The Scottish Low Pay Unit says the fact that young women leave school with better grades than young men, but then go on to earn less, is evidence that society overlooks skill and ability but pays according to gender.
Despite the criticism, the UK Government believes the acts are working well.
'More to be done'
Scotland Office Minister Brian Wilson admitted more needed to be done, but said a great deal had already been achieved.
He said: "The Sex Discrimination Act led to the setting up of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has done much to challenge the unfair and unequal treatment of women - particularly in the workplace.
"The present government's programme on employment rights, support for working families and social inclusion is strongly geared towards improving the position of women."
He pointed to examples such as the national minimum wage, the new deal for lone parents, improved rights for part-time workers and the "work-life balance campaign," which aims to reconcile the needs of the workplace with the demands of family life.
"All these initiatives are helping to address the inequalities that still exist," said Mr Wilson.
But he admitted that there was still a gender gap and said more would be done to redress that balance.
Appendix2.2
Friday, December 12, 1997 Published at 17:10 GMT
UK
Poverty and slow promotion for women
Mary Robinson, former Irish president and senior UN official, is the exception
There might be much talk of the age of equality, but according to a report by the Equal Opportunities Commission, women are still getting a rough deal in the workplace and in society in general.
The report says that women continue to face a life of poverty. Women over 40 received less than half of men's average incomes and still did not qualify for social security benefit in many cases.
Research also found that women who took a career break to look after a member of the family found that their lower pay made it harder for them to safeguard their income when they were out of work.
"At the moment, women with caring responsibilities bear the brunt of the mismatch between their work patterns and the benefit system," said Kamlesh, Bahl, chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
The EOC report comes a day after the United Nations issued its survey on women employed by Western firms. While women make up 40 per cent of the labour force and outnumber men on the lower rungs of the career ladder, less than three per cent are in top management jobs.
A large proportion are unable to break through the so-called glass ceiling - an invisible barrier of male prejudices and networks. The survey also revealed that women were fighting a losing battle against sexual discrimination.
"Almost universally, women have failed to reach leading positions in major corporations and private sector organisations irrespective of their abilities," said the survey's author Linda Wirth. "The higher the position, the more glaring the gender gap."
Appendix 2.3
Monday, 10 September, 2001, 22:48 GMT 23:48 UK
Morgan Stanley sued for sex bias
Allison Schieffelin claims she was paid less than male colleagues
A sex discrimination suit involving up to 100 women has been filed against the financial powerhouse Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the US.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EOOC) - a federal agency responsible for preventing workplace bias - is suing the brokerage on behalf of a top bond saleswoman, Allison Schieffelin, and up to 100 other female employees.
It is the first major sex discrimination case brought by the agency against a Wall Street securities firm.
Commenting on the pending case, the EOOC said it had never filed a suit against a brokerage firm that involved so many potential victims.
Ms Schieffelin's, who was fired last October, claims that her gender prevented her from being promoted to managing director and caused her to be paid less then her male colleagues.
Morgan Stanley has denied the charges.
The EOOC said the names of other women who were coming forward would be sent to the bank in the near future.
It is alleged that the discrimination has been taking place since 1995.
The EEOC has also claimed that the bank has been making the investigation difficult.
And the agency says it was forced to call upon a federal judge to get Morgan Stanley to release basic documents needed for the investigation.
Frozen out
"Women are still almost entirely excluded from the most important and powerful jobs at Morgan Stanley," said Ms Schieffelin at a press conference.
But this claim is denied by the bank.
"Morgan Stanley flatly rejects the EEOC contentions that Schieffelin was discriminated against, noting that she was the highest-paid salesperson on her desk."
Ms Schieffelin was paid $1.35million dollars a year, but was not promoted to more senior, and highly paid, position.
"The job she claims she was denied because of gender bias in fact went to another woman," said Morgan Stanley in a statement.
Ms Schieffelin first filed a complaint against the firm in November 1998, and said that she was frozen out of contact with clients from that moment on.
She also said women were shut out of important social functions such as golf outings and trips.
Appendix 2.4
Tuesday, 27 February, 2001, 16:01 GMT
Women short changed on pay
Women often do lower paid work
The gap between men and women's pay in Scotland is wider than in the rest of Britain according to a report.
The study, by the Equal Opportunities Commission's Equal Pay Task Force, found that Scottish women who work full time can expect to take home 80% of their male colleague's salary.
It says that women are still being paid substantially less than men despite being given the same legal rights by the Equal Pay Act, which was passed in 1970.
The pay gap between the genders in Britain, the report indicates, is also the worst in Europe.
The task force is calling on government agencies to cut the pay gap in half within the next five years
It suggests that the long-term consequences of the pay gap will exacerbate poverty, social exclusion and inadequate pensions for women.
Morag Alexander, the director of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Scotland said sex discrimination and low paid jobs are two of the reasons for the inequalities.
She said: "There is sex discrimination in pay systems which is estimated to account for something like 25% of the gender pay gap.
"The other explanation is that women are concentrated in low-paid work which is shop assistants and in offices.
Lobby pressure
"Cleaning, caring roles, these are all fairly traditional jobs for women and they have been traditionally undervalued."
However, Scotland Office Minister George Foulkes claimed the government was making good progress on tackling the pay gulf.
Speaking in response to the report, Mr Foulkes said the pay gap between men and women had halved since the introduction of the equal pay act 30 years ago.
He said: "Women are central to Scotland's economy and the government is determined to do everything possible to tackle the obstacles women can face in the workplace.
"We have recently issued new proposals to speed up and simplify equal pay cases in employment tribunals. The consultation period has just finished and the government is analysing the responses to decide on the best way forward."
