Another Sexist Law On The Way
Currently before Select Committee is the latest piece of gender discriminatory legislation that will undoubtedly be passed by the feminist government. The Bill is unashamedly gender specific and sexist. For example:
13C Employee may raise pay equity claim
An employee of an employer, or a group of employees who perform the same, or substantially similar, work for an employer, may raise a pay equity claim if that employee or group of employees considers that the claim is arguable.
A pay equity claim is arguable if—
the claim relates to work that is predominantly performed by female employees; and
it is arguable that the work is currently undervalued or has historically been undervalued.
I.e., the legislation is gender-specific and intended only to benefit women. Its provisions are not available to the many men who believe their low-paid role is or has historically been undervalued.
So it’s the old story led from the top: Gender discrimination is fine so long as it favours women and/or disadvantages men. The fact that gender discrimination is illegal under our Bill of Rights can be conveniently ignored.
There are only 4 days left for submissions on this bill which close on 28 November. We will attempt to get one in and encourage others likewise.
We already have a number of gender-specific laws all of which discriminate against men. Here comes another one. We can expect a lot more of them under a government led by a party that practised pro-female gender discrimination even in its selection of candidates.
Equal pay bill seeks a fairer go for working women
Published date: 27 Sep 2018
The Equal Pay Amendment Bill aims to make it easier for women to make and resolve a pay equity claim.
What is this bill about?
The bill seeks to eliminate and prevent discrimination on the basis of sex by amending the Equal Pay Act 1972. It would introduce a new process for pay equity claims.
Instead of having to resort to court action for pay equity, women would be able to use a simpler and more accessible process available through the Employment Relations Act 2000.
The bill was introduced on the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage by Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Iain Lees-Galloway MP and Acting Minister for Women, Eugenie Sage MP.
What does this bill mean?
“The bill establishes a just and practical framework to address pay discrimination in female-dominated occupations. This is an important step in improving fairness in the workplace for women,” Eugenie Sage MP said.
Iain Lees-Galloway MP said, “it’s essential that the pay equity framework is accessible to workers, familiar to businesses and easy to manage for both.”
“By using New Zealand’s existing bargaining framework, employers and workers can negotiate in good faith, with access to mediation and resolution services readily available.”
The bill would retain the Equal Pay Act 1972, but also bring into law the recommendations of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles.
The Employment Relations Authority could ultimately be asked to decide on claims. It would be able to order up to six years back pay.
Who might this bill affect?
• Women in the workplace, especially those in female-dominated industries
FYI here is our submission:
The Ministry of Men’s Affairs is an NGO and community group involving members active in social services and men’s groups.
1. We understand that gender discrimination is illegal under the NZ Bill Of Rights Act 1990 although there is an exception for measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of unlawful discrimination.
2. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bill’) is gender specific and gender discriminatory. It states:
13C Employee may raise pay equity claim
(1) An employee of an employer, or a group of employees who perform the same, or substantially similar, work for an employer, may raise a pay equity claim if that employee or group of employees considers that the claim is arguable.
(2) A pay equity claim is arguable if—
(a) the claim relates to work that is predominantly performed by female employees; and
(b) it is arguable that the work is currently undervalued or has historically been undervalued.
3. It’s clear that the Bill will not be available to help men who work in roles predominantly performed by men that are or have been undervalued. Numerous such jobs exist, most of which involve physical labour that almost inevitably causes gradual chronic body damage and are associated with high rates of workplace deaths and serious injuries. Many of those jobs are crucial for maintaining the infrastructure of the country’s lifestyle, so involve a high level of responsibility. Many of those jobs, as is the case for most work, require a high level of practice, skill and knowledge to manage competently and productively, even though the employment may not depend on formal qualifications. That is no different from the predominantly female jobs targetted by the Bill; for example the rest home workers who stimulated the Bill. Yet those male-dominated jobs often pay minimum wages. The reasons for the low pay in those jobs involve historical discrimination at least as much as may be the case for those predominantly female jobs that are low paid. For predominantly male jobs the discrimination was based on social class structures and the control of resources and wealth afforded by class.
4. There already exists in New Zealand a number of laws that are gender specific, all of which discriminate against men. ‘Male Assaults Female’, ‘Infanticide’, ‘Sexual Violation by Rape’, The Care of Children Act 2004 section 17(1) are all egregious examples. It is irresponsible for a government to add even more gender-specific laws that discriminate against men, especially when the aims of that law can equally be met by avoiding gender specificity.
