IT IS officially woeful. From 1975 to 2005, the gender pay gap shrunk at an average of 0.36% a year. “The improvement is nothing like we thought it would be,” says Philippa Hall, director of the Labour Department’s pay and employment equity unit, given women’s shorter absences from the workforce, paid maternity leave and the increasing number of women graduates.

The latest Census figures underline this imbalance. The median income for women was $19,100 compared with $31,500 for men. Three-quarters of top earners — those making over $70,000 a year — were men, while 63% of those earning less than $5,000 were women.

The only advancement for women: their personal income grew by 32% from the 2001 Census, while men’s income only increased by 27% over the same period.

Kiwi women earn 86 cents for every dollar of men’s average hourly earnings.

Part of the pay gap can be attributed to women working fewer paid hours each week, which, over a working life, adds up to fewer years. For a woman who starts work aged 20, this is estimated to add up to a $400,000 loss.

Time out of the workforce means missing out on better-paid jobs and higher salaries over your working life, says Hall. The mummy-track comes at a huge cost to women, much greater than the loss of wages from working fewer hours.

There is also the ‘discrimination gap’ — quarter of the gender gap that can’t be attributed to family responsibilities. Women graduates in the US are paid 5% less than their counterparts when starting out, rising to 12% less within ten years.

Underpaid women cost the economy as well. The government sees a window of opportunity in a tight labour market to push pay equity. It wants a better return on its huge investment in women’s education and qualifications. Better pay for women would ease labour shortages and increase economic activity.

Pay equity reviews are underway covering half of the 40,000-strong public service. Reviews for some 55,000 employees in public health and 76,000 in public education are to follow. A total of 18% of women in the workforce will have the equity once-over.

Hall, an Australian, is a firm believer in employees running these reviews (with unions and employers) as they come to understand and care about pay equity. In her homeland, the gender gap has been tackled through legislation and case law.

Here the pay equity review underway in the public sector is broader than the equal pay/equal value emphasis that compares nurses with policemen, although there is a job evaluation system down the track.

“The reviews ask why there are differences between men and women and the reasons that might be. Are there differences in knowledge, skill and responsibility?

“It is looking for the most important issues, as you can’t tackle everything,” says Hall. “Some may find considerable unhappiness in the experiences of women, so will look at the culture in that organisation. Other departments may find low numbers of women managers compared to other departments.”

The department or enterprise defines the problem and agrees on it. It may have been obvious, but the review moves it up in priority for the organisation.

“It is a far more considered approach than previously,” says Pauline Winter, chair of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Women, and director of the Pacific Business Trust.

Her committee is asking private sector HR practitioners to take up the pay equity review work book. “There are compelling good reasons to change,” says Winter, as many women are paid below their performance. It is bad for morale and for productivity.

“Businesses are extremely receptive. They know pay differences are likely to have an impact on the retention of staff.”

Women in female-dominated occupations with low pay and low status are proving the major hurdle. Nearly half of women are in jobs where 70% or more of employees are other women.

A shift away from female-dominated occupations would increase momentum, as it has overseas. In Britain, library, social work and call centre work are now mixed occupations. But the nature of men’s work has to change as well.


EXTREME MAKEOVER
Clothes maketh the man, they say, but it’s women who can get special help with dressing for job interviews. By Diana Burns

FLEUR MCKEAN was a young mother of three and on a benefit when she got her first job interview — for a position with fast food outlet Dunkin’ Donuts.

“I was terrified!” she says. “I had nothing to wear.”

Her case manager at Work and Income made an appointment for her with the Auckland branch of Dress for Success, a free service that provides job-appropriate clothes for women who are entering or returning to the workforce.

“I was thrilled to think I might get some new clothes. I was living on about $300 a week and my children were aged two to seven, so there was no spare money for clothing for me. I’d become a mum at 16, so I’d never been to a job interview.”

McKean says the women helping out at Dress for Success gave her frank but gentle advice on what to wear. They outfitted her with free trousers, a shirt, jacket, shoes and even a handbag.

“I felt like a million dollars.”

But did it work?

“Well, I didn’t get the job at Dunkin’ Donuts, but shortly after that, I got a job at WINZ instead. I wore the same clothes for that interview, so they did work!”

As a case manager working with women on the domestic purposes benefit (DPB), McKean sent all her clients to Dress for Success, and saw what a difference it made to their self-esteem.

“Some of them had never owned a skirt before. One bigger woman confessed she thought she’d never get one to fit and look good. She was so delighted.”

When you’re a mother with no money, having someone help you with clothes, grooming and makeup is better than going to a luxury spa, says McKean.

Like that apocryphal chap who liked the product so much he bought the company, McKean, 33, has just joined the board of Dress for Success.

“Who better to be on the board than someone who has been through it? I love seeing other women’s faces transform, and I know how it feels.”

A not-for-profit organisation, Dress for Success began in 1997 in New York. There are five affiliates in New Zealand, each operating separately.

“We’re keen to have a national body here so we can collaborate on things like sponsorship,” says Robyn Radomski, vice-president in Wellington. The organisation is funded through corporate and individual cash donations.

Although dressing women appropriately to both get and keep a job is the primary objective, Dress for Success also provides mentoring on career development through the Professional Women’s Group, and advice on grooming and makeup.

It can be difficult to tell a woman that brushing her hair and personal hygiene are an important start, but Radomski says the volunteers go through training so they know how to convey such messages.

“Humour is important, and we try to be gentle. The last thing we want to do is destroy a woman’s confidence!”

Many people have no idea of what to wear to an interview, she says. Fashion crimes like too much cleavage, the midriff muffin and dressing as if you are going to a nightclub are common mistakes.
So is Dress for Success a bit like What Not to Wear, the TV series featuring the infamous Trinny and Susannah?

“No way!” says Radomski. “But neither is it like working for Glassons. We don’t let people rifle through the racks. We get information in advance about each woman’s size and background, and try to prepare clothing we think would be suitable.”

Women come by referral only from government, training or social agencies. The organisation gets a wide range of people, and depends on donated clothing.

“We’re always on the lookout for good clothing, especially in larger sizes,” says Radomski.

She denies it’s about middle-class women bestowing charity on those less fortunate. It’s simply a hand up, she says.

“People may not realise how important that first impression is, or, if they do, have lost their confidence or have no way of dressing appropriately. They probably have spent years just in T-shirts and track pants.”

The need for Dress for Success is growing, she believes, with one New Zealand family in five existing either on a benefit or low wages.

“There’s a lot of hardship out there, and a lot of people who can’t afford to buy nice clothing. What we do does make a difference. If you’ve been out of the workforce for some time, lack of confidence and presentation skills might be what stops you joining it.”

If you want to make a donation call 0900 Dress for Success (0900 37377)