Iain McMillan, director of CBI Scotland, said: "We want to see men and women's pay becoming more and more equal and agree with what this report is attempting to do by proposing a solution to the problem."
The report added that a UK-wide increase in performance related pay and specialised contracts has made it harder to monitor and compare pay levels.
The Equal Opportunities Commission is expected to use the findings to press the Westminster Government and Scottish Executive into renewed action to reduce inequalities in the workplace.
Appendix 2.5
Sunday, 25 November, 2001, 10:26 GMT
Top firms exclude women directors
Many boardrooms are still no-go areas for women
Many boardrooms of the UK's largest companies are virtually female-free, according to a report.
The number of women directors in the UK's top 100 firms has fallen for the third year in a row, according to research from Cranfield University's Centre for Developing Women Business Leaders.
There are still 43 firms with no women on their board, and only 2% of executive directors are women.
"British boardrooms are one of the last remaining 'no-go' areas for women," said MP Harriet Harman.
Solitary CEO
Just one company - the media publishing firm Pearson - boasts a female chief executive officer.
Marjorie Scardino was the first woman to take the helm of a FTSE 100 company and she is still unique.
Marks & Spencer, Legal and General and AstraZeneca are highlighted as three companies that have been relatively successful in opening up their boardrooms to women.
But the industry sectors of media, tobacco and energy come out worst.
Catalyst for change
"We lag far behind the US, where business recognises the value of diversity and reflects on their boards the importance of women employees and women consumers," said Ms Harman.
"The boards of British business should be a meritocracy - not just 'chairman's chums'."
And Sue Vinnicombe, co-author of the report, called on men to discuss the report's finding and initiate changes.
"Until male chairmen and CEOs are willing to engage in this debate I feel the situation will not improve...they are the key catalysts for boardroom change."
Recipe for success
But the research also shows that those companies that do have women on the board seem to be successful.
Seventeen of the top 20 FTSE companies have women directors, but only 10 of the bottom 20 firms.
Angela Ishmael is head of Dignity at Work at The Industrial Society, which gives advice on improving working life.
She said: "Women are proving their ability in education, as entrepreneurs and in the workplace.
"Against their success in these areas, the inability of boardrooms to include women amongst their numbers begins to look like sheer resistance.
"UK employers must harness the ability, talent, creativity and determination that many women in the workplace so clearly possess."
Appendix 2.6
Wednesday, August 25, 1999 Published at 10:28 GMT 11:28 UK
Health
Campaign to boost women workers' health
Women's work risks have tended to be ignored, says the TUC
A major campaign is being launched to highlight the health problems faced by women at work.
The TUC is linking up with BackCare, formerly the National Back Pain Association, to promote safe working for women.
The campaign will run from 4 October to 31 October. Over 30,000 posters and leaflets will be distributed to workplaces and union representatives will be advised how to spot work-related back strain.
The TUC says women workers suffer more repetitive injuries, back pain, eyestrain and skin diseases than men.
And the risks they run are more likely to be ignored because of the male bias in health and safety legislation where standard have been set according to male models.
It is releasing a report, Gender sensitive health and safety, which shows that 63% of women complained of back pain, compared with a 44% average.
Fifty-three per cent of women complained repetitive strain injury, compared to 37% overall, and 88% said they suffered from stress, compared to 77% overall.
'Average man'
TUC General Secretary John Monks said: "Women make up half the workforce. But health and safety standards are still set for the 'average man' and injury compensation is still paid mostly to men.
"We want employers, unions and government inspectors to drop the health and safety blindfold, and become more sensitive to how many women suffer workplace injuries and illness."
The report calls on the Health and Safety Executive to:
- Conduct a 'gender audit' to assess the way health and safety measures affect women
- Produce more analysis of the effect on workplace injuries and illness on women
- Promote more positive images of women at work in its publications to raise awareness of the health and safety hazards facing women
A previous TUC report, Woman's Work is Never Safe, said almost 12 million women could be risking their health because of work problems, such as stress, heavy lifting, contact with dangerous chemicals and eyestrain caused by staring at a VDU.
Back pain
The report also stated that at least 100,000 women a year develop work-related back pain, for example, because of lifting heavy loads.
A 1995 report by the Health and Safety Executive suggests women are more likely than men to suffer from a range of injuries:
- They are more likely to suffer from work-related skin diseases than men and often suffer a double dose of exposure to chemicals due to their work in the home
- Twice as many women suffer from eyestrain, mostly related to VDU work, than men
- Women are a third more likely to report that they have been physically attacked by a member of the public in their work than men
Part of the reason for the discrepancies is that women tend to be concentrated in professions that cause certain types of health hazards.
For example, hairdressers have a high level of skin problems because of the chemicals involved.
Women are also more likely to be working in the caring professions, such as nursing, which bring them into close contact with the public and which are associated with a high level of physical violence.
And they tend to be more exposed than men to repetitive and monotonous work which increase the danger of repetitive strain injury.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says it has concentrated on risks related to specific jobs, rather than gender issues.
It adds that men are more likely to suffer some health problems than women.
For example, they are more than seven times more likely to suffer from deafness, three times more prone to work-related asthma and bronchitis and more likely to suffer from stress, according to an HSE survey.
Appendix2.7
Putting an end to office sex fiends
New Straits Times (Malaysia); Apr 4, 2002
BY ANTHEA DE LIMA
WOLF WHISTLES, leering glances, "accidental" touches, suggestive remarks - these are actions that you may expect to receive if you are passing a construction site. Instead, for many women in today's working world, it is a common occurrence in the office.
At a recent forum on sexual harassment "What Women Want", organised by marie claire magazine, it was apparent that such actions are unacceptable to women in the office environment.
