THE interesting thing about Harriet Harman's plan to force businesses to carry out a gender pay audit is not so much what it is likely to achieve in terms of closing the pay gap, but the way in which the reaction to it has exposed the entrenched misogyny in the British workforce, thus proving, fairly conclusively, just how much action of some sort is needed.
Ever since the Equalities Minister confirmed her new Bill would make it possible, finally, for female employees to discover just how much less than their male counterparts they earn, she has been subjected to the peculiar brand of personal invective
reserved for women politicians who have the temerity to stick up for other women.
Consequently, though the pay gap she seeks to close is the largest in the EU, Harman is not a crusader against injustice, she is "Harriet the Harridan", "Harriet the man-hater" or, oh-so hilariously, "Harriet Harperson"; and the policy she endorses is not a sincere attempt to force employers to confront discrimination, but the vengeful ravings of a psychotic ball-breaker.
Further "proof" of Harman's fanatical feminism is her proposal that – when faced with several equally-qualified candidates – employers should be allowed (not forced, mark you, allowed) to choose the female one in order to diversify their workplace – a move which is being presented as positive discrimination.
Now, I have to be honest here and admit that, while I'm all for gender pay audits in principle, I'm not sure how they would work in practice. Would they allow for the fact that some women earn less, not because they are victims of institutionalised sexism, but because they've taken time out to look after their children? Or would they – like school league tables – present a set of bland statistics which take no account of individual circumstances?
What I am sure of, however, is that most of the arguments I have seen against them are based, not on an in-depth analysis of their likely efficacy, but on exactly the kind of knee-jerk chauvinism that caused the imbalance in the first place.
In their desperation to protect the status quo, some male commentators – and the establishment that props up their inflated wages – are using everything in their arsenal – from their belief in women's innate lack of ruthless ambition, to the recession – to portray these audits as a sop to women's laziness and an unnecessary burden on already struggling companies.
If it's not Rod Liddle harping on about women's reproductive systems and accusing Harman of "stamping her little feet", it's business leaders complaining that compiling gender pay audits will push smaller firms into the abyss. This despite the fact the legislation only applies to companies which employ more than 250 staff, and even they are only required to compare the average hourly rate of their male and female employees.
More irrationally still, there are those who oppose gender pay audits on the grounds that they will result in the tribunal system being overwhelmed by equal pay claims. Isn't that a bit like saying better policing will result in the courts being overwhelmed by prosecutions? If the tribunal system can't cope, then expand it or learn to prioritise. Personally, I would rather hearings were dealing with tangible discrimination in the form of unequal pay, than with malcontents claiming six-figure sums because their boss once called them "sweetie".
It's not just the men either. In a frankly disgraceful article, Edwina "I'm no feminist" Currie dismisses Harman's plans as "ludicrous". "Has (Harman] noticed, in her little Westminster cocoon, how many small companies, strangled by this Government's obsession with red tape, are going bust; how many ordinary men and women are losing their jobs; how many individual bankruptcies have been declared; how many homes repossessed? And she's wittering on about equality?" Currie stresses the word "equality" as if it were some kind of self-indulgent frippery – like buying a pair of Jimmy Choos when you can't afford to pay the gas bill – rather than a basic tenet of a civilised society.
Even the Equality and Human Rights Commission has taken a wishy-washy stance, pushing for an amnesty to give companies time to settle equal pay claims before the publication of the gender pay audits becomes compulsory in 2013. But the issue has been on the political agenda since the 1960s when the machinists at the Ford plant in Dagenham went on strike after discovering they were paid 15% less than male workers for stitching Cortinas.
Yet the pay gap now stands at 17% for full-time workers. If companies haven't addressed the problem by now – or fail to do so within the next four years – it's because they lack the will; and if they continue to reward their male employees more highly than their female ones, they deserve everything they get.
I think it's very strange that at a time when MPs are seen as self-serving and on the gravy train, Harman should come under fire for having a political agenda; that, when they are so often denounced for breaking promises, she should be lambasted for sticking to her pre-election principles.
As far as the gender pay audits themselves are concerned, I think they're worth a try. If all they do is to show there is no problem at a particular workplace, then at least they'll help knock the chips off some female workers' shoulders. But I think we all know they're far more likely to highlight the way many capable women continue to be treated as pampered little wives out working for pin money. And we don't want to wait another four decades to get that sorted.
