European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Sustainable care systems

by In Wales
Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 05:55:44 AM EST

More specifically, Reducing Gender Inequalities to Create a Sustainable Care System.

A recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (which specialises in very credible social research) brings us this conclusion:

Women mainly provide family care, but as women’s economic opportunities increase they will not continue to bear the costs of providing care unaided. To create a sustainable care system, care and carers must be better supported and more highly valued to involve more men in caring and reduce gender inequalities.

Discussion around gender inequalities on ET deserve some stats to give us food for though, I believe. The report introduction points out how traditional economic and employment policies (especially Keynesian economics in the UK) were built on the 'normal' family model of the male breadwinner, with a dependant wife and mother. The woman was expected to take on the caring responsibilities. 'Full employment' in the Keynesian sense meant full employment of men. Child care and social care services were only provided for those whose families could not or would not care for them.

It wasn't until the 1990s that childcare and to a lesser extent, care of older people moved more into the public domain. Rising economic productivity pushed up the economic costs of taking time out of the labour market for raising children or caring for other dependants. More women entered the labour markets and part time work became more widely available to accomodate working mothers (1 in 20 worked part time in the 50s, it is now 1 in 4).

But in the UK, part time employment is notorious for being low paid and insecure, and the long hours working culture disadvantages those who cannot work such hours. Frankly, it disadvantages those who can, damaging physical and mental health. The issue around part time work is a significant factor in the gender pay gap which in the UK is one of the highest in the EU.

Twenty-first century policy has developed on the basis that women as well as men are expected to support themselves through paid work. However, less attention has been paid to the other side of the division of labour embodied in the male breadwinner/female carer model.
Elevating financial ‘independence’ as an aspiration for all obscures the interdependence of all members of society, devalues care and imposes severe economic costs on the (mostly) women who provide it.

More women are moving to full time employment (which has a smaller gender pay gap), creating greater demand for services such as affordable childcare. Public policy has still done very little to provide alternatives for the care of adults. Men's roles have changed little, and the cost implications of loss of earnings means that women are still more likely to leave work to care for dependants, which continues to reinforce gender norms in the division of caring within the home. Care needs assessments will take into account potential for families to support dependant adults, which may then force women into taking on caring responsibilities because no alternatives are available. The carers then lose out on leisure, education and employment opportunities and there is a greater risk of inadequate levels of care being provided by people who are not trained or able to give the necessary level of care. Also concerns about the standard of paid care (which can be very variable) may lead to alternative opportunities not being taken up for fear of dependents not being treated as well as they should.

Current public spending fails to meet the demands for publicly financed care. Care is 'paid for' by the losses of those who provide it. This disproportionately impacts on women, often leading to greater poverty in old for women compared to men due to lower pensions from having priorities caring repsonsibilities over work earlier in life. As such, the public spending on care is very much a gender issue and there is a real need for new public care policies and increased expenditure in this area.

The overall key points and conclusiosn form the report are as follows:

Most care is still provided through family obligations, unpaid but not free, since it is ‘paid for’ by reduced opportunities for carers. Family carers are mostly women, because of gender norms and also the gender pay gap, which makes it more costly for men to reduce employment hours.

As women move increasingly into employment, family carers’ demand for employment will continue to rise, as will the need for paid care. The UK’s long working hours make it difficult to combine caring with full-time employment, but part-time pay rates are often considerably lower.

Four in five paid carers are women, in a sector having increasing difficulties with recruitment and retention. The care sector’s poor pay is a large contributor to the gender pay gap.

Privatisation of residential and domiciliary care has produced a labour market with insufficient opportunities for training and career development. This is unlikely to attract men, and women will increasingly leave as their employment opportunities improve.

This situation will be unsustainable for meeting society’s care needs unless:
- pay and conditions improve to retain more women and encourage men to enter the care sector;
- unpaid carers receive financial and other support, and working hours are reduced for all, so that more people can combine family care with employment;
- cash payments to individuals are not allowed to drive out funding for vital community services; and
- policies are judged by the quality of care they support and how much they encourage a stable, less gender-divided workforce, as well as value for money

Any other solution would be unworkable, unfair and inconsistent with government commitments to reduce gender inequalities.