In her opening address, Minister of Women and Family Development Datuk Shahrizat Abdul Jalil said that what women seemed to want was legislation to ensure that sexual harassment does not become accepted practice at the office in particular.
"Sexual harassment, which is any deliberate or repeated verbal comment, gesture or behaviour of a sexual nature which is unwelcome, is an abuse of power/authority which seems to be directed primarily at women. It is generally a problem of gender discrimination and is not about sexual pleasure," Shahrizat said.
She went on to add that sexual harassment was once seen as a private matter but has since been brought into the public domain. "It is viewed as a serious misconduct," she said.
That it has become a serious problem is apparent by the fact that the Ministry of Human Resources launched its Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace in 1999.
However, the code has its limitations as it does not make it compulsory for corporations to adopt or practice it.
Indeed, its limitations are apparent by the fact that despite extensive promotion by the Department of Labour, by June 2001, only 4,500 corporations (only 1.125 per cent of the 400,000 employers registered with Socso) had implemented it.
While a separate Sexual Harassment Bill, which holds employers responsible for preventing sexual harassment in the workplace and provides complainants with timely and meaningful access to legal address, has been proposed, it is still in its infancy despite strong support from the Women and Family Development Ministry.
In the meantime, the problem seems to flourish in many corporations. One of the speakers at the forum, Dr Asma Abdullah, a specialist in intercultural management, education and training services, said that the Asian mentality of jaga air muka was perhaps one of the reasons why sexual harassment continues to happen here.
"There are a lot of hidden dimensions that allow us to be perceived as victims. It is part of our culture to be non-confrontational and there is no doubt that culture is the mould in which we are all cast," she said.
She added that the Asian practice of politeness also made it difficult for us to confront our superiors. "Because of that, we tend to wave conflict behind the scenes," she said.
"We are a harmony-driven culture. This means that we tolerate situations rather than confront them in the hope that the problem will go away," she said.
In his presentation, Datuk Muhammad Sauffee, director-general of the Ministry of Human Resources, said that what may be viewed as sexual harassment may differ on the perceptions of the parties concerned.
"For instance, when I walked up to the rostrum, I was aware that the eyes of the majority of the women in this room were on me. It was not a situation that I was uncomfortable with. It would be important to define what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and indeed what is merely social interaction as compared to sexual harassment," he said.
He added that there should be a mechanism to help identify what constitutes sexual harassment. He also said that it was important to create awareness of its existence and it was best that if such cases occurred, it was settled within the place of employment rather than at any other tribunal.
In her presentation at the forum, Betty Yeoh, an executive committee member of the All Women's Action Society (AWAM), said that sexual harassment generally occurred because women were seen as quiet or weak.
"It quite often occurs when the perpetrator is in a position of power and can get away with such an act," she said.
She emphasised that sexual harassers were not necessarily all male. "It is not a problem that is confined to the male sex," she said.
She also said that sexual harassment cuts across all professions although in the statistics she quoted, 38.8 per cent of the victims were factory operators while 36.9 per cent were in the clerical field.
"There does not seem to be an age limit either as there have been cases reported where the victim was nearing retirement age," Yeoh said.
Yeoh added that sexual harassment must be viewed as discrimination because it denies victims the basic right to work in a conducive environment. "When any form of violence occurs, you face personal insecurity. This in turn leads to the victim becoming suspicious of his/her surroundings which ultimately leads to the creation of a hostile environment," she said.
* The writer can be contacted at [email protected]
Appendix 2.8
Jobs & Money: Jobs: Labs' labour lost as women stay away: Careers in science: Men are still dominating technical work - and the imbalance gets even worse after career breaks, when there is a high drop-out rate among their female counterparts. Wendy Smith
The Guardian - United Kingdom; Mar 23, 2002
Nick Medcalf originally trained as a chemist and picked up chemical engineering as part of his work on process design.
Working for Smith and Nephew, he is involved in helping to build novel tissue bioreactors. These are the tiny vessels needed to help the growth of human tissue outside the body. His working goals are to create organ culture for liver, heart and kidney replacements.
Mr Medcalf also travels extensively to conferences, topping up his subject knowledge along the way. Chances are he will have a long and fulfilling career in science made all the more pleasant and palatable by a serious salary.
According to the Institute of Chemical Engineers, their number are among the best paid of the scientists and often earn more than accountants, doctors and lawyers.
But to Mr Medcalf and his male colleagues will go all the spoils. Women will largely miss out. Not because they have been excluded from entering the profession in the way that budding female surveyors and architects have been kept out by a male-dominated building industry. Their absence is more about a huge drop-out rate after they have children - an issue that is causing concern in many circles.
It is well documented that getting anyone to study the sciences nowadays is an uphill struggle and men will invariably outnumber the women on many university science courses. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency in 1998, 38% of students studied science and, of these, less than half (42%) were women. The situation worsens when you look at what happens to their job prospects after a career break.
According to a January 2002 report from the Department of Trade and Industry, Maximising Returns, there are 50,000 women science, engineering and technology (SET) graduates not working in their respective industries at any one time. And of those who do go back to work, a mere 8,000 will go back to a job that makes use of their original university education.
So what is it that is turning this scarce number of highly trained women off from returning to a workplace that needs them? As Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said recently when she launched a raft of plans to help female scientists to de velop their careers after a break: "This is just a waste of women's talents."
The report suggests that women returning to work from a SET background do have additional problems compared with women returning in other graduate occupations. They may fear they have missed out on knowledge whilst they had been away that may be difficult to catch up on. Their line manager, man or woman, can prove inflexible in traditional, hierarchical organisations and there is a shortage of part-time working. Oh yes, and money.
