Criterios de inclusión

One of the factors potentially significant in occupational concentration, and in gaining market employment, is the role of human capital, including educational qualifications. Over most of the twentieth century women were more likely to have lower levels of education and training than men. Figure 2.14 provides some insight into this. It presents an estimate of the educational qualifications of the population by gender and birth cohort. The data show three different populations: those with a degree qualification or higher, the proportion with a trade qualification (up to the 1967-71 cohort)149 _{and the}

proportion who left school at age 15 or under and did not obtain any further qualification.

Figure 2.14 Levels of Educational Attainment, by Gender, Birth Cohorts 1896-1900 to 1982-1986

Note: Data are constructed retrospectively from census data. This introduces some qualifications into comparability for earlier cohorts.

Source and additional notes: See Table A 6.11.

Considering each of these in turn: for age cohorts up to those born in 1962- 1966 males obtained a degree qualification much more frequently than women, with this being at more than double the rate up until the 1947-1951 cohort. In contrast the incidence of a degree level qualification amongst women has outstripped that amongst men for the 1967-1971 cohort on. Likely as a consequence of barriers to access, the rate of male to female trade

149 _{More recent data on trade qualifications are not readily available. This reflects}

changes to the ABS classification of education which now reports on the population with certificate level education but frequently amalgamates different levels of certification in reported data.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1896- 1900 1902- 1906 1912- 1916 1922- 1926 1932- 1936 1942- 1946 1952- 1956 1962- 1966 1972- 1976 1982- 1986 Pr op or tio n of p op ul at io n ( % ) Birth Year

Male - Degree + Female Degree +

Male left school <= 15, No quals Female left school <= 15, No quals

qualifications was around 10:1 over most of the period, but reduced to 5:1 for the 1967-1971 birth cohort. Turning to those with limited education and training, two key points stand out: firstly the decline in the proportion falling into this category, from an overwhelming majority for those born at the start of the twentieth century, to around 10 per cent in more recent times; secondly the significant gap in the male and female rates for most of the period, in particular for the cohorts commencing with the 1917-1921 cohort until those born in 1952-1956. Here women were some 15 percentage points more likely to have left school at age 15 or earlier and not have gained any additional qualifications. Looking at this gap over time shows a strong pattern of increase over the first half of the century and a decline after.

While these differences may have been significant with respect to labour market segmentation and the relative earnings of women, it is less clear whether they alone would have driven the relative levels of participation.

2.6.4

D

A

E

M

W

In addition to the more general restrictions on women’s employment, there were also barriers applied to married women relative to other women.

One dimension was strong social norms, some tied to the concept of the male breadwinner, and others more broadly.150 _{These were appealed to in the 1970}

maiden speech of the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating’:

It is bad enough for the working man to be dragged away from his home at night when he should be with his wife and family but it is even worse when he has to send his wife out to work in order to make ends meet ... Husbands have been forced to send their wives to work in order to provide the necessaries of life. (Australia. Representatives. 17/3/1970, 514-515).

This attitude reflected a long held position amongst a significant sector of the labour movement. In 1930 Jim Riordan, the then Queensland State Secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union wrote:

The worker who permits his wife to go out to work in an overstocked labour market, unless he is compelled by absolute necessity to do so, is just as objectionable to the decent unionist as the hungry employer of

150 _{The Royal Commission into the “alleged shortage of labour” in NSW conducted by}

Piddington in 1911 and 1912 specifically addressed the question of the employment of married women in factories and is reported as concluding "it is obviously inconsistent with the normal duties of a married woman's life that she should give up the whole of the working week to factory employment, and the sole case in which married women not separated from their husbands should be allowed to enter factories ought to be when, through illness or misfortune or worthlessness of the husband, a married woman is the only or chief support of the family” (Sydney Morning Herald 14/2/1912, 18). The newspaper report summarised the Royal Commission’s rationale for this as: “(1) It is an encouragement to the practice of prevention. (2) It involves risk of miscarriage. (3) If a married woman has children the necessary abandonment of breast feeding leads to an increase of infant mortality. (4) The day's energy is given up to making money in the factory to the neglect of the home. (5) The practice encourages idleness and extravagance in men. (6) The influence of married women with the unmarried girls is often far from good” (18).

cheap female labour. Each is actuated by a contemptible species of greed or selfishness which is unworthy of anyone who considers himself a man. (Truth (Qld) 27/7/1930, 3)151

These statements can be considered to be motivated by a range of beliefs, prejudices and negotiating positions. One concerned the minimum wage and a commitment to the concept of it being sufficient to support a family. In this context, where the earnings of the male were not sufficient, this was seen as an indictment of the level of the wage, and that the correct response was to take action to increase it. Secondly, there was an embedded patriarchal concept of marriage, as betrayed by the language of ‘sending’ and ‘permitting’. Thirdly, and somewhat linked to the second, as well as the history of the common law responsibility of men, was an ethical view of the responsibility of a man for his family – and that a situation where the wife worked reflected a failure of the man to fulfil his responsibility. Finally, linked to the first, that if the male wage was not sufficient for a family, and if the response was that both partners needed to work, where did this leave families where a partner, potentially due to family responsibilities was unable to do so?