Costs will continue to rise as the paid care sector grows, since to recruit and retain care workers, wages will have to keep up with those elsewhere. Because rising care costs are an effect of rising productivity elsewhere in the economy, paying for them will still let disposable incomes increase. Spending more on social care can be afforded.

There are many factors that contribute towards gender inequality, outside of the basic employment situation. Much progress still needs to be made.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Sustainable care systems | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Sustainable care systems (4.00 / 3)

I've mentioned a number of times elsewhere, socially constructed gender roles, societal 'norms' and the impact that the gender pay gap has on opportunities for women.

Society itself forces women into roles they may not wish to take on - be it unpaid care or anything else. I'm interested in what society needs to do in order to give women, and consequently also men, greater choice and the real ability to exercise that choice.

I don't want to rehash old arguments from elsewhere but I am interested in views relating to this topic and resolutely refuse to accept the argument that women are naturally better at providing care and therefore they should be the ones to take on this role.

Even if women are better at providing care (purely for arguments sake) should they be forced to do that for free, with no compensation for loss of opportunities or earnings with not much to look forward to but an old age of poverty?

Another thing we could look at is what has happened to our communities? This especially strikes home for me after having visited a good friend in hospital following a very bad stroke. The community he is a part of has meant that he has visitors every day, it meant that he was found within a short while of having had his stroke upstairs in his home where he lived alone and he's not going to be left in the system with nobody caring about his dignity or quality of life.

The loss of these kind of networks, where neighbours do things for one another, look out for each other, has been hugely damaging.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 06:03:59 AM EST

Re: Sustainable care systems (4.00 / 4)

From a 10,000 ft view, there are two problems here, which are interlinked on a practical level, but it's worth thinking about whether they are separate on a conceptual level:

Equality of life choices, opportunities, pay, etc. We're in a historical point where all sorts of burdens fall disproportionately on women and that needs to be corrected.
The terrible destruction of social systems (in this case for care) that were not monetized. Because it wasn't monetized, the work wasn't valued... but that did not mean it was not being done... or that it wasn't hard work...

Now those social systems were part of the structural inequality of (1) so things had to change... women needed to be drawn into the possibilities of the "paid economy."

But what was missing was any plan for some men to be drawn into the "care economy." But (2) reminds us that this is not just about gender balance. Previously we had hypothetically a 50/50 split between the "paid economy" and the "unpaid care economy" but now it's like, 70/30.

One response is that there's no room in our economy for people to work less (men or women) so they are not going to go back to the "unpaid care economy."

The response? Let's create the "paid care economy." So now you can get paid for giving care... but... caring for the elderly is just not "economically productive..." so it's hard to see how our current economic system can make it happen.

The really fun bit is that we don't have full employment, so there are people around who could do some caring... but right now we have no means to pay them to do so at all.

[Good care is a classic example of Baumol's cost problem so that's an extra difficulty.]

One solution is to increase taxes. Then there would be money to employ people to care for the elderly. But the figures are pretty hard to grasp...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 08:01:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 1)

Can it be argued that the care is already being paid for in social costs? So to pay for care would reduce the costs of the 'losses' currently incurred by individuals and by society as a result.

Pay for care provided, and that person has some disposable income, perhaps they have better access to leisure opportunities, keep themselves healthier, and have a pension they can live on when they retire.

But still, I agree with you that there is no easy way to create a paid care economy, especially for adults and elderly people - especially at a time when calls for cutting taxes are getting very loud.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 08:26:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (4.00 / 2)

A personal insight:

A decade ago I ended up looking after sick relatives at home. Not exactly unpaid, but the paltry UK benefit payment to the carer was a mere £40 per week - deducted from the disability benefit of those you're looking after.

You could call that a comprehensive approach. Comprehensively degrading and cheap. And there were Kafka-esque ordeals in accessing agencies and services which were all but concealed from mortal view.

On the positive side, the teams of 'home helps' attending at various junctures during the day were an absolute godsend. Almost exclusively women, overworked and low-paid. But so good that I've since wondered whether improved wages, staffing and caseloads would be enough to transform this shoestring local service into a universally-applicable best practice.

