Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
AMICUS-UNIFI
2 MARCH 2005
Q80 Sir Robert Smith: You have covered
quite a lot of the issues in the print industry already. I wanted
to come back to one bit in your written evidence, not so much
that there was a differential in treatment problem but that they
might be forced out of the industry. Who does the forcing?
Ms Dawson: It is, in effect, a
combination of factors. May I illustrate this with an example?
One skilled area in printing is one that has recently been bypassed
by technology. There used to be something called plate-making.
That was a skilled occupation and it was a male occupation. One
woman did get into that occupation but she was one women among
13 men. For two years she was systematically harassed in that
job. It was two years before she told me about it. Then we were
in a damage limitation situation, which is never good. The problem
is that the men themselves are responsible for this and we are
trying to challenge those attitudes. One of the things we have
pushed for really heavily over the last ten years is what we call
our dignity at work policy and model agreement. We have tried
to get employers to take this up. Employers do not really want
to take up these issues because they are tricky and embarrassing
and they tend to be written off as personality clashes. Women
are told they have to be tough enough to do the job. What we want,
and we need to think about ways we can all work together on this,
is to create a situation whereby anyone who is being victimised
can come forward early. If we can get this early, we can deal
with it. We need to get over this reluctance of employers to nip
it in the bud. There is lots of information that can be used in
terms of a business case. When you look at the cost to a company
if this happens, it is not just the cost of a lawyer; it is not
even just the cost of preparing for the case. There are knock-on
claims that come along afterwards and there is bad morale in the
company afterwards and finger-pointing and that all affects productivity.
Until a company is hit by that, it has no idea of just how bad
the situation is and how long it is going to carry on. We keep
trying to push this message and to say it is just not worth taking
the risk of this happening in the company. We are trying to take
that approach. We accept that there is a reluctance by our members
and a reluctance to create the right atmosphere at work.
Q81 Sir Robert Smith: You mentioned that
when more women start to get into a certain skill, then the employer
tries to differentiate the man's job. Is that because of the way
the market is working and the traditional links they want between
the employer being male and the employee being male? What is the
incentive for the employer to try to that?
Ms Dawson: There is one obvious
incentive, which is of course to save money. They can pay the
women less.
Q82 Sir Robert Smith: They can pay the
women less but why are they trying to assist the men to carry
on being paid more?
Ms Dawson: Traditionally the men
were organised to have the strength to hold on to those occupations.
Whilst the GPMU became weaker as a union, and that was one of
the reasons for the merger, there are still areas with skilled
men. Those pockets are still strongly organised enough to hold
on to those jobs. They are obviously going to fight any effects
of feminisation in those skills.
Q83 Sir Robert Smith: This is so that
the employer gets an easy life?
Ms Dawson: It is an easier life.
Although it is changing, a lot of employers come from a shop floor
background, so they share the attitudes of the people with whom
they are dealing.
Q84 Richard Burden: You referred to flexibility
a little earlier on and the need to make employees, both men and
women, more aware of their existing rights to request replacement
working, part-time working and so on. That is also an area where
there seems to be a barrier to women getting into higher paid
occupations and fitting working hours around domestic commitments
and vice versa. Do you think the current law is adequate
on that? Do you think there is a case for a mandatory right, not
just to request flexible working or part-time working, but to
be able to get flexible and part-time work?
Ms Dawson: I think that is an
important part of the equation. In our evidence we talk about
improvements in the legislation. We said that there needs to be
this ability to challenge the reasons that employers give now
for allowing flexibility. In the guidance, there are certain examples
of the kinds of things that would count for not giving flexibility.
You find those phrases being used time and time again when members
come to me and say, "This is why the employer is saying he
cannot do it". We need to be able to look more deeply. There
are some really entrenched attitudes about what jobs are suitable
for reduced hours working. I have mentioned that men are having
bigger problems now. The most recent case I have is of a man who
has become responsible for his children because his wife is an
alcoholic. He works on a machine on shifts and he is highly skilled.