Apart from those high flying chemical engineers employed in the oil industry who, according to latest figures released by the IChemE's 2002 salary review can pick up pounds 50,000 a year, salaries in other science sectors can be variable to say the least.
Joanne Bone is managing director of Phlogiston, an award-winning company which is just 18 months old. Based at Loughborough University, it produces a new detection system used across the chemical, pharmaceutical, water and food industries. Now 33 and a mother, Ms Bone admits she works hard, draws little from her company but is the mistress of her own destiny and hopefully has a future. As of now, she is not tempted to go back into industry as an employee.
It has been a long, hard struggle to get to her current position, she says. Ms Bone has an ONC, an HNC, a degree in chemistry, a masters in instrumental and analytical chemistry and she completed her PhD at Loughborough this year.
"The salary for my last job in 1997 after my masters plus seven years' experience was pounds 16,000," she recalls. There were also occasions, she admits, when issues arose over men being paid more than their female counterparts.
Ms Bone remains passionate about what she does but reckons she won't be putting pressure on her son to follow in mum's footsteps. "For the amount of training and effort that goes into becoming a chemist, it is really underpaid."
Gloucester chemist Ithiel Mogridge, winner of the Female Inventor of the Year award, is now 47 and also owns her own company. And like Joanne Bone, she had many years experience working in industry.
Ms Mogridge has a degree in food technology and freely admits that she has come across both gender and pay discrimination throughout her career. One of her most memorable experiences, in the mid-70s, was when she was sent out to set up and calibrate vehicle wash equipment. "When I arrived, the man on the site went mad and shouted at me that he wanted a chemist and not a woman to do the job."
Like many women, Ms Mogridge found herself in the position of having to take a career break. She took five years out. When she reapplied for lab jobs in the mid-80s, one potential employer wrote back and told her she was too old. Ithiel was just 29.
For anyone thinking that attitudes have changed since then, Ms Mogridge would disagree. She gave up the staff job which paid pounds 15,000 in the early 90s to set up as an inventor in 1994. "It is not just a confidence issue but personality type issue that stops women going back to work after a break," she suggests. "Female scientists tend not to be particularly assertive types and they may not want to deal with any unwanted aggression out there."
Sandra Chapman is professor of astro physics at the University of Warwick. She has only a handful of female graduate Phds, which she describes as "very depressing". She believes there is a general attitudinal problem to the sciences and particularly engineering in the UK which is not necessarily reflected in the rest of Europe.
"In France, science is seen as an intellectual pursuit - an everyday part of civilised life. Here it is still seen as a bit nerdy. It is this hard hat image that puts women off."
The way forward, suggests Professor Chapman, is for scientific establishments, whether they are academic or in industry, to operate more family friendly policies.
She points to practices that have started in the US where universities will hire couples as a package into a permanent academic post. "Univer sities are starting to do that here," she says.
There are, of course, companies out there employing large numbers of female scientists and managing to hang on to them.
Procter & Gamble in the UK has 750 staff in science roles, of which 350 are women. Starting salaries are from pounds 25,000 with a degree and higher with a relevant Phd. And, after five years, a scientist could be on a package worth pounds 50,000 to pounds 60,000.
According to the company's UK external relations manager Sally Woodage, it has no problems recruiting scientists (half the recruitment team is female). Ms Woodage believes the combination of family friendly packages and female role models is a tremendous advantage. Of the number of women who have taken a career break, 80% have come back.
There is a similar story from Astra Zeneca, where the company provides flexible working and generous maternity provision.
But while it is okay for the lucky ones who make it into the corporate cosiness of flexible policies and sensible salaries, it is quite clear that much work needs to be done by many to shift attitudes and boost rewards to tempt female scientists back into the workplace.
Only when that happens can they make a real difference alongside their male counterparts like Nick Medcalf.
There are 50,000 women science, engineering and technology graduates not working in their respective industries at any one time
'In France, science is seen as an intellectual pursuit. Here it is still seen as a bit nerdy. It is this hard hat image that puts women off'
Appendix 2.9
Leeds Morelli & Brown Announce They are Filing EEOC Claims Charging Race & Gender Discrimination Against Xerox
Business Wire; Mar 21, 2002
CARLE PLACE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 21, 2002--According to charges to be filed today by Leeds, Morelli and Brown, Xerox employees from New York to Texas and South Carolina to California have repeatedly complained of a pattern and practice of discrimination, and over 100 of those employees, past and present, are now filing complaints with the EEOC which seek a class action lawsuit.
The complaints, filed by Leeds, Morelli & Brown, a leading civil rights firm, reveal that on a daily basis, Xerox employees are assaulted with degrading racial epithets, while management and human resources stand by and fail to respond to employees' cries for help.
The complaints made by plaintiffs are both race and gender-based. Instances of discrimination faced by Xerox employees, according to the charges include:
The complaints also state that there are patterns of a lack of promotional opportunity and equal compensation. Leeds, Morelli & Brown asserts that minority employees find themselves passed over in favor of junior white applicants who lack their experience and credentials. In addition, minority employees find that they are paid less than their counterparts for performing the same functions, which range from vice president to equipment repair associates.
Another dimension to the case, cited in the charges, is the systemic retaliation against those who have the temerity to raise complaints about the unjust treatment they suffered. Pleas to management and human resources repeatedly went unaddressed or mocked.
"As a direct result of the conduct of Xerox, our clients say they have suffered depression and have become withdrawn from family and friends," noted Len Leeds, partner at Leeds, Morelli & Brown. "These egregious acts of discrimination have caused degradation and severe emotional distress. Through this complaint, we hope to set an example to companies large and small that this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated."
The complaints are rampant throughout the operations division of Xerox. In May 2001, the sales force at Xerox filed a nationwide, race-based Class Action Lawsuit alleging unequal treatment and racial steering.