That however would mean adequate funding of services. And we all know that people exist only to serve financial markets. It would be just crazy if markets existed to serve humanity.

As one of those apparently rare male carers, I can testify to the subsequent loss of opportunities. The state has an awful long way to go before it even begins to address such inadequacies. Besides, corporate welfare comes first...

by yacker on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 06:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

Thanks for sharing that. I have a family member who receives state care - much grief caused by that over the last few years with the council doing all they can to take free care away and make her pay privately which she cannot afford.

Again, the same experience of some truly excellent carers who are so overworked and screwed out of being paid properly (private and public sector) through every possible loophole that can be used. The contracting out of services to the private sector has resulted in a real drop in the standards of the service provision through the way it is run and resultingly the undue pressure on the carers themselves. But carers do such an important job.

Then there are other carers who feel hugely resentful of doing work they aren't being paid properly for, or they are far too rushed and have to run off to the next job without doing all that needs to be done. Then the standards suffer and so does my relative.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 at 03:46:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

Society itself forces women into roles - generalization. Is there any proof about this?

You resolutely refuse the argument that women are naturally better cares - on which grounds, precisely, Is there any serious range of studies showing that men and women are equally competent carers? The opposite is a matter of common sense that I wouldn't dismiss with a simple statement, given that I experienced that each and every single time I needed a doctor, a nurse, or help, or I witnessed someone else do.

But I agree with the second part of your statement: women should not automatically be the ones to assume caring roles. Absolutely not. And of course they should not be forced to do that for free - but I don't think this is the case when caring about one's own children. It is a personal choice to have children, not an imposed responsibility that the society should help one get rid of.

Compensation for loss of opportunities or earnings? But how can one estimate that?
It's a bit like someone divorcing after 30 years of marriage and demanding compensation for all those great things one could have done during those 30 years, had he/she chosen to remain single!

This is what the French rightwing calls a society of socially-assisted, for helping the vulnerable turns into paying for every inconvenience in someone's life, even those not due to any unfair cause.
The other problem besides lack of funds, is that there actually are people that do not fit into any kind of vulnerable category, and will actually be paying for the other half with their long hours, medium salaries become small after taxes, and who might actually find the thing quite unfair after all.

This is why the problem of what really is unfair inequality, and vulnerability, what really is need, and the problem of the solidarity of the society in this regard, must be very carefully considered and balanced, and not only seen from one side of the pond.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Mon Nov 24th, 2008 at 09:14:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

Society itself forces women into roles - generalization. Is there any proof about this?

Yes. The report is based on literature and research findings that show these trends. We don't make them up to fit our left wing conspiracy theories. You keep refusing to acknowledge that there is research that shows these findings.

What I didn't want was for this diary to get bogged down in the same old argument of women are biologically geared up to be X,Y,Z and therefore they should be that. Do people bring up girls in exactly the same way as boys? No. Do we dress girls and boys in the same way? Do we equally encourage them to do the same things, do we assume they will want to do different things? Do we bring up girls to take on the role of housewife, carer - without even meaning to often? These things may be starting to change but it hasn't reached my generation significantly yet, gender roles are still ingrained. Everything about our society keeps drumming home that men and women are different and we should do different things. Yes in some ways we are naturally different, not just physically but psychologically too, but people play up these assumptions of difference without evidencing them.

And again, you have a pop at me for generalising when you keep doing that. 'women are better carers' - not all of them are. Not all women are natural mothers, not all women are intuitive. Some men are much better with their kids than the mothers are.

But overwhelmingly caring responsibilities land on women. And there is so much evidence to show this, you can't keep bleating that there's no evidence as your argument against my points. This diary refers more specifically to adult care but it does just as well apply to childcare. As long as there is such a significant gender pay gap, it doesn't make financial sense to share childcare more evenly or for men to become the main carers.

Compensation for loss of opportunities or earnings? But how can one estimate that?
It's a bit like someone divorcing after 30 years of marriage and demanding compensation for all those great things one could have done during those 30 years, had he/she chosen to remain single!

No it isn't like that at all. Do people choose to care for relatives because they really want to or because they feel they are obliged to and can't see a good alternative that would ensure that their relative would still be looked after properly?

