of shift nd the
ut men week. exists ajority
rial and
tective infortu- ately
h. I call
s report
relevant nisation
ught we
ongress buncil în
the cur- that the xtended. either. It ned this family; it
assuming y impor- en. Shift
man to help with
for whom
Itended. I
Their pro- of them. d for the Categories busly can- nket form is it, is not
amination. rebut the ve legisla- stablish. If ed by this the Thir-
entury.
Union of dministra- uld like to ities Com- e argument men should
men even tion of their we cannot ent histori- ovement of ts members members to contained in Should be
doing is preparing a detailed report on how to extend the legislation to men. For example, in the quarry and mining industries, given the higher ratio of back injuries, would it not be very helpful if we could reduce the maximum compact weight for those concerned? We should also be establishing the right for greater trade union involvement in the application for the let us be fair exemptions where anomalies can also be dealt with. The EOC proposals are really an employers' charter for extending anti-social working hours at the expense of working women's health, for their own greater profits.
P
The Equal Opportunities Commission main- tains that women want the abolition of the legislation. Well, I do not know who they have been speaking to because all the women I know feel the same way as I do. We do not need to have added another burden of having to cope with shift working and longer hours together with the responsibility of caring for our husbands and families. But I can tell you what we do want and what we do need. We need proper child care facilities, greater educa- tion facilities, and better opportunities at work. That is what we need not to be used as management pawns to undermine our brothers' capability of improving their stan- dard of living. If these proposals are accepted, that is what management will do they will use the women on the shift work as cheap labour and undermine our brothers. I ask you to support this motion and oppose the propos- als.
Ms. A. Coote(National Union of Journalists): My union supports this resolution wholeheart- edly, but we also believe that the campaign to defend protective legislation is in a sense con- ducted from the wrong angle. We know very well why it is that women need this kind of special provision. It is because most women who go out to work also have families and that requires that they also do a great deal of work in the home. Women with children are full- time parents even though they go out to work full time. That is why they need to be protected from being forced by employers to work long and unsocid hours. However, it is rarely, if ever, considered by trade unionists that that extra burden that women carry could be halved overnight if all you fot all you men out there - took a genuinely equal share in the work and responsibilities at home. I do not just mean helping. I mean doing half. I wonder how many men at this Congress have had to make special arrangements for the care of their chil- dren because they are away from home. I do not suppose there are many. But it would be a fair guess that practically every female dele-
gate who has children has had to make some kind of special provision.
Bill Keys said earlier that it was up to women to increase the level of their participa- tion in trade unions, and if we did not then really it was our fault for not doing more. But let me suggest to you that if men bore the responsibility that women do and left women as free for trade union activities as men are now, we might find there were 120 men here and the rest were women. That would be ter- rific. The protective laws take account of the inequalities that exist, and that is why my union supports this motion. Of course we need nurseries; we need better maternity provision; much more provision for child care as well. But that is never going to be enough really to change the status quo. I think it is now per- fectly clear that one of the most fundamental causes of inequality at work is certainly not the protective laws, and it is not the fault of the Equal Pay Act either; it is this continuing inequality at home. This is a crucial issue, not a personal one, not a trivial one. I think it is just as relevant to trade unions as the fight for better pay and better working conditions.
What we need is a radical shift in the way trade unionists see themselves because up to now it has been assumed that there are two different types: there are the workers, who are basically the men, and then there are the women workers who have extra respon- sibilities and come under social pressures and have a dual role to play and need to be pro- tected by protective laws. We are all workers and we all have homes and families, and men who have children are parents every bit as much as women are, and they have the same responsibilities. This should be the starting point for every union in formulating all its policies. Men will say. "I can't help out much at home" because they have to work long hours. If that is the case, let us use the strength of the trade union Movement to change that. They will say, “It is more sensible for me to go. out to work full time and for my wife to work just part time because I can earn a better wage". If that is the case, then we use the strength of the trade union Movement to change that and bring about real equality of pay for women. We should reach the point when all parents need to be protected by pro- tective laws not women but parents. Until we get the right perspective on home work as well as employment, we must remember that every man who goes out to work, who has a working wife and does not help her — does not do half the work at home is restricting her very seriously not only as a worker but as a trade unionist as well.
Miss R. Stephen (Association of Professional,
479
Page 165Page 166