He wants to take advantage of flexibility. The first response
he got from the employer was "these regulations were not
intended for production jobs; they were really only intended for
office-type jobs". There is this view that this is only suitable
for certain types of work. Shifts are a big problem in terms of
flexibility because they want these shift patterns and they want
those patterns to sit there. If you try to get a situation where
somebody might need to work across shifts, it becomes difficult
trying to work it out. That is not to say it cannot be done. Whenever
you change something, there is always this attitude: we have always
done it this way. It is really difficult to break down that attitude
in traditional manufacturing centres.
Q85 Richard Burden: In terms of strengthening
the law on that, if I read you right, it is not so much that you
are saying that there should be a mandatory right to get part-time
work or flexible working but there should be a more robust role
for the law in being able to question an unreasonable refusal
by the employer?
Ms Dawson: Yes.
Q86 Richard Burden: The way the law around
this area tends to work at the moment is that there is a formulation
that says something like: requests like this will not be unreasonably
refused. To strengthen that in the way you want, would you want
to see the law moving in terms of trying to define the kinds of
things that would be unreasonable refusal? Would you see some
kind of code of practice having a role, or is it something to
do with the enforcement mechanism, not so much that you could
codify what would constitute an unreasonable refusal but there
would be a greater ability by the woman or the man to be able
to seek redress elsewhere and get it treated a bit more seriously?
Ms Dawson: It would be really
hard to codify it. It is like the lists of what constitutes gross
misconduct; you can never come up with a complete list. We would
accept that each situation needs to be dealt with on its merits.
We want the enforcement mechanism that you talked about. We want
to be able to challenge where we feel an employer is really making
an excuse about taking up the regulations. We think we can come
up with suggestions that would be workable and allow the flexibility.
At the moment, it just does not seem as though we can do that
very well. It keeps coming back to "we cannot do it for operational
reasons". We need to get beyond "operational reasons"
to challenge those attitudes. People would start to see that this
flexibility could operate. At the moment, the default way of thinking
is that it cannot happen because we have always done it this way,
so how could we possibly do it another way? We do need to get
beyond the stereotyped attitudes, the ingrained attitudes about
it being done only one way.
Q87 Richard Burden: Have you thought
about how you would like to see the enforcement mechanism improved?
Would it be access to a tribunal or what?
Ms Dawson: At the moment, the
regulations are based more on the procedural aspects of challenges
rather than the content of the procedure. You can challenge whether
an employer has taken a serious look at it, but you cannot necessarily
challenge the reason that he then gives for refusing it. It is
that aspect that is the real blockage.
Q88 Richard Burden: You think that should
be made explicit in the law so that there can be a challenge?
Ms Dawson: You have to be able
to challenge the reasons because you need to be able to get at
those ingrained attitudes.
Q89 Judy Mallaber: Following on from
your last answers, from your experience in manufacturing, can
you identify any reasons why one sector might be positive about
flexible working and another not positive? I recall a previous
select committee I was on when we had people from the textile
industry saying exactly what you have said, that it is not possible
to run the production process with part-time workers. By contrast,
I have a chocolate factory in my constituency that is very encouraging
of flexible working. I cannot, for the life of me, see why there
is a difference. Can you identify what those factors might be,
and also any ways in which we might encourage within that entrenched
mind-set.
Ms McCulloch: Traditionally within
a manufacturing environment, shifts is a big problem. Most companies
work now on a 24/7 process. You might have a series of shifts,
like a 4 on/4 off rotational 12-hour shift. Basically, when it
comes to production, most companies would say "no",
but we do have good examples of companies where they have job-share
within a manufacturing environment. Technically, that is part-time
working. Those are few and far between.
Q90 Judy Mallaber: Basically, it is just
too hard to organise and they cannot be bothered to work out how
to do it?
Ms McCulloch: I do not think it
would be hard to organise. I do not think they can be bothered
organising it because they have always had that position and they
have always done it that way.
