We'll miss you, Maureen

Last week, one of our dearest friends, a member of WiSER, Maureen Bickley, passed away after a long and arduous struggle with cancer.

Maureen was an amazing woman - accomplished, dedicated to her research and most of all, fun. There are some wonderful photographs of Maureen, taken at a 70s Party showing her sporting a fake pregnant belly, her explanation being that she spent most of that decade pregnant.

In positive defiance of an initial prognosis of a shortened life, she went on for almost 10 more years, completing her doctorate, becoming a grandmother three times over and continuing to present her research at conferences, teaching and being a support to her colleagues and students.

When we knew Maureen would be coming into the GSB, there would be a palpable frisson of excitement - partly to see what outrageous shade of red her hair would be this visit and partly to bask in her presence. She carried wisdom around her shoulders like a cloak. She could spout references, statistics and pithy retorts at will.

We will all miss you, Maureen.

How moral is a 'moral rights waiver'?

By Guest Blogger, Therese Jefferson, Research Fellow, WiSER

The issue of academic freedom and independence is a very timely topic for discussion. Recently I had the experience of being requested to express my consent to sign a “waiver of moral rights” if awarded a contract to carry out ‘independent’ research for a Federal government department. I had never heard of such a thing before and it raised two questions:

1. What is a moral right?
According to the Australian Copyright Council: “Moral rights are the rights that individual creators have in relation to copyright works or films they have created. They separate from the “economic rights” of the copyright owner, such as the right to reproduce a work or communicate it to the public…. Creators have the right:
• To be attributed (or credited) for their work;
• Not to have their falsely attributed; and
• Not to have their work treated in a derogatory way.”
(From: www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/G043.pdf)

2. What is a moral rights waiver?
This is a clause that seeks to remove the moral rights described above. An example of a moral rights waiver is the following clause taken from a contract recently sent to a colleague:

“The contractor will obtain from its personnel and any sub-contractors, to the extent permitted by applicable law, unconditional:
• Consents to any alteration to, including additions to, or deletions from, any Contract Material used or produced in connection with the Agreed Services that would otherwise infringe their moral rights…

We'd like to open up discussion of this issue as it seems that the trend is to add this clause into university research contracts.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Would you sign a contract that contained this clause? Do you think it's a cause for concern?

West Australian report released today

There has been quite a lot of media interest in both the state and national reports on Women and WorkChoices.

This article in the Sydney Morning Herald gives some background into the national study.

Read the ABC's report on the release of the West Australian report on women and WorkChoices.

Workplace Info has reported extensively on the report in the past few days. The site requires that you be a subscriber although they do offer a 14 day free trial.

Listen to Alison Preston on ABC Radio's Life Matters discussing the impact of WorkChoices on women in low paid work with Dr Jude Elton from the Centre for Work and Life at the University of South Australia and host Richard Aedy.

Enough IS enough, Mr Hockey!

August 12 saw the launch of a national report titled Women and WorkChoices: Impacts on the Low Pay Sector. It follows the release of a series of state reports (click here for the Western Australian report which is being released on 16 August) examining the effects of WorkChoices on low paid workers and, as with the state reports, has met with the same dismissive response from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Hon Joe Hockey. Read his comment...

Before examining the counter claims by Minister Hockey, let us first consider what WorkChoices promised us and how the reforms have affected 121 women in Australia’s low paid sectors. When the bill was first introduced it was claimed that the new legislation would “…create a more flexible, simpler and fairer system of workplace relations for Australia. The Bill will carry forward the evolution of Australia’s workplace relations system to improve productivity, increase wages, balance work and family life, and reduce unemployment”.

When considered against these goals, there is little evidence from the low paid sector to suggest that the Act is delivering. The reforms have done little to improve the capacity of low paid workers to negotiate individually tailored working conditions which might allow them to balance work and family life. Rather it seems that employers have used their managerial prerogative to unilaterally change working conditions or hours of work in ways that have been detrimental to particular employees. Accounts from across Australia illustrate the intense insecurity and unhappiness with current employment arrangements and the fear and reluctance of many to engage in negotiations over conditions of work and wages. The sense that employers can fire at will (bolstered by the removal of unfair dismissal protections) is having a detrimental impact on the individuals and their families as well as the productivity potential of the economy. There is a voluminous body of academic literature showing the strong links between productivity and high performance employment practices.

Far from creating a simpler system the reforms have generated considerable confusion particularly with respect to entitlements such as wages, penalty payments, working hours and jurisdiction of coverage. Under previous regulatory frameworks industry standards were established in awards which were easily accessible by employers and employees. Individual bargaining has curtailed the free flow of information (critical for the operation of any ‘free’ market) which, in turn, is constraining the efficiency of the labour market.

In dismissing the findings of the state and national report Minister Hockey has, in his usual style, first attacked the authors, then the methodology and then offered some counter statistics. Amongst other things he points out that female participation rate is now at an all time high, that non-managerial employees on AWAs earn 94 per cent more than those on awards, that the gender pay gap is converging, full-time employment is rising and business are providing more family friendly provisions to attract and retain staff.

Whilst it is true that female participation is now at an all time high it should also be noted that an increasing proportion of employed women are participating on a part-time basis. Whilst this increasing participation in part-time work may reflect increased flexible employment arrangements it is also worth noting that most of the part-time jobs growth has been within sectors where wages growth has been below average (eg. retail and accommodation, cafes and restaurants). If women are increasingly being channelled into low wage sectors how then do we explain the convergence in the gender pay gap? The answer is easy. Women employed part-time are excluded from the calculation. As yet the only available time-series data on earnings do not allow researchers to control for hours of work, so the measure is restricted to women employed full-time (currently 51.3 per cent of all employed women). The second point to note is that the convergence is negligible and insignificant. At February 1996 it was equal to 17.3 per cent and by November 2006 it was equal to 16 per cent. This is particularly disappointing given the gains women have made in terms of qualifications and participation in higher education and the fact that many are delaying and foregoing childbirth for the sake of their careers.

Minister Hockey is also adamant that AWAs are good for women suggesting that non-managerial employees on AWAs earn 94% more than employees covered by an award. The federal government is, however, prone to using a different definition of ‘non-managerial’ than is conventionally understood by the community and used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. When the ABS definition of non-managerial workers is employed the most recently available data show that, relative to women on awards, women on AWAs earn 22% more (not 94% more as claimed). Women do best under collective bargaining. Relative to the award the wage advantage for women covered by a collective agreement is 38%. Many women in the low paid sector are, however, neither covered by an AWA or a formal collective agreement. The typical worker is either covered by an award or has an informal verbal agreement.

The research on women’s experience with WorkChoices in low paid sectors and industries shows that the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to industrial relations reform may not be in the interest of all and that there is a need for closer monitoring of the effects. Hockey would do well to listen to the voices of these women (as documented in the report), particularly given recent polls which point to a government out of touch with reality.

Alison Preston
Professor and co-Director, WiSER
Women in Social and Economic Research
Curtin University of Technology