Women will bear the brunt of public spending cuts

That's the harsh reality no politician wants to admit...

By Brendan Barber

Male unemployment has climbed faster than female unemployment by a factor of nearly two to one during the recession. This is not a new phenomenon. In the recession of the early 1990s, unemployment amongst men increased at five times the rate of women’s unemployment.

But it would wrong to conclude from this that women’s jobs are inherently more recession proof. When you look at industries that have been hit hard, such as retail, manufacturing and financial services, women are just as likely to lose their jobs as men.

Women have fared comparatively well because about four in ten work in public sector jobs, compared with fewer than two in ten men. So far, the number of public sector job losses has been relatively small. But swingeing and immediate spending cuts, as advocated by employer groups and some politicians, would create a second wave of rising unemployment – with women in the public sector likely to bear the brunt.

The TUC is deeply concerned about the impact of spending cuts on women’s jobs and working conditions. Our recent report – Women and the Recession: One Year On – found that the areas of the UK with a high proportion of women working in the public sector, such as Wales and the North East, also have higher than average male unemployment. Spending cuts could therefore leave many families in these areas with both parents out of work.

Many women choose the public sector because it usually offers secure work with a decent wage and a good work-life balance. It is particularly popular for women who want to work part-time or flexibly to balance their work with caring responsibilities.

The public sector is also practically the only area where women can expect to get a decent income in retirement. Women currently retire on a third less income than men - and it would be far worse were it not for the public sector’s excellent track record in providing pensions for low-paid staff.

The private sector could learn a lot from the public sector about making workplaces more female-friendly. It is no coincidence that the gender pay gap is smaller in the public sector – pay systems are more transparent and there are more opportunities for good quality part-time work. So much so, in fact, that women who work part-time in the public sector earn practically the same as women who work full-time in the private sector, albeit still far less than male average earnings.

Many of the conditions that make the public sector an attractive place to work for women are now under threat. Early and deep public spending cuts, as well as across the board pay freezes, will have a dramatic impact.

The recession has put public services – from job centres to social services and colleges – under greater strain. Combining this with job losses will intensify working practices and cut the opportunities for family-friendly work. Women in the public sector already give away £5 billion a year in unpaid overtime, something that is likely to increase. Any moves to reduce public sector pensions will also increase female pensioner poverty.

The scale and timing of any public spending cuts is set to be a key battleground during the election. But while politicians are eager to talk tough on cuts they rarely admit what the real impact will be. This week’s pre-election Budget is a case in point.

The Budget contains some genuinely good news for women. The 2.2 per cent increase in the national minimum wage amounts to an extra £4 in the weekly pay packet of someone working full-time on the minimum wage. As nearly two thirds of the one million people benefiting from the increase will be female, this is a real boost to low income families.

There were also some welcome changes to the tax and benefits system, such as the child element of the Child Tax Credit increasing by £4 a week for children under two from 2012, and the Working Tax Credit childcare element being simplified for short claims. This will be particularly useful for parents with older children who don’t need childcare during term time, but do during the school holidays. And extra support for young unemployed people will reduce the risks of long-term joblessness, for both women and men.

But hanging over all of these positives is the £11 billion of “efficiency savings” that the Government has spelled out for Whitehall departments. The TUC isn’t opposed to genuine savings and won’t lament a reduction in the vast number of consultants that permeate the public sector. But efficiency savings should occur through good management – “efficiencies” that are driven by the need to reduce the deficit are likely to be cuts by another name.

The TUC has real fears that the efficiency savings announced in the Budget will increase people’s workloads and cost many their jobs. The idea that you can reduce back office staff without any impact on frontline public servants doesn’t wash with us.

Taking the axe to public spending and implementing across the board cuts to pay and pensions will undoubtedly lead to job losses, less family income and more women retiring in poverty. That’s the harsh reality that no politician wants to admit.

To find out more about this article, visit: http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/womenandrecessiononeyearon.pdf

27 March 2010

Brendan Barber. TUC General Secretary,