Appendix 2.10
Inquirer Northern Luzon# Historic milestones on the women's front
Philippine Daily Inquirer; Mar 20, 2002
BY MAURICE MALANES
WITH clenched fists, they used to rave and rant about their clamor in the streets, and nobody, including the government, seemed to listen.
But some seasoned women activists concede that their "street parliamentary struggle" has now borne fruit in the form of official policies and laws that promote gender equality and women's rights and address issues such as sexual harassment.
One historic milestone on the women's front is a newly issued implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 prepared by the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines System, the first learning institution in the country to ever do so.
Another is a joint circular by the Department of Budget and Management, National Economic and Development Authority, and the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women.
The circular mandates all government agencies, local government units, state colleges and universities, and government-controlled corporations to integrate gender and development (GAD) in their programs and set aside 5 percent of their total budget for GAD-related activities.
Taking off from the new IRR, the UP College Baguio (UPCB) since Feb. 13 has launched a campaign to rid the campus of sexual harassment and all forms of sexual abuse.
The drive actually began last December at the UP Diliman campus and is expected to intensify on all UP campuses nationwide this Women's Month.
The drive seeks to drum up awareness among faculty members, administration personnel and students about a new set of IRR of Republic Act No. 7877, also known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, says Maan Caampued, convenor of the UPCB's GAD center Kasarian.
The new IRR and the law from which these are based are fruits of women activism, she says.
Caampued says the IRR finally saw the light because of lobby efforts of the UP Center on Women's Services, women guidance counselors and male human rights lawyers-cum-women's advocates within the campus.
Compared to an earlier policy on sexual harassment in the workplace, the new IRR, according to UPCB officials, mean a big stride in addressing sexual harassment.
The IRR, for example, clearly define what sexual harassment is and aren't simply lumped with "abuse of authority" or simple misconduct as a previous policy did, notes Dr. Nela Florendo, UPCB associate dean for academic affairs.
As set forth in the IRR, sexual harassment can be committed by "an officer, faculty member, employee, coach, trainor, or any person (with) authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in any aspect of academic or administrative work in any campus, unit, office or classroom of the university."
Sexual harassment happens when these people demand, request or require any sexual favor from the other, even if she or he refuses.
In the academic or administrative workplace, sexual harassment happens when sexual favor becomes a condition in hiring or re-hiring a person or in granting favorable compensation, promotion or any other terms, conditions or privileges.
Sexual harassment also happens when a faculty member or employee, for example, refuses a sexual favor and this leads to limiting, segregating or classifying him or her, thus discriminating or depriving him or her, and diminishing his or her job opportunities elsewhere.
Sexual favor
In the teaching or study environment, sexual harassment is committed when the offender seeks a sexual favor as a condition in giving a passing grade, granting honors and scholarships, or paying a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges or considerations.
Sexual harassment is also committed when sexual advances lead to an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.
In this study environment, the victims of sexual harassment include students, trainees or those under the care, custody and supervision of the offender.
The new IRR go a step further. These cover not only cases involving abuse of authority or power but also those in peer relationships (faculty-faculty, employee-employee, student-student), those involving harassment of faculty members by students and persons of the same or opposite sex.
Penalty, redress
The IRR also lay out mechanisms for penalty and redress, including counseling and managing grievances.
Under the IRR, each UP campus must set up an anti-sexual harassment office, which sees to it that the university policy, rules, regulations and procedures on sexual harassment are disseminated and become "part of the academic culture."
Headed by the academic affairs associate dean, the office is mandated to create "informal procedures" that elicit trust and confidence from interested parties in resolving sexual harassment cases.
At the UPCB, the ASHO and the Kasarian plan to establish what Caampued calls a "halfway house" off campus to accommodate and entertain complainants.
Why does it have to be outside the campus? This, says Caampued, is to secure the privacy and security of complainants.
Both bodies also intend to establish a telephone hotline, through which complainants can seek the advice of psychologists, she says.
Vital flip-side
A vital flip-side of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act is Executive Order No. 273, which approved and adopted the 1995-2025 Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development.
From the order, the DBM, Neda and the NCRFW came out with a joint circular in August last year, mandating agencies, local governments, state colleges and universities, and government-controlled corporations, including foreign-funded programs and projects, to use at least 5 percent of their total budget for GAD.
"It is time we become aware of how to put this (5 percent of total budget) to good use by coming up with concrete programs that really benefit women," says newly appointed NCRFW Commissioner Victoria Tauli-Corpuz.
Critics have assailed some government agencies and local government units for allegedly misusing the GAD budget on less socially relevant activities such as ballroom dancing.
But Tauli-Corpuz says women leaders, under what are called GAD Focal Points, may have to acquaint themselves with the fine points of program planning and budgeting and come out with "clear programs of work and clear parameters of success" on GAD.
GAD programs, she says, must address women's concerns such as reproductive health, day care centers for working mothers, among others.
That GAD was finally institutionalized with a corresponding budget did not come easy. This, says Tauli-Corpuz, is actually a fruit of "our long struggle (as women activists)" since the 1970s. The GAD budget, therefore, she says, must not go to waste.
Appendix 2.11
TUC drive to tackle sexism by employers
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
27 December 2001
Hundreds of discrimination specialists are to be sent into the workplace as part of a union drive to stamp out sexist practices by employers.
Unions hope to train 500 officials to check that employers are complying with equal pay legislation. Training courses will start next month to teach union representatives how to analyse overtime rates, job descriptions and other working practices to ensure that hidden discrimination is stamped out. They hope representatives will be able to do audits by the end of August.
The Trades Union Congress, which launched the initiative yesterday, is hoping to persuade employers to audit their pay and employment practice. It warned that unscrupulous companies would risk being taken to industrial tribunals if they did not comply.
