Introduction
The gender pay gap is a global economic issue affecting women. The gender pay gap has been a persistent issue in the United Kingdom, where women typically earn about 15% less than men. Consequently, the existing equal pay laws have provided adequate protection for women.
In recent years, the UK government has introduced a range of measures aimed at reducing the gender pay gap and promoting gender equality in the workplace. Nearly five decades ago, the right to equal pay was incorporated into law with the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1970 and the Equality Act of 2010, marking progress in rectifying the issue. However, there is still a struggle to achieve fairness in the UK. To achieve full gender equality in pay, institutional and cultural barriers must be overcome; thus, this gap underscores the need for ongoing efforts by individuals, organizations, and legislators.
The History of Equal Pay in Gender
The history of equal pay has undergone significant changes since women began entering the workforce in large numbers. As such, the demand for equal rights for both feminists and academics has led to the persistence of gender issues to date. In the 1830s, multiple organizations and women gathered to petition for equal pay rights, as documented by historians (Lowell Mill, 2023). The Grand National Consolidated Trade Union advocated for these equal pay rights, for instance, the low wages for women compared to fixed prices for men due to their perceived inferiority (Davis & Foster, 2021).
The rights were rejected later in 1800, despite their efforts, due to male issues, and they were later eliminated; the only trade that managed to continue weaving was the one led by Davis and Foster (Davis & Foster, 2021). Notably, the main aim of the union was to create a condition where wives and daughters could be at home, rather than competing within the men-dominated world. Surprisingly, considerable chauvinists also agreed that women’s minds were way below men’s.
In 1904, progress was made in the pursuit of equal pay, which later led to the establishment of the National Federation of Women Teachers in 1906. During World War II, women were recruited to fill the gap left by men. They were devalued and could be paid way less than men for equal pay. However, they described the work as made up of a man’s standard. The women’s trade union membership increased significantly, and the National Federation of Women attempted to address the issue of equal pay and organize women so that they could be heard.
Equal Pay Act of 1970
The trade union’s tough fight with Ford Dagenham’s Factory contributed to women’s late-20th-century advancement. Women sewing machinists went on strike in 1968 over a reclassification demand (Moss, 2017). The company reclassified them from “Category C” to “Category B,” meaning females would earn at least 15% less than men (Nacera, 2019).
The NJACCWER’s women activists led a significant network of equal pay strikes in other enterprises and sectors. Later that year, the T.U.C. amended a resolution defending all strike action for equal pay, rather than following the General Council’s advice. After a major NJACCWER rally in 1969, Ms. Castle, the Employment Secretary, introduced the Equal Pay Act of 1970 (Nacera, 2019).
This statute finally allowed women in both the private and public sectors to file equal pay claims for the same or equivalent jobs. Although approved in 1970, the Act was not enforced until 1976, allowing companies to influence their operations and regrade employment in discriminatory ways to avoid the Act’s restricted scope (Nacera, 2019). Despite its tremendous support, the Act did not affirm or advance the fight for wage equality. Instead, it primarily reaffirmed the depreciation of “women’s work” and the structural exclusion of women from particular industries and professions.
The Gender Pay Act
In October 2010, the Equality Act replaced the Equal Pay Act and other equality legislation. Compared to its predecessors, this Act was innovative in achieving justice in cases involving discrimination, abuse, and maltreatment (Fell & Dyban, 2017). However, rather than focusing on comprehensive reform, the terms of equal pay remained broadly comparable to those outlined in the Equal Pay Act.
However, hope was not completely lost since an attempt to modify the legislation was made in October 2014. This was accomplished by establishing legislation that permitted Employment Tribunals to require employers to conduct an equal pay audit, unless they were a new or micro-business (Fell & Dyban, 2017). Prime Minister David Cameron announced a significant proposal to require larger companies to disclose their gender pay gaps.
Henceforth, all businesses or employers with 250 or more employees are legally required to publish all pertinent information about the degree of pay inequality in their operations. The gender pay gap was developed, and it was a significant step forward that enhanced employer accountability by forcing them to acknowledge the profound and irrefutable nature of the Equal Pay problem (Fell & Dyban, 2017). However, some enterprises missed the deadline when the first deadline was for this obligation, and they had a considerable percentage of UK companies pay more than the average to women.
