MIDWIVES and rest home workers may make history with separate cases before the courts seeking gender pay equity. Both industries employ women predominantly and for that reason, it is argued, their pay is too low. Their union won a ruling from the Court of Appeal last year that extends theapplication of the Equal Pay Act 1972 to allow wages to be set by comparison with different work performed predominantly by men.
That ruling was a breakthrough, but it was only a statement of principle. It has left a great deal to be decided when the Service and Food Workers' Union asks the Employment Court to put the pay equity principle into effect. While the Appeal Court ruled comparisons with male occupations could be made, it declined to identify possible "comparator" occupations for rest home care or offer guidance on how comparisons should be made. It did not even indicate how systematic undervaluation of a female occupation might be proven in a particular case.
The College of Midwives argues its members earn substantially less than male-dominated professions. Some wish to compare midwives' work with paramedics ($58,000-$72,000) or others called out any hour.
Firefighters earn much the same pay as midwives at present, as do police in their first few years. However, job comparisons are always invidious. Ultimately, pay equity claims in the Employment Court will probably be based less on comparisons than on intrinsic worth. When it is considered how much rest home workers do for aged people in care, few would begrudge them a substantial improvement in pay. Independent midwives may, sadly, face a harder fight. They are self-employed rather than on a state payroll. Their claim is based on the Human Rights Act rather than the Equal Pay Act, but the argument is the same: gender discrimination. It may not be that simple, but whatever the reason, they - like many other women in a variety of occupations - are worth more.