We have a male contributer further up the thread who can testify to the loss of earnings and opportunities when he was a carer. Some of this could have been alleviated by him having a decent income to live on while he was a carer. Perhaps access to free education and training to keep his skills levels up and to be more easily employable once his caring responsibilities were no longer an issue - rather than having spent 10 years as a carer, with inadequate income and no opportunities to keep skills levels up to date even if he wasn't gaining direct work experience in his chosen career. 10 years of career development lost. What about the fact that 10 years of pension and NI contributions are lost? We punish him for not offloading his relative onto the state to look after?

Have you ever been in any of these situations we are talking about? Do you have kids, do you have relatives to care for, have you been discriminated against - because everything you say here just really makes me think that you do not see how many levels there are to these issues. You've said that things aren't as black and white as me and Linca suggest re gender roles and societal discrimination - what I have been trying to show you is that there is nothing simple about it. If it was simple you'd be able to see it and you can't.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 09:47:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

I don't refuse to acknowledge evidence, I just keep hearing about it and do not KNOW where it is.
In what regards myself, far from accusing "the left" of some conspiration theory, I do think it generalizes sometimes - just like any other ideology that cares about its base philosophy first.
In any case, during last week's debates on the matter we had three cases (nurses statistics, NY women MD, linca's Oxford book on married couples pay gap) showing that things are much more nuanced and more -- unclear - exactly as I thought they would be.

Not bringing up boys and girls in the same way is a matter of old wisdom, or common sense. We can discuss that, but we risk to fall into discussions about transgendering and homosexuality, which are very delicate, and where I wouldn't want to go.

Otherwise, girls and boys are educated in the same classes and with the same programs today, they are more and more aware of opportunities available, and the borderline between teaching girls "girl stuff" or boys "boy stuff" and pressuring them into doing that and blocking anything else, this borderline is much more fluid and fuzzy than you seem to imagine. It's not 100% relevant to generalize your own experience, or that of all people discriminated against, to the whole of the society.

I do certainly not assume all women would be better carers than all men. What I said, was that not all women carers are forced into it, it is not all social conditioning: many prefer it, many show inclinations too. And I agreed with you that while genders are different, this should not automatically force someone into pre-defined roles. Education (which today is neutral and quite comprehensive) changed that already, adults do have a good degree of free will, and people with rigid, 19th century principles are less and less.

When you say overwhelmingly caring responsibilities land on women, I said that I suspect there is more than just imposed gender roles. I never said anything else, and I did not see something opposing this suspicion.

It is very well that you detailed what you understand by compensation for loss of earnings. In the case you state, I would be absolutely for counting those 10 years for pension, just as they do for superior education, if I'm not mistaken.

By the way, I've been myself many times in situations like the one you told about - supervisors arbitrarily preferring someone, with no reason related to work competence or performance. I reject any claim that for women would be different. At the same time, I saw many women refusing certain types of studies and jobs for others more into communication, care, or art, in spite of great work conditions and warm welcome from the guys.

Asking me whether I have been in that situation myself is irrelevant, btw. This is precisely why I told you before that all citizens, basing on their wider life experience, are entitled to give an opinion on social issues. Social debates belong to everybody, not just those who had gone through that, and who might lack a certain distance, sometimes necessary for a proper judgement to be made.

I never said it would be simple, but I did get the impression here and there, for instance when I read your phrase about gender gap monitoring, or your quite established opinions about socially imposed gender roles. I'm not contesting Left ideology, or your own opinions, and I'm not here taking it on progressives or propagating my ideas.
I'm just outing my doubts about this or that issue, when I feel there is quite clear place for doubt to be acknowledge. Far from that being done against any one, or to convince any one my own ideas would be better, I honestly doubt some of these approaches are ok and I'm open to discussion, because I think social policies should be discussed rationally, by people of all sensibilities.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 03:52:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

I and my views are not representative of any one particular 'left' ideology. My opinions are informed by a variety of things, personal experience and credible research being two such things and being an equality practitioner another. I am not well read on marxism, or communism or even enough to provide a very clear definition of socialism which I have been criticised for here before. I've reached my view and opinion on things as I gain more experience, see and read more, debate more.