Union leaders are concerned that women still earn a fraction of the wages paid to men, more than 30 years after legislation outlawing discrimination became law. Women make up 47 per cent of the workforce, yet the latest figures show that those in full-time jobs earn only 82 pence for each pound paid to men in similar jobs. Women working part-time earn 61 per cent of the average male wage.
In the 10 most popular occupations among women, the pay gap is much wider, with females earning only 78 per cent of the average wages for men, the TUC said. Women's employment is concentrated in occupations such as sales assistants, checkout operators, clerks, secretaries, teaching, catering and health.
The gender pay gap is largest in the South-west and smallest in London and Wales, according to TUC research.
John Monks, the TUC general secretary, said: "The long campaign for equal pay has made progress down the years, but we still have more to do. The efforts of these reps is going to make a real difference to individual women's pay, and their collective efforts are going to make a real difference to tackling discrimination."
The TUC backed the Equal Opportunities Commission's Independent Equal Pay Taskforce, which recommended statutory pay reviews earlier this year. But union leaders have decided to press ahead with voluntary reviews in the hope of persuading employers to comply.
The commission has set a target for 50 per cent of Britain's 4,000 biggest employers, each employing more than 500 staff, to hold a pay review by the end of 2003.
In August, a woman camera operator at Grampian Television was awarded a £5,000 salary rise after the commission took up her claim for unequal pay.
Launching the targets earlier this month, Julie Mellor, the commission's chairwoman, said the pay gap would not be eliminated until all employers routinely checked they were paying women fairly.
A commission spokeswoman said many employers might be guilty of unwitting discrimination. "Employers are generally opposed to paying women a different rate from men, and say discrimination is a bad thing. But there is no facility for firms to collect data, so they are not aware that they may be discriminating," she said.
Appendix 2.12
Alarming rise in sex discrimination cases
Women are bullied, harassed and passed over. And their reward? Average earnings of 82p for every £1 a man makes
By Jo Dillon, Political Correspondent
29 July 2001
British business faces pressure to end sexism in the workplace with growing demands for compulsory investigations into how much companies pay their women staff.
After a record number of sex discrimination and equal pay claims to employment tribunals last year, the Government faces growing demands for action on equality.
Campaigners believe current voluntary agreements with employers are too weak to change a culture in which women are paid, on average, just 82p for every £1 a man gets, hundreds are sacked for getting pregnant, and thousands are bullied, harassed or barred from promotion on grounds of gender.
The Equal Opportunities Commission believes that many cases still go unreported. It wants all employers to carry out pay reviews. At present the reviews are voluntary. Ministers are reluctant to change the law, fearing that any compulsory move requiring employers to carry out pay audits could cost business billions.
Despite improvements in the lot of women at work – and attempts by the Government to encourage employers to carry out salary reviews and to adopt flexible working programmes for parents – there were still nearly 40,000 such cases reported to the Employment Tribunal Service in 2000-1.
Cases, such as those of Annette Cashmore, who was prevented from taking a job deemed to be "man's work'', Sharon Sawyer, whose pregnancy triggered a campaign of sexual harassment, or Sarah Daly, who was paid £4,000 less than a man for doing a job of equal value, are all too common.
Julie Mellor, chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said: "Clearly the thousands of people who have called us for advice about possible cases of discrimination are just the tip of the iceberg." Many others seek advice through Citizens' Advice Bureaux or law centres.
A major issue for campaigners is the 18 per cent pay gap, which still exists between working men and women in Britain. "It is shocking that there is that level of injustice still," said Ms Mellor. "Thirty years after Britain established equal pay legislation, we have the worst pay gap in Europe and the worst work/life balance in Europe."
She added: "I think the onus is now on employers to do these pay reviews to demonstrate they are tackling the pay gap or they will face a more formal approach."
Around 95 per cent of employers insist they pay fairly but only a third have carried out reviews to prove it.
Campaigners are also promoting social and economic policies designed to strengthen the position of women in the labour market, including universal child care, maternity pay set closer to salaries, and extended paid maternity and paternity leave.
The EOC is also launching a campaign this autumn that will aim to discourage gender stereotyping.
Ms Mellor said: "It's about how we encourage parents and teachers to get young people to consider a full range of education and career choices.''
At present, only 25 per cent of people applying for jobs in IT are female – and that number is declining. "We are trying to spearhead a changing culture so that gender moves up everyone's agenda," Ms Mellor said.
But was the Government, which is currently awaiting the results of the Kingsmill review into women at work, doing enough? "The jury's still out," said Ms Mellor.
'They paid me less because they could'
Sarah Daly, 26, was content in her work as an office administrator for Bennetts (GB), an insurance broker in Crawley, West Sussex. That was until June 1999 when she returned from holiday to find she had a new colleague a man who was being paid significantly more for doing an equivalent job.
Sarah saw her line manager and waited until her August pay review for him to give her a £2,000 rise still £2,000 less than her male colleague. He didn't.
After months of arguing over her rights, Sarah left the job in the November, despite having no job to go to. "At first I felt quite hurt. I did a lot of the back-up work myself and I supported them all the way and they never recognised that. I couldn't stay because they would just carry on treating me like it."
Hurt turned to anger a few weeks later when the firm advertised at the job centre for a trainee on a salary higher than Sarah's. She decided to take action. She was awarded £10,400 by an industrial tribunal.
Sarah hadn't imagined a firm would pay her less than a man. "I believe I was paid less because they thought they could get away with it. Maybe I was naïve. To be honest I really didn't think things like that still happened."
'No place for a woman here'
Annette Cashmore, 44, had been a panel wirer in a West Midlands factory for 10 years when she had to give up work due to ill health.
