sexist, while true, doesn't amount to a social analysis of class structure and the nuclear family's role in providing unpaid domestic labour

I do think this government is very anti-women.

But ...... So are the unions. They couldn't have given 2 shits about women until about a decade ago. All those unfair public sector pay deals since the WWII where negotiated via the unions.

niceguy2 - it's utterely sickening that the first port of call in defecit reduction measures are the weakest, most vulnerable members of our community

Our household is at the upper end of ghe middle class income spectrum, so we're still comfortable. Yet poorer people, through no fault of their own, are becoming so poor that people cannot afford to feed and clothe their children.

That's dispicable. And we're not, as DC is so fond of saying, "in it together".

'Hopefully somebody more patient and able to type faster will be along soon.'

Hi, Patience is my middle name.

I do think that there is some hypocrisy here and some cheap political point scoring and opportunism by the TUC. They are making cuts to the welfare state in order to save money. Labour was also intending to make welfare cuts, just at a slower pace.

There also seems to be very little remorse on behalf of the labour party that the deficit took place on their watch. As much as socialist policies to live off the state are in theory admirable, they're not feasible at the moment.

Perhaps the TUC would like to examine the balance sheet and then give the government and the country some constructive advice instead of spinning headlines, yet again.

Highlander. I don't think it's the first port of call at all. IIRC one of the first measures Labour introduced when the crisis hit was the VAT cut and 50% tax rate.

But you suggest a way the deficit can be culled without hitting the weakest and most vulnerable and I'm sure you'll have the ears of George Osbourne tomorrow. Because frankly there isn't a way.

This is what happens when you spend more money than you earn. Those who suffer the most are rarely the ones caused it.

We could stop the high speed rail link to Birmingham.

I thought about this thread today when it is announced that teachers and nurses pay will be altered.

Thinking nurses is 90% female job and teaching has more females than males but I don't know the %

Why are they not altering other jobs in the public sector that are male dominated?

and highlander - I agree

I cannot beleive George Osborne is thinking of reducing the 50p rat eof tax in the current economic climate. By all means give everyone a bit of tax cut by raising the tax free personal allowance because an extra £500 to a person on minimum wage is worth a lot, it will definitley get spent, stimulate the economy and provide an incentive at the margin to come off benefits. Lowering the 50p rate to a rich person wil do nothing for teh economy or the budget deficit.

Given the furore over banker bonuses you would think the Tory party would at least sniff the political wind on this. I voted Tory and it is madness to tax the rich less. Give the majority a break and they might well vote you back in.

Oh, this stuff about savage public spending cuts being the only way is arrant nonsense. We need a combination of carefulness and economic growth. Osborne's attack on ordinary people and public sector has strangled all prospects of growth.

The US is bouncing back thanks to Obama's stimulus package. The facts are clear - the UK is suffering and will continue to suffer thanks to self-defeating 'austerity' which is actually nothing of the sort, entirely politically motivated (we are spending MORE because Osborne is pushing up unemployment to 2.7 million).

And the Bank of England is printing money to stuff into the gaping maw of the banks, in theory in the hope they will put it into the economy and it will start to circulate. Only they aren't. Sod the banks, give the money to people or small businesses who will actually spend it, increasing investment in jolly useful things like new plant and machinery that will promote growth and increase jobs.

edam - unfortunatley the US is not really bouncing back.

It has only stopped falling into recession by the $2 Trillion the Federal Reserve has printed and the massive public sector deficit the Govt is running. They will have to tighten severely in both monetary and fiscal policy after the US Presidential Election and then the recession/depression will really set in. There are 40 million people on food stamps, many have no healthcare and 17% real rate of unemployement even as we speak.

The UK has just be threatened with having its AAA credit rating removed if austerity is not pushed at a faster pace. The US has already lost its AAA rating.

We need austerity but the real debate is which sectors of the population have to bear it and how much. At the moment the poor and working poor are bearing the brunt and that is wrong - not the austerity itself.

It's utterely SICKENING.

What's more sickening is Labour sitting back and doing nothing. DH has pointed out that Labour will wait until some of the more unpalatable bills have gone through before calling a GE. Back in govt, Labour will then play the ' we weren't the architects of these unfair cuts, but now they're here there's nothing we can do'.

If any of these 'top' politicians from across the political divide had any idea of the reality of living on benefits, or being totally reliant on tax credits, theynwould be walking across hot coals to prevent any further assault on the NHS or Welfare State.