And it seems like we say many things that broadly mean the same but we are saying them from a different direction as though in opposition to each other. Where I generalise, I am usually referring to established evidence that shows how proportionally one group may be more likely to experience a certain type of disadvantage than another. That proportionality is an important thing. It doesn't mean that I make assumptions but I seek to deconstruct and find a cause if there is one. And where inequalities are concerned, societal attitudes, institutional discrimination, gender roles etc are frequently shown to be part of the cause. That doesn't mean there is no element of genuine choice on the part of some of that group but we can't just assume that this is what women generally prefer to do and that is ok, we won't look any further into it.

It is not irrelevant to ask you what your personal understanding through experience of a situation is because I know from experience that even if people try to understand, there are some things you have to experience to really 'get'. I'm not trying to be patronising or dismissive when I say that. And if I am trying to get my message over to you then I need to tap into something you can identify with and if I don't know what that might be, then I'm never going to be able to show you what I mean so that you 'get' it.

You think the left generalises, but the right does, with no evidence very often. This is where prejudice stems from - reinforcing stereotypes about groups whether they are true or not. Are all young black boys vicious thugs? No, but the media likes to portray them that way, and when that is the dominant message about young black boys, the drip drip drip effect really takes hold. And nobody is saying where is all the evidence that makes it ok to hold these negative attitudes about black boys and young men?

The left have to provide the evidence to prove what they are trying to raise awareness of, all the right ever seem to need to do is keep saying it and if they say it often enough it becomes the truth.

You also demonstrate some misconceptions about where some of these opinions of the 'left' come from and why we discuss them with the framing that we do and that is why I've tried to break things down in my discussions with you.

I've always been well aware that my personal experiences do not represent any whole group but they do provide insight and anecdotes are a really powerful way of demonstrating the real life impact of inequality on people. There is plenty in my experiences that can be translated across to highlight key points about discrimination and inequality in wider society.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 04:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

It does appear we broadly mean the same thing, so I was wondering whether you would be reacting to my "felt" rightwing approach - and I would actually do the reverse, because from my experience I got only too used to unreasonable leftwing positions. If someone looks for leftwing sloganeering, they should really try France.

Btw I do think the right exaggerates just the same, my post on ideology was giving examples from all directions, from left to right to neoconservatories and economical libertarians. My whole point was that all ideologies tend to behave a bit like religion, and rational debate (fueled by a search for the factual truth) and pragmatic measures (for the debate to not go sterile, but to end by addressing the real life situation) seem to impose themselves today.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 04:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 1)

for keeping on writing thoughtful things, and bringing attention, on this important topic.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 08:13:54 AM EST

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

This is probably coming quite late now, and you already are aware of many of my views regarding gender gap, in both pay and unemployment. They can be positioned to the right, even if I still claim that this impression is particularly stronger when the observer is himself on the left :)

To make it short, I'll take the points you listed as conclusion.

Most care is still provided through family obligations, unpaid but not free, indeed. As I already explained, I don't believe in the societal reasons as the only factor for gender disparities. Family carers are mostly women because of gender norms, but also because women superior abilities and personal preference.
Wherever I go, I see women more inclined to dialogue, to compromise, sensible towards the weaker, the victim, the vulnerable in general. I remember one of the strongest arguments for more women in politics or management was precisely this: men are too antagonistic and competitive. Women tend to be more open minded and consider a wider range of solutions and approaches. I believe this is true . There are not only biological differences between sexes, but also characters, inclinations and preferences quite different between men and women.
Pediatricians and divorce judges claim women are better mothers, because of their better instincts and talents.
That this led the society to consider (and teach) that women are mostly good at that, and little else, I do consider it wrong, and a source of inequalities and even discrimination - hence the glass ceiling you were speaking of elsewhere.
But going to the other extreme and pretending women are not better or do not tend to prefer care, is also mistaken. So I think the best approach is to not assume anything at all, but open the doors, educate, show all possibilities and let people decide, trusting them that seeing what opportunities they have, they will overcome family pressure if they want to.

Long hours and low part-time pay rates are a problem everywhere, and for everybody, I think.