After her recovery in 1997, she went to a Walsall job agency, Anystaff Recruitment Ltd. She was in luck, the man behind the counter told her. She could start the next day as a panel wirer for an engineering firm, Roselec Ltd. He'd just pop in the back and tell them he'd found someone to fill the post. He emerged, flustered and embarrassed. Apparently there was no job after all for a woman.
Annette was furious. She wanted justice. It took two years to get it, during which time she was told the shop floor was a male place, a place the company boss "wouldn't let his wife work". "I knew they were wrong to think a woman couldn't do the job because she couldn't be part of the team." With no money for a solicitor, Annette brought the case herself and won £7,000 on appeal, but is still waiting for payment from Roselec Ltd. Anystaff Recruitment has settled.
'I was ostracised by the men'
Sharon Sawyer, 33, had been working as a contracts and checking clerk for a firm of stockbrokers for almost 10 years when she became pregnant with her first baby.
When she shared her happy news at work in January 1999, it triggered a campaign against her by the company director and his senior staff and a bitter battle for maternity leave and the right to return to work part-time. Her sex discrimination case against Robson Cottrell in Bournemouth ended with £10,000 compensation. "Their attitude towards me changed. They ostracised me and when they did speak to me it was just rude and silly comments. The worst time was when I was showing the girls the baby kicking and my boss flicked open a penknife and said, 'Let's cut it open and see what sex you've got.' He left the room sniggering nastily."
Even requests for information about maternity rights and flexible working prompted "humiliating comments". "I would never put up with that behaviour from anybody again."
Appendix 2.13
Equality? We still have a long way to go
Maureen Freely: 'There can't be many people who really believe we all have the use of the same level playing field. The game is still rigged'
17 January 2001
It was unspeakably unfair - and a shameful waste of human resources. Until the mid-Seventies or thereabouts, it was embedded in every aspect of our culture. But in less than a generation, we've been able to put most of those wrongs to right. There might still be a bit of tidying up to do but, by and large, our house is in order. So please, can you stop whingeing and let us get back to the serious business of running a country?
That's the standard New Labour line on sexual discrimination. At least it is at the very top. If you're a New Labour Woman and you want to get ahead, you're best advised to leave the word "sexist" at home. If you secretly believe that there is still work to be done, you must cushion your demands in language that won't offend. If you do not wish to be seen to be playing favourites, you do not use the word "women" without tacking on "and men". And it's political suicide to express concern about girls without alluding to the boy crisis.
But there can't be many people out there who really believe that boys, girls, men and women of all races, religions and classes have the use of the same level playing field. The game is still rigged. Although some women are doing well in some areas of work, most are still working in dead-end jobs at the low end of the pay scale. The gap between average male and female earnings has halved since the mid-Seventies, but at 18 per cent it is still too high. Women still face more obstacles in the workplace than men, which is why we still need the Sexual Discrimination Act and agencies such as the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) to back us up.
But for how much longer? At its 25th anniversary celebrations yesterday, the EOC announced a radical change of direction. It wants to extend its remit so that it can fight for men's rights as well as women's rights, and for boys as well as girls. It wants to give as much importance to men's and women's domestic rights as it does to their workplace rights. For many women's rights activists, this is the ultimate cop-out, and the ultimate betrayal of all the EOC was set up to do. They're sure it's just another watering down exercise. And they could be right. Without support, an expanded equality agenda will achieve less than the old one did. But I still think it's a risk worth taking, and the only way to end the current deadlock.
When the EOC came into being, its primary aim was to help women entering the male-dominated workplace. The emphasis was on parity - making sure that once they gained entry, they got the same treatment and the same chances as men. Twenty-five years on, the limitations of that strategy are evident. It can help women into work and offer them some protection. But it cannot challenge the central organising principle of the workplace: that the adult world divides itself neatly into two parallel armies, one that's free to go out to work, and the other that stays at home to do the laundry.
There is no longer a neat division between those who work outside the home for pay, and those who work inside it for nothing, but the myth is still enshrined in 99 per cent of all our work structures. It determines the length of the working day and the shape of every career. It assumes that there is no need for any employer to make time for domestic life. Men and women must "act like men" if they want to get ahead, and can expect to be penalised if they "act like women". This imperative puts different pressures on men than it does on women, and it pushes them into making different choices, but it makes them all suffer.
Anyone whose domestic ties are visible can expect a rough ride. Which is why the rule in so many families is for one parent to guarantee a steady income by working long hours, while the other does most of the caring, plus a little part-time work on the side to pay for Christmas presents and holidays. That their separate fates are linked may be a radical new insight in the policy world, but it is only too evident at the household level. Mothers of young children are not free to work unless someone can fill in for them at home. This someone cannot be the father if he is the one who makes the larger salary, and must put in long hours to hold his own in the workplace.
Even if they want a more balanced and equitable arrangement - and the evidence is that more and more families would - there is not much they can do. They cannot change the rules of the workplace single-handed. And that's why the EOC has decided to take on this fight.
In the EOC's new "vision for equality in the 21st century", women and men can be good parents and have successful careers. Gender no longer influences earnings, organisations take equality as seriously as any other business standard, and all employers see the point of accepting and accommodating the needs of a diverse workforce. There is quick, effective redress when things go wrong, and there are equal numbers of men and women in decision-making, not just in Parliament but in all public bodies.
Children are able to follow their talents, instead of having to follow the usual gender stereotypes. Public bodies take the lead in showing how workplace equality can work, and how it can help everyone to profit. And there is one law that protects everyone from discrimination: "Equality laws should be made consistent, clear and workable, providing effective protection to women and men, girls and boys, of all races and creeds, at home, at school and in the workplace."