These attitudes were also a reflection of a view of the labour market as having a fixed level of labour demand, or at least an insufficiency of labour demand, and competition for jobs.152 _{That is, if a married woman obtained employment,}

this reduced the employment opportunities for others.

This argument, within the labour movement, was however not only limited to the question of the employment of married women relative to men, but also the employment of younger male workers relative to married men153 _{as well as}

the employment of married women relative to single women. Finally, there were fears as to the impact of the participation of married women in the workforce on the wages system. In particular, as indicated earlier, married women were, in most cases, secondary earners in a household, and so were willing to accept low rates of pay and hence undercut wages for other employees. This was highlighted in a 1904 newspaper article on the employment of married women in the clothing industry which alleged: “These women, who are mostly in comfortable circumstances think it no harm to occupy their time in earning a little pin money by making shirts, and as they make no bones about the rates given, it not being a living matter to them, they

151 _{As discussed further below, this comment was also made in the context of the}

relative employment of married versus single women, with Riordan further indicating “It would be a good thing for the community at a time like this, if the employers of married women whose husbands are earning the basic wage or over, would put off the married women and put single women in their places” (Truth (Qld) 27/7/1930, 3).

152 _{While it might also be argued that it was also a strategy to reduce labour supply in}

an attempt to put upward pressure on wages, as suggested by Creighton and discussed in section 2.5.3, the persistence of unemployment over most of the period would suggest it was rather a strategy adopted in the light of insufficient demand.

153 _{The AWU Queensland delegate meeting in January 1938, for example, passed a}

resolution that all workers on cane trucks and related tasks should receive full adult rates because “there was unfair competition with married men who were put off in the slack season, while the youths were retained in employment” (AWU 1938, 84). The logic was that adults were more efficient and if equal wages were paid they would be employed in preference to younger workers who were only competitive due to their lower wages.

enable the sweating employer to fix a starvation rate and put the legitimate shirtmakers practically in his power” (Sunday Times (WA) 7/8/1904, 3).

Associated with this concern was a fear that employers would use the entry of married women into some positions as grounds for introducing piece-work rates – a wage strategy strongly opposed by the union movement (Baldock 1983, 36). Additionally, especially from the 1950s on, there were concerns about the employment of married women leading to an extension of part-time work. From a union perspective this was generally, although not always, opposed.154 _{Essentially the position taken was that a full-time position was}

necessary to enable a person, regardless of gender, to support themselves. In contrast, a part-time position was only suitable for someone who was seeking supplementary income for a household. That is, while part-time jobs could be undertaken by married women, such positions were insufficient for the needs of single women and for married and single men. More so the unions were concerned that, to the extent part-time work suited some employers, if this form of employment became embedded in one sector, not only would it reduce the opportunities for full-time employment in this industry, but it could have a contagion effect for other industries.155,156

The most notorious of the restrictions on the employment of married women were ‘marriage bars’, in particular in the public sector, which required women to resign their position upon marriage. These are discussed below.

There was also reluctance by some employers to employ married women, or at least married women with dependent children. A 1959 survey of 22 companies reported that nine had a preference to employ single rather than married women, with three considering this a key criterion. This position was reported as being “on the grounds that they are usually self-supporting and therefore more in need than are married women whose husbands are working”. Some 15 of the companies also “refused to employ married women whose provision for the care of their children appeared to be inadequate”, as a mechanism to avoid “absence-prone employees” (Harris 1968, 8).

While Australia ratified International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 111, Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), which includes marital status as a ground for inappropriate discrimination in 1973, initial implementation was only via conciliation through the operation of tripartite Employment Discrimination Committees (Landau 1988).157 _{It was only in 1984}

154 _{In 1951 there is, for example, a report of the Clothing Trades’ Union opposing an}

employer’s attempt to dismiss part-time married women from their jobs unless they agreed to work full-time (Age 6/12/1951, 8). (Ellen records that the Clothing Trades’ Union had previously “agreed to drop its long-standing opposition to part-time labour” in 1943” (1989, 213).)

155 _{In addition, from a union perspective, part-time workers are more difficult to}

recruit and organise.

156 _{A Women’s Bureau report in the 1970s discussed the issue of trade union attitudes}

to part-time employment, citing some international sources that: “Women’s sections of trade unions have put forward the view that part-time employment may result in a lowering of the general status of women’s work as it reduces the likelihood of promotion” (Women’s Bureau 1975, 16), as well as reiterating some of the above points. In Australia it reported a mix of attitudes by unions.

that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) was passed providing for comprehensive legal prohibition of such discrimination.158,159