I move:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should take immediate steps to introduce proposals for legislation which will ensure the application to all wageearners of the principle that women shall be paid the same rates of remuneration as men for work of equal value.
This motion deals with the problem which, particularly in recent years, has engaged the attention of many Parliaments and many Governments. It recognises that at present there is a discrimination against women in the matter of remuneration, even remuneration for work which is indistinguishable from that performed by men at a higher rate of remuneration.
The discrimination against women comes down to us from the time when women were regarded as socially, culturally and industrially inferior to men. Because of that fact those who employed women paid them a scale of pay substantially lower than what was paid in the case of men. In fact, any study of the introduction of women to industry in the modern sense will show that the impetus behind the introduction of women was very largely the same as the impetus behind the introduction of child labour, namely, to produce operatives, mechanics or machine minders who could be utilised to work at a rate of wages substantially lower than the rate paid to men.
In other words, women generally were used as cheap labour to be exploited for the benefit of those who employed them.
It seems difficult to-day to imagine that these concepts operated to determine the employment of human beings but it is only necessary to reflect for a few moments to realise the restrictions which were generally imposed upon women and to reflect as well on the inferior position in which women stood in relation to the exercise of such a fundamental duty of the modern citizen as the exercise of the franchise.
It is only 34 years ago since women were permitted to vote in this country. It seems incomprehensible to-day that anybody could be found who would deny women such an elementary right of citizenship. Concurrently with the extension of the franchise to women, notable contributions have been made by them in cultural and professional activities, and indeed in a great many other occupations which, up to relatively recent years, were the monopoly of men.
I suppose old prejudices die hard and it is not easy to overcome even the earlier prejudices in respect of the conditions under which women are employed, but it must be borne in mind that women are gradually shaking off the social, industrial and economic shackles which were the distinguishing mark of their place in society less than 50 years ago. Women are now securing wider outlets for their talents and skill, and are seeking wider opportunities to play the part which they are fitted to play in the modern democratic State.
Side by side with that development in respect of the attitude of the State and employers towards women, there has been a general improvement in the standard of living of workers, expressed not merely in the sense of better rates of pay but in improved conditions of employment and a higher standard of social legislation, all of which have done much to provide the worker with a better position in industry and a better position as a citizen in the economic sense. One of the features of that improving code of legislation and of that improvement in the conditions of employment has been a widespread recognition, so far as men are concerned, and also so far as women are concerned, but each being treated separately, of the principle that there ought to be a rate of pay appropriate to a particular job.
At one time, before national wage agreements operated, it was possible to find workers employed on precisely the same class of work being paid varying rates of pay, but, with the introduction of national agreements in the matter of fixing remuneration, there is now, although perhaps on a sex basis, a recognition of the general principle that workers are entitled to be paid what is accepted as the fixed rate for the particular job. That principle, however, does not apply to women vis-a-vis men in determining the standard of remuneration that should be paid for work which is performed equally by men and women. To-day, women still suffer from the handicap that they are women and employers, the State and local authorities still consider it their privilege to pay women substantially less than is paid to men for work of equal value.
I am not concerned in discussing this motion with the rather barren argument that women's place is in the home. This motion is concerned with the physical fact that women work, that they have to work for a living for themselves and to maintain others dependent on them. The motion expresses the view that women should be paid adequately for their work; in other words, they should be paid the same rate of remuneration as men for doing work of precisely the same value. I think it is as unreasonable to deny women the same rate of remuneration for doing work of equal value with men as it would be to suggest that they ought not to-day to exercise the franchise in the same way as men exercise that elementary right of citizenship.
This motion is not a motion which asks that men and women should be paid equally irrespective of the kind of work they do. It simply asks that where a man and a woman do precisely the same class of work, then the woman should be paid the same as the man. In other words, the male rate of remuneration ought to apply to a woman, and she ought not to be paid a lesser rate for doing exactly the same work as a man does. Many countries have already made provision for equal pay for equal work in their Constitutions; others have made provision for a recognition and application of the principle in their legislation; and still others have made provision for it in the labour codes and practices which operate in the countries concerned.
This problem of equal pay for equal work was first made the subject of discussion at the International Labour Office Conference in San Francisco in 1948 and a resolution was then passed asking the International Labour Office to study the problem of equal pay for equal work. That problem was studied in great detail by a committee then appointed and, as a result of the study of the problem by the International Labour Office, the whole question of equal pay as between men and women for work of equal value came up for consideration at the International Labour Office Conference in 1950. It was then decided that the question should be placed on the agenda for the 1951 conference, with a view to the adoption of either a recommendation or a convention providing for the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
The general question was discussed at last year's conference, and, by a majority of 109 votes to 38, the conference adopted a convention favouring the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work. The conference felt it was desirable to supplement the convention by a recommendation to apply to those countries which were not yet ready to go ahead with the application of the principle.
It is interesting to refer to the convention which was adopted by the International Labour Office in 1951 by such a substantial majority. Article 1 provides:—
"For the purposes of this convention, the term ‘equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value' refers to rates of remuneration established without discrimination based on sex."
Article 2 provides:—
"Each member shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote, and, in so far as it is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value. This principle may be applied by means of national laws or regulations, legally established or recognised machinery for wage determination, collective agreements between employers and workers, or a combination of these various means."
Later in Article 4, the convention provides:—
"Each member shall co-operate as appropriate with the employers' and workers' organisations concerned for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this convention."
The recommendation passed at the International Labour Office Conference was:—
"Each member should, subject to the provisions of Article 2 of the convention, apply the following provision and report to the International Labour Office as requested by the governing body concerning the measures taken to give effect thereto: Appropriate action should be taken, after consultation with the workers' organisations concerned or, where such organisations do not exist with the workers concerned, to ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value to all employees of central Government Departments or agencies; and to encourage the application of the principle to employees of State, or provincial or Local Government Departments or agencies, where these have jurisdiction over rates of remuneration."
Finally, the convention provided:—
"Every effort should be made to promote public understanding of the grounds on which it is considered that the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value should be implemented."
I think it is clear from that, having regard to the substantial majority by which the convention and recommendations were passed, that the enlightened countries of the world now accept the principle that men and women should be remunerated equally for work of equal value. The speeches made at the International Labour Office last year on the application of the principle are well worth reading as showing the enlightened outlook of many countries towards this problem I do not want to detain the House by quoting long extracts from the various speeches made by delegates from the different countries represented at last year's International Labour Office Conference but a few quotations would not be inappropriate to a discussion on this motion.