To push this agenda forward, the EOC wants the election manifesto to include commitments to: (1) extend the period of maternity leave, paid paternity leave, and paid and flexible parental leave; (2) require all employers to conduct pay audits; (3) award contracts only to companies that "practice equality in their business"; (4) implement the European directive to outlaw discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation; (5) increase the power of tribunals so that they can make general recommendations that clarify good practice; (6) allow the EOC to bring proceedings in its own name; (7) amend the law to allow special measures in the selection of parliamentary candidates, so that more women are selected; (8) advertise all public appointments openly, so that under-represented groups are better able to apply; (9) mainstream equality into all its policies, and put pressure on all public bodies to "lead the way'" by doing the same; and (10) modernise equality legislation.
It wants the Government to put equality at the top of its agenda, as this is the only way of forcing the workplace to change. Will it get what it wants? My guess is that it could get more lip-service than ever, if Mr Blair and friends see broad support for the proposals. But when it comes down to it, will they find it in them to tell their friends in the free market that the time has come to change their ways? I'm not sure. If they end up letting the side down, it will not be because they don't care about equality, but because they care much more about the CBI.
In the 21st century, the struggle for equality is no longer a battle of the sexes. It's the little people vs the big guys. That's why the EOC needs all the support it can get, and from men as well as women.
[email protected]
Appendix 2.14
Sex equality 'will make businesses more inefficient'
By Cherry Norton, Social Affairs Correspondent
16 March 2000
Equality for women at work would be bad for society because it would increase the gap between between rich and poor, a study shows.
In our present environment, where effort is rewarded more than talent by most employers, placing men on the "fast track" and relegating women to the "mummy track" is more beneficial for society, it says.
The controversial claims were dismissed by the Equal Opportunities Commission, (EOC) which said perpetuating discrimination was fundamentally wrong, denying men and women the right to fulfil their potential in contributing to work and family life.
In Britain, women are still paid 20 per cent less than men and have poorer promotion prospects, and women still fulfil the main childcaring role, although in 70 per cent of couples both partners work.
The research, published today by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, London, an independent charity, acknowledges the traditional family pattern of a breadwinner father and a housewife has faded, but says a more subtle form of difference has emerged, with women choosing working arrangements compatible with having the main responsibility for children.
Professor Kjell Lommerud, an economist from the University of Bergen who is co-author of the study, said: "This is leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where employers still think they will get more out of a man because he will not be committed to childcare while women are placed on the 'mummy track'."
The researchers worked out an economic model for family and working life, looking at individual and public good.
Professor Lommerud said: "If you removed all gender discrimination at work, this would be good for women's' rights but not for efficiency. Full gender equality means men and women would go on to the same career track in the labour market.
"But employers do reward effort rather than talent and it is impossible for both partners to work 15 hours a day and have children - so much of the investment in women will be wasted because they take time off to care for children."
The professor added: "This is a far greater efficiency loss than having less-talented men promoted before their female peers."
But Julie Mellor, who chairs the EOC said the principle of ordaining who should do what in society by their gender was inherently wrong. "It denies couples the choice about who looks after children, denies the fact that 90 per cent of lone families are headed by a woman as well as ignores the fact that many women are now choosing to remain childless."
"It is economically inefficient for British business not to make best use of the whole pool of talent. The long-hours culture in Britain needs to change and people should be valued for their contribution rather the hours they spend in the office.
"Equality for women in the workplace will be never be achieved until men are able to be equally active parents."
Professor Lommerud admitted the findings were difficult to accept. "I am not happy about these findingsbut the result forced itself upon us, and you have to be honest," he said.
Appendix 2.15
Overhaul in research grant policies needed to improve prospects for women
Lee Elliot Major
Guardian Unlimited
Tuesday December 19, 2000
A fundamental overhaul of the funding practices of the main bodies funding academic research projects as well as employment policies in universities is needed to improve the career prospects for women academics, a report concludes today.
The long awaited conclusions of a survey of grant applications among male and female researchers by the Wellcome Trust and research councils concludes that there is no evidence of direct gender discrimination in the allocation of research funding.
However, the 'deep-rooted nature' of some of the factors making women apply for fewer grants, such as the increased likelihood of being on short term junior positions, means that reforms are needed "to ensure a more equitable distribution of research funding".
Wellcome and the research councils commissioned the National Centre for Social Research to carry out a survey of academic staff. A total of 3090 academic staff drawn from 44 institutions took part in the survey, with a 40% response rate. The survey was commissioned after some suggestions that the mainly male academic referees deciding on research awards were biased against women academics. The survey explored whether there were gender differences in research funding applications activities and identified possible reasons behind these differences.
It found that 50% of women and 59% of men in the sample had applied for project research grants in the past five years.
And when women applied for funding, they were as successful as their male colleagues: 51% of female and 50% of male applicants had obtained half or more of the grants they had applied for.
Virtually no gender differences were found in applications for competitively awarded fellowships: 18% of women and 16% of men in the sample had applied for this type of funding.
The survey results also show that women were less likely than men to be eligible to apply for grants provided by all research councils and the Wellcome Trust, except for the Economic and Social Research Council.
Women are less likely to be eligible for grants because of their over-representation among lower grade academic staff and those with fixed-term contracts, as many of the grant schemes are not open to academic staff in these groups.
The main influences on grant application activities included: job seniority, employment status, tenure, type of institution, and professional profile of academics.
There was also a wide variation in the institutional support provided to researchers for funding applications.
A break from employment for family reasons in the previous ten years also seems to have a considerable negative influence on grant applications.
Grant applications were lower than average among women with dependent children - 50% had applied for grants compared with 62% of men with children.
