When will there be equal pay for equal work

One of the things I did not know about the history of employment in TT is that 24 years before emancipation, the UK government outlawed the transatlantic commerce in slavery.

This was a factor in the diminishing of profits from the owning and exploitation of slaves in the Caribbean. Plantation owners simply could no longer buy or import slaves to work for them.

After emancipation, the wages to be paid to male and female workers, “the freed slaves,” were decided throughout the empire by the UK colonial office, and the rate for males was established as being higher than that for females.

That discrepancy has remained standard over subsequent generations. Even when TT ratified the idle convention on establishing equal pay for work of equal value and legislation supported it, the distinction between remuneration for genders remained.

The reality in small, start-up businesses is that labour laws are skipped over, and no one notices because no one checks.

The characteristic of emancipation that draws most attention, recently, is the matter of reparation that provided financial support for slave owners, rather than the people who were enslaved.

According to a report recently published in the UK, it appears that the money paid to the “property owners” was then used by most of them for investment into another trade or to pay off debts, which had accrued because of the loss of profits. The reparation sums given to slave owners, whether they be individuals or companies (mainly from the UK, but not exclusively) were substantial and provided the basis of the commercial economies that are still with us up to today. Only one per cent of individuals were actually eligible for reparation. The high numbers of those who faced bankruptcy because they no longer had the income earned from the work of slaves in their reparation grant were able to pay off their bank loans. And as usual, the banks profited most.

A query came in last week on the basis of which the Equal Opportunity Commission was founded, when it came to the matter of gender remuneration: is there a law or policy that allows salaries or wages paid to men to be rated higher than those paid to women? Because in many family-run, or small business enterprises, higher wages are being paid to men than to women for doing the same job, or jobs which have the same face value.

The International Labour Organization's Equal Remuneration Convention (No 100), which is generally accepted as the gold standard in this regard, has been ratified by TT and put into national policy. It states that rates of remuneration (“the ordinary, basic or minimum wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable directly or indirectly, whether in cash or in kind, by the employer to the worker”) must be established without discrimination based on sex.

This convention means that the Industrial Court cannot register any collective agreement listing different wage rates for male and female workers just on the basis of their gender. Even where there is no industrial agreement, this should apply throughout the country in all commercial and industrial organisations.

Back a few generations, in the plantation days, the government still set rates for plantation workers, just as it had after emancipation. These regulations were published and used the terms “male wages and female wages for agricultural workers.” Those were not wages (or conditions) negotiated by trade unions, or workers’ representatives on behalf of the workers. They were set by government edict.

Now, at least in theory, wage rates are set in accordance with the actual value of the work performed. And the growing question in our tightened economic times and among single-parent-females is: “Who determines the value?”

Power is a frightening thing. If the force that decides on the value regards masculine effort, or muscular strength, as paramount, jobs can be – and I am told in some industries, in 2023, masculine input is still considered more valuable than feminine input, even if this input has nothing to do with physical strength – simply divided logically between those suitable for men and those suitable for women. And the former are paid more highly than the latter. Not for any other reason — just because it always has been the case.

The only work that has a uniquely intrinsic gender value is the production of workers through a lengthy process called pregnancy. Without that, robots, computers and machines – all non-gendered – produce the same result that gendered workers do. But they don’t require sick leave, vacation, grievance handling, or collective bargaining, and therefore, are increasingly valued in a capitalistic society.

While wage rates being paid to male workers are frequently higher than those of female workers, there are whole categories of work done to maintain and preserve the lives of children, elderly people, those who are disabled (mentally or physically), and those in need of medical support. These roles are predominantly filled by women.

Going forward, it has been established that these categories of employment remain important and irreplaceable by technology.