Even with new legislation such as the Equality Act of 2010, women are still widely disadvantaged in the workplace. Based on an article by Siddique (2018), 40% of young women believed it was challenging to make their cash last until the end of the month, compared to only 29% of young men. Similarly, around 1 million women receive less compensation than men for performing the same work, and about 770,000 young women struggle monetarily to cater to their basic needs (Siddique, 2018).
The Department for International Trade (D.I.T.) reported that the bonus gap was 7.3%, and the gender pay disparity was 15.9% as of March 2020 (D.I.T. Gender, 2020). The trust’s chief executive emphasizes the need for an ongoing government effort to hold companies accountable for discrimination and failing to pay employees equally. Malpractice in hiring is also pervasive and sometimes dismissed as preferences or risk-aversion. In reality, many women have admitted to encountering sexism while seeking employment, and most claim to be paid less than their male counterparts.
Despite viewpoints and theories, the gender pay gap is still complicated. However, this does not prevent specialists from delving further into the causes, which are frequently connected. Specifically, Buchanan et al. (2023) emphasized that various fields and jobs in which women operate account for 21% of health and social work. Only 5% of the disparity is attributable to a difference in formal educational attainment (Buchanan et al., 2023). Thus, it is evident that indirect bias and occupational segregation still prevent progress.
There is enough proof that women’s abilities and expertise are underappreciated in the hiring procedure and the positions themselves. In particular, when they need abilities, credentials, or experience comparable to those favored by males, the income ranges for occupations held mainly by women also frequently tend to be lower. Women who worked as cooks, cleaners, and caregivers sued the Birmingham Council in 2012 for compensation because they had not earned the bonuses that males who held equivalent professions received. In this instance, surveyors sent several identically false employment applications to a U.S. university’s scientific lab, randomly giving each one a male or female name. As a result, institutions hired ‘male’ applicants with substantially greater beginning wages because they believed they were better qualified.
Further, the deplorable promotion patterns within the implicated organizations; many employers adhere to gender stereotypes, reinforcing the glass ceiling, preventing them from being considered manager material. Men still had a greater chance of promotion even with equal credentials and experience (Minor, 2022). The chances are worse if the employee in issue is a mother. Generally, Young (2022) stated that only 10% of women in the UK receive promotions following childbirth. This is primarily due to employers’ prejudicial beliefs that women who become mothers are more likely to be uncommitted to their jobs, have more children, and have to pay for their maternity leave.
Additionally, men continued to receive promotions after having children. Companies value fathers for their improved multitasking skills and an increased sense of empathy and devotion. The imbalanced distribution of caregiving duties and home labor exacerbates the gender pay gap. Women’s heavier loads cause them to take more frequent career breaks, which affects their advancement, reputation, and salary.
Another problem that has a significant impact on the gender pay gap is occupational segregation. It is evident that some occupations are gendered or have gendered expectations. While these barriers have loosened as modernization progresses, they are still a hurdle for many women who want to enter predominantly male fields.
On the other hand, the fact that women frequently work in fields with lower average pay than those with a higher male predominance also affects this. For instance, the health, education, and public administration sectors employ over 40% of women, although just 29% of scientists and engineers in the UK are female (Buchanan et al., 2023). In contrast to the earlier arguments, this problem can be linked to the gender roles that society forces on boys and girls during their growing years. According to gendered professions, career counselors and schools encourage or dissuade boys and girls when discussing educational paths and potential careers, according to a study. Even though women do better at the education level, they are pulled away by girly professions, where they earn the least.
Equality ACT of 2010
The Equality Act is recognized for having a somewhat broader scope in some areas. For instance, all employment-related elements included in the person’s contract of employment, contract of apprenticeship, or contract to do work are covered by its requirements. As a result, the statutes covered part-time and full-time employees, which later expanded to cover self-employed people as case law developed. Other areas, however, do not have the same degree of adaptability, clarity, or inclusivity.
Comparators
The provisions of this Act only apply when an employee filing a claim is performing work comparable to a comparator of the other sex. Grabham (2023) posits that a claimant must show this and offer a real comparator, just like under the former Equal Pay Act. This had a constrained application, though, and claimants can now occasionally rely on fictitious comparators thanks to section 71 of the Equality Act. This states that the claim may be brought under the equal treatment provisions and that a hypothetical comparator may be relied upon when the claimant cannot identify an actual comparator.