Q91 Judy Mallaber: Moving on to another
issue, the PCCS did a study amongst their civil service members
last year, which confirmed what probably most of us know anecdotally,
that the evidence is that managers and other staff often regard
part-time workers as idle part-timers, not committed to the job,
not deserving of training, not fit for being promoted. So even
if they break that and they do get into a higher paid job, they
are still likely to face discrimination. What do you think could
be done to tackle this issue? As we also know, often the part-time
workers work harder than people who are working full-time precisely
because they feel a bit guilty about not getting on with the job
and getting it finished?
Ms McCulloch: I think, as part-time
work becomes more and more common, you will see a shift in attitude
towards part-time workers. You are right that there is an attitude
towards part-time workers because obviously they are not doing
a full-time job, etcetera. As part-time work becomes more common,
along with flexible working, and we are seeing more and more part-time
workers, attitudes will change. There are the national attitudes.
I do not know the best way forward to change that.
Ms Dawson: You have to put this
in the context of knowing that we have a long hours'culture in
this country. If you are a part-time worker, you are not seen
as committed because that `presenteeism' is not there. I will
come clean about the printing industry in that it is has a bad
long hours culture and the opt-out is used by people. The opt-out
of the working time regulations is disastrous in terms of challenging
a long hours culture because if you have an industry where high
earnings are possible, you have people who will grab those high
earnings and who will do those long hours. You have a changing
shift system. Whereas we had very simple double day shifts and
treble shifts, we now have continental shifts, 12-hour shifts.
People will do their three 12-hour shifts, but then they will
do another 12-hour shift as overtime. That all creates an attitude
to part-time working that says if you cannot do all of this, then
you are not a real worker. The opt-out has encouraged that to
continue. The men are saying they do not want to stop doing these
hours because they can earn lots of money. There is an age point
here. If you will forgive the phrase, this is a young man's game;
they can do the long hours. I have been doing some research of
my own not directly connected to this. One thing that has come
out as part of that is that older men say they do not like these
continental shifts, they do not like having to do that, they do
not like the disruption to their families. Although it tends to
be that you do fewer shifts when you do that kind of working,
it does not necessarily mean that your time off coincides with
when your family is off. It is very disruptive to the family.
There are health and safety implications as you get older. The
older men clearly do not like it as much as the younger men do.
The younger men like to get these longer hours and earn the money.
It is all part of challenging that culture.
Q92 Judy Mallaber: Is the long hours
culture as much a problem as discrimination against part-timers,
or do the two go together?
Ms Dawson: I think the two go
together and feed each other.
Q93 Chairman: We had evidence from Tony
Dubbins. He suggested that the Working Time Directive did create
problems but that when the union went in and was able to sell
to the employer a more flexible shift working pattern—and
they had difficulties selling it to the members—once the
members had accepted it, then they would never go back to what
they had before. Do you feel that at the point when your organisation
is going to managers about changing from basic shift patterns
to other more sophisticated or continental ones, whatever you
call them, sufficient attention is given by your colleagues as
negotiators to the prospects for part-time working?
Ms Dawson: There is a problem
because there is a split in the membership between who likes it
and who does not.
Q94 Chairman: Assuming that you are going
to have to sell it to the membership at the end of the day, do
you think sufficient attention is being paid by trade union negotiator
as it were to the issue in the round, not just accommodating the
Working Time Directive and protecting pay, but also to injecting
into that the needs of the female employees, and in particular
those women who would be prepared to work a more flexible part-time
arrangement under the new hours?
Ms Dawson: There is some truth
in that. As I have said, women are in a minority in the industry
and the union, so they do not have as much of a voice in saying
they do not like this. As a union, we have made progress with
our colleagues in getting many of the equality issues on the agenda.
When you get to this level of the equality agenda, it is more
complex and it takes longer to get people to understand the ramifications
of different types of policies. This is the gender mainstreaming
argument of trying to get every decision that is made considered
from the point of view of different groups of workers. Does it
have a different impact on women? Does it have a different impact
on different parts of the equality agenda, black workers and so
on? There is an issue here for us. It is not something we have
ignored but something we are continuing. Personally, I have been
running training with some other negotiators on these issues.
I know we are having the debate.
Q95 Mr Clapham: Can I take you up on
the legislation, the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination
Act? The legislation has been around for 30 years. You say it
is essential that should be strengthened because of the weaknesses.
