Same or Different: Gender Politics in the Workplace

Citation

Lane, N. (2001), "Same or Different: Gender Politics in the Workplace", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 475-486. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm.2001.22.5.475.2

The book examines the issue of sameness and difference, asking the question are working women different from, or the same as men? To answer this question the author draws on studies of female workers in the industrial workplace in the 1960s (particular attention is paid to the sewing machinists strike at the Ford Motor Company in 1968). The author highlights the problem that both positions can disadvantage women. A separate women’s culture can generate negative gender‐role stereotypes, where women may be regarded as less committed to their careers than men. Conversely, when workers are perceived in universal terms women’s specific concerns become sidelined. Adopting an “ideology of the same” leads to an identification with male values and norms. In the 1960s female trade union leaders were faced with the problem of arguing for equality between men and women, whilst at the same time having to discuss the different needs of many women in the workplace.

In fact, the current neglect of child care issues can be related to government bureaucrats of the 1960s. Their failure to recognise women as paid workers (as well as carers in the home) resulted in little being done to help women in paid work (Chapters 1 and 2). The dialogue about child care for working women was diluted by the views of conflicting interest parties. Family commitments were not seen to be part of the public sphere. Women’s “private” concerns were not regarded as part of their public working lives. Child care was considered to be a private matter, and not part of the political agenda.

The provision of training for women was also a problem (Chapter 3). Government officials, industrial employers and male trade union leaders did not consider the possibility that women had different training requirements to men. The development of training programmes was based on the employment profiles of men, namely full‐time and continuous employment. Many women could not conform to such requirements due to their “private” responsibilities. Women did not, therefore, obtain the necessary training to enable them to move out of the unskilled and low paid jobs in which they predominated. Many employers would not recruit women on to training programmes due to the belief that women would take time out of paid employment for child care reasons.

The introduction of part‐time work into mainstream industry during the 1960s permitted women to combine the “private spheres” with paid employment (Chapter 4). Part‐time work, however, proved to be a double‐edged sword in the fortunes of working women. It did permit a larger number of women to enter the (paid) working population of Britain, but did little to improve their terms and conditions of employment. Introducing hours of work which could accommodate women’s domestic commitments merely highlighted differences between male and female workers. This difference from the norm of full‐time work created negative reactions towards female part‐time workers. Part‐time workers were considered to be industrial “outsiders” who had only a temporal attachment to the workplace.

The TUC conference in the mid‐1960s highlighted the problems with the sameness and difference debate, although the difficulty in discussing equality between male and female workers, whilst simultaneously discussing concern over the different worker needs for women with dependent children, remained unresolved. Female trade unionists experienced problems when suggesting that women could be different and equal in industry. At an earlier conference delegates asserted that women could not ask for equal pay and at the same time ask for special concessions for married women. Many unionists believed that gaining equal pay meant that women should be prepared to accept the same conditions as men (Chapter 5).

Women’s representatives did, however, assert that women’s “private” concerns should be acknowledged in the workplace. In fact the OECD set up a working party to investigate the practical problems experienced by female workers. Despite considerable interest in this issue, policy initiatives to help working mothers were not forthcoming. The view was that the “private” concerns of women meant that their worker status was inferior to that of their male counterparts.

To be perceived as different devalued the status of female workers. The central question in the equal pay debate was whether women could be “workers” like men, or did their “private” concerns preside over any public claim for equality. Although the concept of equal pay attracted considerable public debate, its popularity far outweighed the achievements gained for women in the 1970 Equal Pay Act.

Ineptitude on the part of the national bodies responsible for devising and implementing the Act also played a role in its ineffectiveness. The CBI, for example, lacked coherence when attempting to develop policy. Government officials lacked commitment to the idea, arguing that “the time was not right” due to the introduction of incomes policies. The process was further slowed down by officials’ insistence on a tripartite approach to equal pay. Such an approach generated an elaborate and time‐consuming paper trail. Conflict over a definition of equal pay also encumbered the process.

The Equal Pay Act of 1970 was the final outcome of tripartite negotiation. The Act decreed that women workers had the right to equal pay if they were doing the same or broadly similar work as a man. The problem arose that instead of challenging the masculine values, which prevailed throughout industry, the claim reinforced these values.

Chapter 6 further examines problems with claims for equal pay. The dilemma of arguing for the “special needs” of women at the same time as demanding the same pay as men persisted throughout the 1960s. How could employers accept working women as both different to, and the same as, men? However, this approach had to be pursued by female union leaders if women were to move away from the idea that they were a cheap source of labour.

Female unionists endorsed the term “rate for the job”, rather than women’s work (a term preferred by employers and male trade unionists). The idea was to move away from the notion of the family wage, and to integrate women into the industrial wage system in their own right. However, the debate on “rate for the job” failed to consider the devaluation of jobs performed by women.

Masculinity and the gendering of equality is discussed in Chapter 7. The motive behind male unionists’ attempts to improve pay for women is questioned. Male unionists sought to improve women’s wages but not their status as workers. Male union leaders supported the campaign for equal pay, whilst paradoxically cultivating the image of the male worker as superior and dominant. The idea of worker difference was used to reinforce this message.

Even using the term “women” became problematic (Chapter 8). It was too much of a generalisation and failed to encompass the diverse nature of the different groups of women in the labour market. Within the women’s trade union movement there were also conflicting interests over the concept of “women” workers. The resultant outcome was problems in determining which strategies to adopt.

Finally, the author asks the question, have there been any significant changes over the last three decades since the Ford women’s strike of 1968? The author concludes that there have been some changes for women workers. However, the issue of whether women should be considered in the workplace as the same as, or different from, men, remains as problematic as ever.

The book provides an interesting account of the sameness and difference debate in the 1960s. The material used is mainly based on documentation from trade union meetings in the 1960s and interviews with unionists. It combines this with interesting material from interviews with working women during this period. It is well written and of use to readers who are interested in the sameness and difference debate, as well as those who have a wider interest in gender and trade unionism of the 1960s.