5. We do not accept that the Bill can be justified on the basis of the exception in the Bill of Rights Act 1990 regarding measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination. There is no need for the Bill to be gender-specific or exclusionary of male-dominated work roles. If a male-dominated type of work has been underpaid due to historical discrimination then those workers are equally entitled, on any ethical reasoning, to have the same provisions in law to address the matter.
6. There is significant cost in passing further gender-specific laws that needs to be weighed against any expected social good arising from such laws.
6.1 One cost is the confused role-modelling provided by such laws. If we want the population to become less gender discriminatory then demonstrating gender discrimination is counter productive. The attitudes and values demonstrated by those in power will have huge influence on the population.
6.2 Another cost is the damage done to the group that is discriminated against in any new law. Treating unfairly low-paid men as less worthy than unfairly low-paid women will extend male denigration that has been tolerated now for a number of decades. This is likely to increase men’s sense of alienation and being unvalued, resulting in more male suicides that occur already 3 times more often than female suicides as well as more addiction, social disconnection, behaviour careless of self and membership of anti-social gangs, all much more prevalent for men already.
6.3 Given the costs of gender-specific, gender-discriminatory law, such law can only be justified when the expected goods arising from it are crucial and when there is no alternative to gender-specific wording and intent. Neither of those criteria are met for the Bill. There is no reason apart from an intention to discriminate against men why the Bill’s provisions can’t apply for male and female work roles alike.
Signed on behalf of the Ministry of Men’s Affairs, a community group
I dont like this MOMA,,,, I find it hard to actually believe they are driving so hard to make change so indiscriminately discriminative. It is getting SICK now…these submissions are not readily enough visable to the people of the democratic system that is our own….disregarded the people are too busy juggling the cost of living and technologies have us where they wants us, blind and blind sided is what we are.
NZEI President Lynda Stuart said workers in female-dominated industries were no longer willing to put up with being paid less than those working in comparable male-dominated occupations with similar skills and responsibilities.
“All political parties have acknowledged this injustice and we congratulate the Labour-led Government on taking genuine action to make it easier to negotiate a pay equity claim,” she said.
I, for the very most part, applaud your submission and am appalled at the wanton sexism in that proposed legislation. If enacted it will further cause considerable harm to men.
Is there anything else I (we) can do to help oppose that aspect of the legislation?
If it were me, I’d leave out the word “egregious”. It’s not that those pieces of existing legislation aren’t egregious, it’s just that if you want the submission to have impact, it needs to focus on that legislation, not other laws that will be beyond the purview of the committee.
I’d also leave out “apart from an intention to discriminate against men”. I doubt, that in the minds of the proposed bill’s promoters, that is their intention. They, arguably, are more concerned with fighting discrimination against women than discriminating against men. They are no doubt ill-informed and lack insight into unintended consequences, but that does not make them intentionally discriminatory.
The suggested changes above are about optics. You need to be seen more as as a credible submitter than a disgruntled malcontent. I’m very keen for the discriminatory parts of the proposed legislation to not go through and that’s my tuppence worth on what might achieve that goal.
Thanks again for all your efforts.
Every piece of legislation is within the purview of a committee.
The bill should have been tested for inconsistencies during drafting and reported on by the Attorney General as to its consistency or inconsistency with the Bill of Rights.
Making the point that this bill is adding to the long list of discrimitory legislation is probably one of the essential aspects of any (of our) submissions given that the audience includes the ever vigilant media who pride themselves as guardians of the discriminated and defenders of liberty.
Why are the Nats not saying anything??. they will comment on Santa Claus but silent on this???
@6 It’s not unusual for female centered law to have an undebated bipartisan passage through parliament.
Or alternatively a pathetically unauthentic token debate recorded in Hansard, if you really want to go and see for yourself.
Some are mentioned here but I think most commenters gave up recording the monotonous regularity.
MeToo – I called it The House of the Bitch but that seemed to upset some of the snowflakes.
7,,, it stinkkkkkkkkksss,,,, it seems we have no capacity for change, who we gunna call???, where is Winston?, I hardly see the men talkin now, every spokesperson is a woman, and now the parliamentary subject of the week is bloody bullying?