The Guardian view on equal pay: it’s time it happened | Editorial

The danger of using milestones as a metaphor is that we may imagine we are on a steady journey. Progress is rarely so predictable. It can take much longer than one might imagine to get from one marker to the next. More than four decades after the Equal Pay Act came into force, women are still earning 18.1% less than men across full- and part-time work. The gap between full-time employees is 9.4%. On current trends it will take another 24 years to close the gap, according to PwC; others believe it will take much longer. Analysis has suggested that if every other relevant factor is controlled for – from race to hours worked to seniority – women earn 5.07% less than men for like-for-like work. Part of the decrease in recent years is, depressingly, down to more young men moving into low-paid work. Economics make up one part of the picture for women. Political power constitutes another. In 1975, when the act came into force, Margaret Thatcher became the first female leader of a major British party. Now the UK has its second female prime minister and many more women in senior positions across major institutions; one could soon be running the Metropolitan police. Several run or lead local authorities. Yet this week’s “northern powerhouse” conference includes only 13 women among the 98 speakers, and organisers did not bother to include any of them in the press release listing 15 influential speakers – despite the region’s many influential women.

There is a temptation to present the question of female representation as a distraction from the real business of supporting the lowest-paid. But this is a false choice. The point is simply that no woman, be she a childcare assistant or a chief executive, should receive less pay or respect because of her gender. Representation does not guarantee better treatment, but women are unlikely to get it without women at the table. What ties these issues is the question of what and whom we value. We downplay the complex or demanding nature of work primarily done by women. We judge a man more authoritative or qualified than a female candidate with the same CV. We choose to put some leaders on a stage, but not others. Urging women to speak up, lean in and push for higher salaries is of limited usefulness when they are more likely than men to be punished for the request.

Ensuring like-for-like work is paid fairly remains a challenge. A new pay-reporting requirement for larger companies may help to highlight the problem when it takes effect next year, but will not solve it. More helpful would be scrapping the hefty fees deterring workers from taking their cases to tribunals. Segregation by sector is also an issue: women make up just 14.4% of individuals working in science, technology, engineering and maths-related professions in the UK, yet as many as 70% of those with Stem qualifications are not working in relevant industries. And even professions largely populated by women are often dominated by men at the top. The women and equalities committee produced some sensible proposals for tackling the pay gap last year, and is rightly disappointed that the government has not taken them on board. Without such changes it cannot meet its commitment to close the gap within two decades. They include establishing ways to drive up productivity and wages in female-dominated sectors such as care, and helping women back to work after having children. Not every woman wants to be in paid full-time employment, but nor does every man. Financial compensation and status are important indicators of what we value, but they are not the only things. Ensuring equal pay would make it easier to share the unpaid labour, including caring for children and ailing parents. Families need real choices about their work and home lives. That is why the committee’s recommendations also included extending paid paternity leave. The government should reconsider. These measures would be good for women, and good for men too.