I can't help putting this in the range of those unworkable social utopies the Left is so fond of. I don't think and I don't see why and how the society would or should remunerate unpaid carers rather than forming professional ones in specialized institutions. And it looks to me like today the tendency is towards working more, rather than less. Productivity increases due to more automatisation, better technology, better processes, but that does not imply people being paid the same or more for less work, but rather less - especially given the competition with other countries. So the conclusion would be that the society subsidize differences in pay for part-time employees, which I think quite impossible to realize in real life.
Any other solution would be unworkable, unfair and inconsistent with government commitments to reduce gender inequalities.
Now this is what I call a full-blown ideological statement that we cannot even begin to discuss, for its own inherent extremism. Obviously the person who wrote that is too convinced of her own certitudes to even bother discussing them, let alone contesting. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Let's say a person ends up caring for an adult relative, why shouldn't they be paid for that? And why shouldn't they be paid a decent rate equivalent to a professional carer?
Do you think it is good for people to be made to work more and more hours? My salary is for X hours a week, including X holidays and other benefits etc. If I get pushed into working well over what is in my contract, I get no overtime payment. I can rack up flexi hours to take off but if my workload is too high, I can't find the time. If I can't find the time to take my holiday entitelment, I lose it. Now my employer wouldn't exploit me in that way if my workload consistently because too unmanageable but so many people are too afraid to complain or turn down hours that they are not being paid properly for for fear of losing jobs. So when workload gets too high, why can't emoployers then hire extra people to cover the additional workload? Then everybody gets to work manageable hours that they are paid fairly for. This means that people can have a work-life balance.
They can spend time with their families, they can keep themselves in shape doing sport, they can become community volunteers in their spare time. Force people to work unsustainable hours, we lose out with our physical and mental health, we have latchkey kids spending too much time without either parent, we lose active people in our communities. Far more damaging to the economy as a whole than keeping working hours to a limit in the first place. Ad astra per aspera
We're in agreement on all this, in principle, I was saying I don't see how it could be put into practice, for the costs, IMO, risk to be very high.
I believe in proper pay. I also believe that rather than being made to work more, many persons are actually believing in what they do, are doing their work with pleasure and even passion. I'm not contesting what you say, and just to come clean :) I went on the website of your commission for vulnerabilities and I could do voluntary work for them starting tomorrow. As they concluded, it is all about better unions, better support, and more information so that people cannot be forced extratime or low pay upon, and know they can do something about it.
Employers are motivated to minimize expenses. That's their reason of being: less expenses, bigger prices and bigger sales. That's why they're there, and I'll never expect anything else from them, nor blame them for it. OTOH, work conditions should be precisely and properly regulated by the state, so that it doesn't become unfair, let alone exploitation.
Finally, I also agree with your last paragraph, and again, I don't see how we can put this into practice, even as I'm particularly sensitive to kids spending more time with their own parents instead of filles-au-pair or specialized care. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
how it could be put into practice, for the costs, IMO, risk to be very high.
Are the costs not potentially just as high (although indirectly) through not finding a solution? eg lack of investment in preventative healthcare and early diagnosis causes greater costs in the longer term by firefighting illnesses at a much more serious stage when they could have been prevented or treated more simply.
So by not paying carers and ensuring that they do not suffer significant losses by taking up that role (which needs to be done somehow, by somebody) the 'savings' actually turn into costs in other ways, on the state and not just for the individuals concerned.
The stuff around vulnerable workers is very applicable to broader equalities issues, it is about cutting down the loopholes, bringing in fairer procedures and greater consistency and ensuring people understand what rights they have. I'm glad you took a look.
I often work longer hours than I should, for precisely the reasons that I love my job and I care about what I do, and yes that is my choice. But were I to not be able to do those extra hours, I wouldn't be penalised for it or not considered to be pulling my weight or denied training or promotion opportunities. Where the long hours culture is expected of everybody, that is where people start finding themselves at a disadvantage and that applies just as much to men who can't or won't work the hours as well as women, or disabled people. Ad astra per aspera