Still I cannot help reminding you of that New York hospital statistics showing that highly educated, urban, emancipated women chose (relatively) low pay care specialties instead of brain surgery and others better paid and better promotors - not because they could not do it, but because they preferred care.
This is one practical proof that women have different expectations from a job, indeed from a career: they don't always seek high pay, high profile jobs, or quick advancement, but often find different kinds of satisfaction, as is the case when helping others.

Of course this is no reason for individuals, bosses, institutions or the society to force women into this kind of jobs. Many actually do like more responsibilities, top remunerations, power. But if we see a bias towards care, that should not lead us to believe it is exclusively from social conditioning. I tend to not base on statistics alone, but even with them, I doubt there is a range of serious studies today to prove that.

It follows that we see less women in politics and management, less in high profile jobs, and more in care jobs, who are also lower pay. The solution, rather than bothering with why women choose those jobs (family pressure, personal preference, inclinations), we should indeed bother about how to raise pay rates in part-time and care jobs. And if that will convince more men to come on board, so much the better.

"The care sector’s poor pay is a large contributor to the gender pay gap."

Considering all of the above, I definitely do not think that making elimination of all gender gaps a purpose in itself, is the right thing to do.
Eliminate inequalities, yes, but unfair inequalities, not those due to personal preferences or qualities.
I return to an old example that I know you did not intend as such, but is fitting my point only too well.
If bin collecting or construction work requires more physical force than cleaning jobs, it is absolutely normal that it is men who do those collecting or construction jobs, and that they have access to better pay rates than cleaning ladies. This is no example of discrimination, but of physical difference, which in those cases matters and is remunerated in consequence.

Finally, I know many cases where men themselves push their partners to get or return to a job after giving birth, in order to have two salaries in the house. This is where the pressure for reducing gender gap brought us: women are now pushed to work by their own husbands and boyfriends, who do not want to pay for anything anymore, and found the perfect way to elude their socially-conditioned role of providers.
The man wanting his woman home and in the kitchen has long disappeared. Men are more and more egocentrical and began themselves to require equality.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Mon Nov 24th, 2008 at 08:42:38 PM EST

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

unpaid carers receive financial and other support, and working hours are reduced for all, so that more people can combine family care with employment;

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)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Mon Nov 24th, 2008 at 08:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

In the UK professional carers who work through agencies (ie the majority of them) get paid shit. They should be properly paid for the work and the hours they do and to be given enough time for each client to meet the client's needs.

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

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 10:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 1)

In France there is about 10% non-CDI (undetermined duration contract), so I guess the situation is quite different from what you have in Britain.

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)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 04:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

ValentinD:

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

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 04:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

Construction and cleaning job don't compare.

Bin collecting and cleaning does - we are talking about the work done being of equal value. Therefore bin collectors (male or female) and cleaners (male or female) should be paid the same.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 09:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

I've never said that societal reasons are the only reasons - but they play a bigger role than you seem to accept.

So I think the best approach is to not assume anything at all, but open the doors, educate, show all possibilities and let people decide, trusting them that seeing what opportunities they have, they will overcome family pressure if they want to.

I've repeatedly said that we shouldn't make assumptions. But if you think that people can easily overcome family and peer pressure if they want to enough, you are wrong. It's the same logic that says people can be whatever they want to be if they are ambitious enough, try hard enough, work hard enough. It is a fallacy.

Me making it through the education system as a deaf person, ending up in a good job and highly qualified, does not in any way at all mean that any other deaf kid can grow up and achieve the same, no matter how much they want to.

cases where men themselves push their partners to get or return to a job after giving birth, in order to have two salaries in the house.

If women were paid fairly and there was no gender pay gap then the choices would be far more equal for men and women. The fact that society no longer assumes that women must stay at home and look after the men and children, is not to blame for pressures on both parents to work. Giving women access to the labour market has not been done on equal terms to men, which has resulted in women disproportionately being underpaid for the work they do and for being more likely to end up in low security, low income jobs. That is why the pay gap needs to be reduced and for flexible working to become more widely available. If a household needs two salaries, that's a more general issue - house prices are too high, cost of living has gone up. It's really expensive being single, I wouldn't mind another income contributing to paying the bills and I have a good salary and no kids.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

When I spoke about educating and opening doors, I meant women going against family pressure - not about discriminating bosses, not about other vulnerable people like immigrants, or disabled.