The complaint is one of direct sex discrimination or discrimination on the grounds of dual characteristics, including sex. Despite the claim being made following the provisions relating to equal treatment, a fictitious comparator may be used. Nevertheless, when a claimant cannot provide sufficient information to support their position, using a hypothetical comparator may be rendered useless. Furthermore, these provisions are only applicable when it is possible to prove direct sex discrimination, so claims of equal pay and indirect gender discrimination would still require a typical comparator. In instances of contractual pay discrimination based on the grounds of sex
Language
The language of this piece of law initially appears to be comprehensive. There are numerous instances in which the Act fails to use particular words and provide definitions for the greater protection of equal pay. For instance, Section 64 of the Equality Act specifies employment and the principle of equal pay for equal effort, but “equal work” is not defined (Gardner, 2018). There is no benchmark against this, and no standards are specified under the Act to show an impartial and measured commitment to “equal work.” The phrase “broadly similar” is reminiscent of the less successful Equal Pay Act of 1970 and allows much room for imagination.
Gagging Clauses
Employees are protected by Section 77 of the Equality Act from any clause that tries to stop them from disclosing or seeking to disclose information regarding the conditions of their employment. According to the Equal Pay Statutory Code of Practice, the Act places restrictions on the applicability of so-called “gagging clauses” or “secrecy clauses,” which some employers use to stifle conversations about pay packages and differentials (MacMillan, 2022). Limiting the usage of these provisions aims to abolish opaque pay arrangements and encourage transparency and conversation about compensation.
According to the Equal Opportunities Commission, such a language is indeed present in the contracts of about 25% of employers (MacMillan, 2022). Employees are protected under Section 77 since it allows them to collect essential information. This privilege only applies to what is known as a “relevant pay disclosure,” which requires that the employee who discloses or receives the information do so intending to determine whether or to what degree there is a connection between pay and gender.
Material Factor Defense
When the employer could demonstrate that a material factor legitimately caused the pay gap between men and women, this defense was permissible under the predecessor of the Equality Act. This element would be considered authentic because it justified what would otherwise be indirectly discriminatory wage levels for women. This means that if the employer can demonstrate that a material factor causes the pay disparity, it does not involve treating the employee less favorably because of their sex than they treat the comparator. Moreover, it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; the sex equality clause in Section 66 of the Equality Act will be nullified.
It has also drawn attention to the possibility that businesses may need to logically justify a pay gap between workers of different sexes performing work of similar value, even in cases where there is no proof that the employer purposefully discriminated against women’s pay. Utilizing the defense became more difficult when ‘prima facies cases of discrimination were recognized31 32 in cases where there was a significant pay gap for jobs of ‘equal value’ but dominated by one gender. Overall, the Equality Act of 2010 helped to clarify the law in this area and gave employees a better chance of winning in court.
Further Criticisms
The tribunal accepts hundreds of equal pay applications annually due to the gender pay disparity. DLA Piper found 368,000 Ministry of Justice equal pay complaints from 2007/08. This represents 12% of employment tribunal claims (Webber, 2022).
Despite data showing a decline in equal pay tribunals, the reality is otherwise. These data do not reflect protracted lawsuits after the New Year since equal pay claims often take years to conclude. Matrix Chambers’ Laura Prince and Andrew Smith discovered 160,000 more live claims. The 17-year Armstrong v Glasgow City Council 47 case shows how far these claims may go.
In “group actions,” fair pay is complicated and time-consuming. These include several claimants, making the law more convoluted, leading to tens of E.A.T. appeals in diverse positions. 51 local government and N.H.S. equal pay group appeals have been filed since January 2007. Overburdened courts cannot sustainably solve the gender pay gap. These claims may also be costly and time-consuming.
According to a preliminary Civil Litigation Costs study, equal pay processes cost roughly 10 million pounds in 2009. The government mandated upfront payments of up to £1,200 for appealing employment tribunal proceedings against companies in 2013. This cost applies to sexual harassment and racial discrimination cases, shockingly. The government claimed the levies would save companies and taxpayers, although they violated employees’ human rights.
Second, COVID-19 caused a never-before-seen situation, and due to the dire financial position, the implementation of the gender pay gap legislation was suspended for six months. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has announced that, following government recommendations, enforcement of gender pay gap reporting for the 20/21 reporting year will not begin until 5 October 2021. According to Fawcett, the lack of this data excluded 25% of O.N.S. numbers, which might lead to skewed and incorrect gender pay gap reporting.
