Targets were set by the EU at the Lisbon Summit in 2000 for 60 per cent female employment in all member States by 2010. At 33.7 per cent female employment, Malta lags far behind. Do you think the problem is really one of culture?
In this study Maltese women are clearly saying that conditions can make a big difference to them and that under the right conditions they would consider returning to the labour market. Therefore culture is just one aspect among many and one needs to be careful not to blame only culture for the lack of female participation in the labour market. We have to strive to ensure that the right conditions are in place to permit more women to return to remuneratory work. Policy makers, employers, unions, the woman’s partner, her family as well as the Church in Malta all play an important role in bringing about the necessary culture change and, more importantly, for the right conditions to prevail in the family, at the place of work and in Maltese society.
What were the most striking findings of your study?
Our findings were based on a random sample of 768 inactive women between the ages of 19 and 64 who are neither working, nor seeking employment nor studying. 44.8 per cent of these inactive women said they would like to work under certain conditions. This was perhaps the most striking discovery, and flies in the face of the theory that amorphous culture is to blame for low female employment, or that those women don’t really want to work. These findings clearly indicate women do not want to work under standard conditions – that is they did not want to fit in the Ideal-Worker Template. The ideal worker is often equated with a male worker who can give his utmost to work without visibly demonstrating commitment at the place of work to the rearing of children and home making with all the burdens this brings with it. In Malta, as in many other countries, women still carry the bulk of this burden and therefore it was not surprising that many said they wanted to work part-time, or would work if the job offers “family-friendly” hours and good working conditions This echoes findings in the last Labour Force Survey, which cited “family responsibilities” as the most common reason why females are inactive.
This clearly shows that women still put a lot of value on caring and do not want to work to the detriment of their children and family. While this is a very positive trait, it seems that only women are making the necessary arrangements and adjustments to ensure that their work does not conflict with their responsibilities as mothers. Few employers deliberate on how to become more father-friendly and therefore it is important to stress that there is a down side to this and, as long as caring is seen as the main responsibility of women, they will continue to be seen as the deviant at the place of work and men the norm.
What are the implications of atypical work for women?
Atypical work is work which is not considered typical, that is working daily from 9 to 5. Those who opt to work part-time or reduced hours fall in this category and are often perceived to be less committed to their work by employers than those who work full time and have a steady and continuous working pattern. Atypical work is often associated with the loss of income and status as well as professional marginalisation in certain professions. It often means fewer opportunities for promotion and training and thus men may be reluctant to work atypically.
Women often resort to atypical work in their bid to fulfil their role as mothers and earners. But is it fair that mothers continue to be expected to make sacrifices that no-one else is asked to make? Is it fair that mothers make all the necessary adjustments to their career and work and little is said about the equal responsibility of the father to ensure that work does not conflict with his role as carer and nurturer? How many men do you hear complaining and asking for family friendly conditions for themselves in order to enable them to cope better with their roles as fathers and workers?
I am not suggesting in any way that women’s equality must occur by having them adapt to the male norm (ideal worker template) but vice versa, that is that men take a more serious approach to their role as fathers with responsibilities for both the care and the economic support of their children and family.
The study also shows that it must be worth their while for women to work. In the event that they may choose to work atypically, how is their income affected by the NI and taxation system currently in place in Malta?
Seventy per cent of workers for whom part-time work is a main source of income are actually women. Once part-timers enter the labour market officially, they are obliged to pay National Insurance contributions as any other worker does. However it must be noted that the minimum contribution that one can pay is 10 per cent of the minimum wage, which is Lm5.33. Women working part-time may earn less than the minimum wage but they still have to pay the minimum contribution as though they are earning at least the minimum wage. This requirement works against those persons who earn the least and women form the largest part of this category of workers. Besides, in households where the second earner, normally the woman, makes less than Lm1,200 a year, this is automatically added to the main earner’s income. This often means that income tax payments for the lower earner are actually taxed at a higher rate since they are added on to the main income and are not taxed separately. Both the NI and the taxation system as it is now, may be a disincentive for low earners and may mean that women are reluctant to enter the formal labour market with such disincentives working against them.
Nevertheless the trend is towards greater female participation in work isn’t it?
Yes, the latest Labour Force Survey shows that the majority of women (57 per cent) aged between 25 and 34 are actually in paid employment. This figure is not far from the Lisbon target set at 60 per cent for 2010. In our study we found that the younger the women were the more keen they were to work. Two out of three women aged between 25-34 who took part in the study are willing to work while this goes down to just one in five for women in the 55-64 age bracket. I believe this is an irreversible trend and if women manage to remain in the labour market during the prime of their childbearing and child-rearing years, they are more likely to remain there once their children grow older.
What are the possible implications for fertility, of such a high proportion of women of childbearing age being in employment or wanting to work?
In most countries it has now become
virtually impossible to raise a middle class family on a single income and, with bills to be paid at the end of the month, women and men have to face some tough decisions as to the number of children they can afford. However, contrary to common perception, it has been found that the higher the gender equality the higher the fertility scores. It is interesting to note that in countries with a high female employment rate (like Denmark and Sweden) the fertility rates are in fact higher than in some Mediterranean countries like Italy and Spain. A recent study by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2004) looks at the family size ideals of different women across Europe. The data for Malta indicates that the ideal number of children that women under 35 would like is 1.85, the lowest after Austria (1.75) and at par with Romania.
The dynamics between employment and fertility are complex and it is not easy to arrive at clear conclusions. However this wish for Maltese women to have so few children should make us stop and think. Could it be that women of childbearing age are being put off from having more children because of the heavy double burden they are still expected to carry almost single handed without finding the necessary supporting structures like affordable, accessible, quality childcare? How are inflexible work structures impacting on the decisions women are taking? If women (and men) are not permitted to work flexible hours they may have few options but to comply with the rigid male norms and reduce the number of births in order to have a continuous working pattern and to work like them. Therefore if women are so hard pressed to perform all their roles without parallel support from their partner, the State and their employers, they may resort to the only thing they have control over, which is their fertility.
Are men changing in their attitudes to family as fast as women?
No. Women’s lives have changed drastically but men are changing at a much slower pace. Research all over the world shows that women are still doing at least twice or three times the amount of non-remunerative work as men are doing. Women have changed: they study more, achieve better results than boys, but once they become mothers they still get the heaviest load in their back-pack to carry for life. It’s really a distinction between mothers and others rather than women and men in the labour market and when men become fathers this is likely to enhance their status at work as it does not impact negatively when it comes to promotion or training opportunities. Pregnancy and motherhood are still perceived to be a liability in the eyes of employers.
What needs to be done?
First of all we need to reduce disincentives for low wage earners, mainly women, by updating NI and tax legislation to suit current trends. I think a case can be made for positive discrimination in taxation in order to encourage more women to regulate their employment or to permit more women to re-enter the job market. There should be a campaign for a more equitable share of non-remunerative work and we should bring up our girls and boys to strive for equality in their relationships. As the “sleeping partners” of the couple, employers should offer more flexible working solutions, not only to women but also to men in order to enable them to take up more responsibilities as fathers and as partners in an equitable relationship. Finally, in a country like Malta where we put such high value on children, I believe that accessible, affordable, quality childcare must become a reality sooner rather than later.