I do believe people must believe they can do it. I just love this american slogan, it worked for me, as I went myself against the current practically my whole life, and I do think it is good for the spirit. OTOH I am also fully in favour of laws against unfair inequalities, absolutely. Many times people just can't make it by themselves (even if they should believe this, as it can be a fantastic force of propulsion, and of hope - does this remind you of anyone in particular, btw? :) ).

The other issue you quote me about, was not about gender gap. What I'm saying is that far from jobs opening to women as a civil right fallen from the sky, women were practically pushed into working, after WW2! Men are pushing them into it (sometimes even against some deep longing to spend half one's life at work), not from some special respect for gender equality, but from purely pecuniary reasons! And even sometimes, far from being due to high cost of life, it is from pure refusal of "excessive" involvement, and even responsibility.
Just as is the case with the life expectancy numbers and work stress statistics, which show men are much more vulnerable today, rather than privileged from those superb opportunities of which women would be kept out. All this shows these issues are far more complicated than just a question of access and rights.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

I also lean to believe gender roles (and their abuse) become more and more pregnant as we go from north to south. This kind of discussions about women who would not be fundamentally different from men, the refusal of courteous gestures, I only met from northern women, Germany, Holland, US, never from the southern Europe. I never met, saw, or heard about a woman declaring about door opening by a man: "I have hands, I can open doors!" :)

This is not the subject here, but I wanted to say that I think gender polarization is much stronger in the south. But maybe my experience is subjective.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 04:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (none / 0)

It is true that the labour market opened up to women as a result of the war - women were needed to do the jobs that men left vacant when they went off to war. And you can't really go back after such a big social change as that can you? Women were proving that they could work just as men did, that they could have a greater role in wider society than just looking after the house.

The being pushed bit was the fact that women were working and thus in the public sphere/world of work, gender roles were shifting. But there was no comparable shift in gender roles in the home. Women were working more and still doing all the household chores and looking after the children as they did before, and men were still doing what men always did which didn't generally include housekeeping.

So assuming that this change of women in the labour market is irreversible (for reasons of economy and choice) the gender equality bit comes in in paying women fairly and encouraging fairer sharing of roles in the home.

ValentinD:

does this remind you of anyone in particular, btw?

Are you referring to me? I have guts and an iron will to push myself forward and I'm glad I can be a role model but as I've got older I have realised that I have been so very lucky to land in the right places at the right times. My life could so easily be very different through no fault of my own. Just thinking 'I can do it' and working towards that goal isn't enough. Trying to just take opportunities doesn't work, you need to be given them sometimes. You have to hope that somebody will give you an opportunity that you should just be able to take, like anyone else would, but you can't because of discrimination.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 05:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sustainable care systems (4.00 / 2)

Luck is discouragingly important. I got a lot of help up when I was new to my business -- thus I've tried to be helpful wherever I can to others beginning.

It's not something one can regulate, but I hope it continues.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Nov 25th, 2008 at 05:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting! (none / 0)

Having children in the household brings no increase in life satisfaction for men - and an increase in women's life satisfaction only once the children are attending school. What's more, women with children are significantly happier if they have a job, regardless of how many hours it entails. These are among the findings of research by Alison Booth and Jan Van Ours, which explores the degree to which family happiness is influenced by the number of hours that men and women spend at work.

Full report - PDF
This may be worth another diary? It discusses the balance of part time work and caring for children. Plenty of references to other research in here too.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 26th, 2008 at 06:04:58 AM EST

Re: Interesting! (none / 0)

That translates into "people have very fucked up value systems" doesn't it?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 26th, 2008 at 06:09:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting! (none / 0)

Or alternatively "life satisfaction" is a very strange measure.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 26th, 2008 at 06:10:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting! (none / 0)

Well, yes. I have only been able to skim the report so I can't give my verdict but it looked interesting, credible or not.

As you say life satisfaction is somewhat difficult to pin down and measure.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 26th, 2008 at 06:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sustainable care systems | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]