The 28 June 2007.
That was the day my daughter was born.
Before that I cared about equality. I campaigned for equality. But I never did enough.
I do more today. But, I still don’t do enough.
On 30 October 2007, when Esme was just a few months old, she did her first presser. After all I am in PR. It was for the Fawcett Society’s No Pay Day. It’s the day when symbolically women start working the rest of the year for no pay.
She was in the newspapers and on TV with another baby. A baby boy. Our prop was a suitcase with £188,000 of £10 notes (make me believe I hasten to add) to show how much more Sean would earn in his lifetime than Esme would in hers if we don’t do more to address the gender pay gap.
Last year No Pay Day was 9 November, which indicates a progress of sorts.
That’s why I’m here this evening. To see the end of No Pay Day. And I don’t believe simply forcing large companies to publish pay data will do it.
I usually object to speaking at conferences or sitting on panels where women are under-represented, so I’m somewhat relieved I’m in this place tonight as the token male.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos on Friday, the new Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau said: “We shouldn’t be afraid to use the word feminist. Men and women should use it to describe themselves whenever they want.”
I’m a feminist.
The gender pay gap isn’t something that only hurts women.
It sabotages society. It curtails companies. It encumbers economies.
And to be selfish for a moment. It diminishes me. It diminishes men. Men don’t achieve what they do solely because of their brilliance.
Men don’t earn what they earn because we’re worth it.
We earn more because we are men.
It’s myth to believe we’ve got here on our own. We haven’t. We’ve benefited from positive discrimination. We’ve been benefiting for years. It’s time to redress the balance.
We all owe a debt of thanks to Rose Boland, Eileen Pullen, Vera Sime, Gwen Davis, and Sheila Douglass. The Dagenham sewing machinists at the Ford Motor Company walked out when they were informed their jobs were regraded in Category C (less skilled production jobs), instead of Category B (more skilled production jobs), and that they would be paid 15% less than the B rate received by men.
Partially as a result of the strike led by these brave women in Dagenham the Equal Pay Act was given Royal Assent on the 29th May 1970. It didn’t come into force until 29 December 1975. The act only covered the same work.
In 1975 a EU directive was introduced that covered work of equal value.
You don’t need to be on the board to lead change.
Direct action by Dagenham women led to real change.
So it should be job done. Sorted. In the 70s when I was still younger than Esme is now.
But it isn’t is it? Because legislation alone won’t solve the problem. Not in five years, not in 10 years, not in 30 years.
Legislation is tough on inequality, but we need to be tough on the causes of inequality.
We won’t win this fight with dry reports.
We’ll win it up here and in here.
Last week I had lunch with my friend Tim Johns, the former global VP of corporate communications at Unilever. He told me there is no gender pay gap. And he was right.
When eager young women and men leave school, college or university we don’t see the young men instantly earning 15% more than the women. That comes later.
The reality is that the gender pay gap isn’t deliberate. This isn’t the Ford Motor Company in Dagenham in the 1970s. There isn’t a smoke filled boardroom where unscrupulous bosses are plotting how to save money by paying women less.
What we have is a leaky pipe. We’re haemorrhaging talent.
To be tough on inequality we’ve got to be tough on the reasons we’re losing the best and the brightest.
The reason that despite equal pay legislation we still don’t have parity is cultural. Society has largely been shaped around the needs of men.
From childcare to housework to caring for elderly parents. Too much of the burden still falls on women.
Despite improvements in paternity leave rights it is still women who experience the biggest career break for maternity leave. At least today that’s considered by most to be normal and acceptable. How many men do we see taking paternity leave of that length? Even if financially they were able to how many of their colleagues would consider that to be acceptable or normal?
If we are to tackle the gender pay gap we need equality in the workplace, at home and in society.
And what about our attitudes? Can we all say we are above reproach?
When I was an employer I had experiences where I wasn’t up to the challenge.
When I was doing annual reviews and a male employee asks for a pay rise, which is more than he’s worth. But I know he could walk tomorrow and get another job.
And then a female employee asks for a smaller pay rise than I was considering giving her.
There’s not enough money in the kitty to give him want he wanted and for me to give her what I wanted to. But I can afford to give him what he wants and her what she wants.
What’s the right thing to do? I’ll leave you to ponder that one.
The Equal Pay Act of 1970 has been repealed and incorporated into the 2010 Equality Act. The government is simply enacting a section of this act that requires large employers to publish pay data.
But I believe we need a new equal pay act.
Equal pay law is based on the fact that if you’re not paid fairly you can do something about it.
What we need is for there to be collective responsibility to do something about it. There should be an onus on companies not just to avoid unequal pay, but to have an action plan to eliminate it.
Just publishing pay data is a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem. As Sarah has pointed out it will be too easy for companies to obscure the data and come up with excuses.
Big employers publishing pay data doesn’t even tackle the millions of people who don’t work for those large organisations. The sharing economy and growth of self-employment could make it easier for companies to conceal pay disparities and even absolve themselves of responsibility. After all how can the earnings of a self-employed contractor with several sources of income be their fault?
Publishing pay data should be part of how companies and organise do their annual reporting. Something that can easily be incorporated into an integrated report that looks into the drivers of the company’s success rather than just its balance sheet. We need to see it in context. We need to see what is being done about it.
Equality is just as important as sustainability.
The CIPR definition of PR is that PR is about reputation. The result of what you do, what you say and what others say about you.
It’s our responsibility as PR professionals to help our employer and clients do the right thing. Simply publishing pay data isn’t doing the right thing. It’s a distraction if it’s not coupled with real action to not just reduce the gender pay gap, but eliminate it.
So when Sarah quotes Madeleine Albright about that special place in hell for women who will not support other women I disagree with Madeleine.
I want there to be a place in that hell for men who don’t get that it’s just as much up to us to fix this problem. Until we have true equality we as men have failed as our success is because of generations of positive discrimination in our favour.
Esme didn’t need Rey to say “Don’t hold my hand”. She’s already her own girl. We’ve got to fight this fight as equals.
But I want Esme to be facing new challenges when she starts work, because we’ve got a responsibility for solving this one before she enters the workplace.
So I don’t agree that requiring large firms to publish pay data will end the gender pay gap in a generation. And neither should you because only by working together by the strength of our common endeavour can we end it.
I ask you to vote against the motion.
### PLEASE CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY ####
This is the original text of my speech at a Debating Group debate held on 25 January 2016 in the House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster in the United Kingdom. It was delivered mainly without reference to notes so will differ slightly from the speech delivered on the evening.
The motion debated was “Requiring large firms to publish pay data will end the gender pay gap in a generation”.
I spoke against the motion arguing that publishing data is not enough.
It was roundly defeated with only three or four people voting for it.
You can read a full report of the debate on the Debating Group website and on the CIPR Influence website.
You can read Mary Whenman’s speech proposing the motion and Sarah Pinch’s speech opposing the motion on the Women in PR website.