Improvements
The dissemination of knowledge and providing reliable information sources other than official government publications or websites has received much attention. Various women’s organizations effectively spread the word about the seriousness of the gender wage gap. All employees and workers must be aware of their legal rights regarding equal pay and have choices available when necessary. This is why these organizations must conduct thorough yearly surveys, briefings, and reports in addition to the tools and guidance they provide on their websites.
Another crucial resource is the EHRC, which assists many claimants, provides detailed employer rules, and provides detailed recommendations on how employers should ensure their staff members feel appreciated and treated correctly. Finally, when there are female members, the T.U.C. may provide substantial financial and legal assistance for any demands for equal pay. Further, as with any significant problem rooted in gender stereotypes and discrimination, the list of proposals to close the wage gap is long. Hence, starting at the root of issues, adequate measures could include addressing the early discrimination women face to follow specific lower-paid career paths and positive quotas to ensure fairness in educational and professional opportunities.
The EHRC advises firms to invest heavily in sector-specific training and regional entrepreneurship to increase job possibilities for everybody. Deconstruct the belief that women are inherently the primary carers and normalize joint child-raising amongst couples. This includes encouraging companies and the government to provide more paternity leave and daycare.
Diversity at all levels and sectors is essential to create a balanced work environment and minimise unfavourable or discriminatory biases in recruiting, promotion, and remuneration. Similar to a gender balance, this may be accomplished by affirmative action and quotas that provide firms with goals for equality in their workforce. Finally, gender pay gap reporting must continue and include all firms, regardless of size or industry. Ethnicity and disability data might enhance this. Closing the gender wage gap requires a more diversified workforce.
Conclusion
The gender wage disparity is true and detrimental to women in all fields. Too frequently, it is presumed that this disparity is not a result of discrimination but rather a statistical artifact resulting from failing to account for factors that could explain wage variations between genders. Nevertheless, recent activities that have advocated for equal pay have ensured that various measures to bridge these gaps have been increased.
As a result, the equal pay legislative regime has and is still sufficiently protecting women. Serious efforts to comprehend the gender wage disparity should not include blaming women for their lower earnings. Instead, these efforts should investigate how the UK economy disadvantages women at every stage of their education, training, and career decisions.
Reference List
Buchanan, I., et al. (2023). Women and the UK economy. House of Commons Library. Web.
Davis, M and Foster J. (2021). Unite history: the transport and general workers’ union (tgwu): representing a mass trade union movement. Liverpool University Press.
D.I.T. gender pay gap report 2019 to 2020 (2020). GOV.UK. Web.
Fairbairn, L. (2019). ‘Born to Struggle: working-class women’s activism in 1970s Britain,’ Doctoral dissertation, Department of Humanities, Northumbria University. Web.
Fell, E.V. and Dyban, M. (2017) ‘Against discrimination: equality act 2010 (UK),’ The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS).19, pp.188-194. Web.
Gardner, J., (2018) ‘Equality for the few: a critical analysis of the Equality Act 2010 (UKK.) from the perspective of gender equality in the workplace,’ Master Thesis, Umea Unversity. Web.
Grabham, E. (2023) ‘Decertifying gender: the challenge of equal pay,’ Feminist Legal Studies, 31(1), pp.67–93. Web.
Lowell Mill Women Create the First Union of Working Women (2023) AFL-CIO. Web.
MacMillan, C. (2022) ‘Contracts and Equality: the dangers of non-disclosure agreements in English Law,’ European Review of Contract Law, 18(2), pp.127–158. Web.
Minor, M. (2022). Women in the workplace: why they don’t get recognized as much as men. Forbes. Web.
Moss, J. (2017) ‘Oral History Society’. Web.
Nacera, D. (2019)’ Gender equality within the British trade unions: the incomplete revolution – aleph,’ Edinum. Web.
Siddique, H. (2018). Workplace gender discrimination remains rife, survey finds. The Guardian. Web.
Webber, A. (2020). Thousands of equal pay claims still received by tribunals each year. Personnel Today. Web.
Young., S. (2019). Women less likely than men to get promoted at work after having children. The Independent. Web.