Can you tell us what you feel are the main weaknesses and how
that really ought to be strengthened?
Ms McCulloch: With regard to the
Equal Pay Act, we really need to have mandatory audits and compulsory
audits for employers. There are so many hidden salary scales that
it makes it nigh on impossible when you are trying to address
an equal pay situation. Although we have examples of companies
voluntarily carrying out equal pay audits, once they have that
information, they do not do anything with it anyway. We need mandatory
audits and a follow-up and the legislation so that, once we achieve
mandatory pay audits, we have a remedy there to be able to sort
it out.
Q96 Mr Clapham: Do you find that when,
for example, you process a case, the employer will move from the
equal pay argument to an equal value argument and that it becomes
extremely difficult to get on top of the equal value argument?
Ms Dawson: I am running through
some cases in my mind. Equal value as a concept is very hard to
get over to people until they have been through it. It is equally
difficult to get it through to negotiators until they have done
a case. At the moment, it tends to be people like us who are brought
in to deal with that.
Ms McCulloch: Amicus is now training
our officers on how to deal with job evaluation. That will be
done with activists and reps because we believe it is becoming
an important issue. To be perfectly frank, although we have progressed
in leaps and bounds and we do have a lot more female officers,
traditionally most of our negotiators and full-time officers are
still male. Job evaluation is probably something that they have
never thought about before. I do not think half of them would
know how to carry out a job evaluation. That aspect of the training
is very important for us. All our officers will be going through
that training and it will be mandatory. The same will happen with
the activities. That will filter down to the activists as well.
Ms Dawson: I want to make one
important point on this. The way equal pay is dealt with at the
moment tends to mean that individual women come forward and so
we are taking individual cases. Frequently, the threat we face,
as soon as that happens, is that they will reduce the comparator's
wage. That happens almost every time. When you are trying to bring
men on board to support the women, they see the women as a threat
because the employers will reduce the wages. One thing that would
really help, and I know there is a resistance to this, is class
actions. We have to be able to deal with a grade of women who
are being undervalued, rather than the individual. For a start,
it takes an enormous amount of time to deal with lots of individual
cases. I cannot see why the argument for efficiency alone does
not carry the day when it comes to class actions.
Q97 Mr Clapham: Do you find that employers
on equal value claims are able to change the features so that
you can go on for ever with comparisons?
Ms McCulloch: If you look at one
of the best examples, that of the speech therapist case, it took
11 years to win that case. That is a lengthy time when you are
taking an equal value case or an equal pay case. The legislation
does not make it easy.
Q98 Mr Clapham: I have a very similar
example. I set a case off for canteen workers and cleaners with
the NCB. It first started in 1983. In 2002, we had not settled
it because British Coal had disappeared altogether. We were told
that unless we could focus minds, it could have gone on for another
20 years. It becomes very difficult when you are focusing on individuals
and each individual has to have an individual comparator; you
cannot take that comparator across the piece. Really what you
are saying is that the law needs to be changed to allow one comparator
to be taken across the piece.
Ms Dawson: One of the problems
in traditional areas is that sometimes the equal pay comes about
because a man who did a skilled job has had his job changed; it
has been red-circled, but it has been red-circled for ever and
not just for two or three years. Trying to challenge that is also
a problem because obviously you do not want to see the man's rate
reduced. We are again into the issue of reducing rates. You want
to plan a situation where the rates can gradually go up to that
level. As you are dealing with legislation, I am conscious that
everything we say sounds negative. The one thing we have put in
there that I think is very positive is that we think the duty
to promote equality should go across the board, in the private
sector, the voluntary sector and so on. If we can get the message
across that promoting equality is the way forward, then the rest
of the legislation becomes redundant. I think we have to try to
go this way to make it a positive thing and not a problem all
the time.
Q99 Sir Robert Smith: What are the barriers
to class action?
Ms Dawson: At the moment, under
the law you cannot take class actions. You just put in lots of
individual cases all at the same time and hope you can agree a
test case.
| 
