Why did direct care workers in aged care only get a 15% wage rise from the crucial work value case being considered by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), when unions and employers were in broad agreement that a rise of 25% was more appropriate? And why did non-direct care workers — such as cooks, who are crucial to high-quality aged care — miss out?
The FWC’s decision on Friday bears close reading (a summary is here), particularly around its thinking on how we’ve failed to remunerate women in feminised industries.
In effect it’s an interim decision — the first of three stages — in which the FWC has decided that, while there’s a lot of detail to be worked out about exactly how big the increase in aged care pay should be across different classifications, there’s no reason why direct care workers should be made to wait while that process, which could take many months, is dragged out — they should get a 15% pay rise as soon as possible. The next stage will be submissions about the timing and phasing in of that pay rise, which will clearly depend on the government’s submission to that process.
Stage three will then be about what additional increase should be ordered beyond 15% for direct care workers. That’s the point at which non-direct care workers’ pay rise will be considered. So the 25% claim, which originated with relevant aged care unions in the wake of the aged care royal commission, is yet to be fully settled.
That split between direct care and non-direct care workers will create a pay gap between workers in the same facilities, and one that may not be closed when the final decision is issued in 2023 (or later).
The FWC’s logic is that all parties agree, and it accepts, that the nature of direct care work has changed and pay needs to reflect that.
It is common ground between the parties that the work undertaken by [registered nurses, enrolled nurses and Certificate III primary care workers] in residential aged care has changed significantly in the past two decades such as to justify an increase in minimum wages for these classifications. We also recognise that there is ample evidence that the needs of those being cared for in their homes have significantly increased in terms of clinical complexity, frailty and cognitive and mental health.
It is less convinced about the nature of non-direct care work, and may make different decisions about different occupations within the non-direct care sub-sector.
Equally important is the FWC’s discussion of why this change in the nature of caring work hasn’t been reflected in wages. Drawing on expert evidence, it concludes that women are the subject of deeply embedded gendered assumptions about the work they do.
Undervaluation occurs when work value is assessed with gender-biased assumptions. The reasons for gender-based undervaluation in Australia include the continuation of occupational segregation, the weaknesses in job and work valuation methods and their implementation, and social norms, gender stereotypes and historical legacies… the skill level of occupations, work or tasks is influenced by subjective notions about gender and gender roles in society. Skills of the job occupant are discounted or overlooked because of gender.
For anyone in aged care, and for most women, there’s a “no shit, Sherlock” element to such findings, but in articulating them the FWC is confirming that the way we value female workers will have to change.
Gender-based undervaluation of work in Australia arises from social norms and cultural assumptions that impact the assessment of work value. These assumptions are impacted by women’s role as parents and carers and undertaking the majority of primary unpaid caring responsibilities. The disproportionate engagement by women in unpaid labour contributes to the invisibility and the under recognition of skills described as creative, nurturing, facilitating or caring skills in paid labour.
The FWC seems to be suggesting that the very language we use to describe these skills leads to their undervaluation and erasure from economic assessment. The commission goes on to suggest that traditional wage-fixing processes haven’t been able to cope with this — that in setting wages the commission and its predecessor bodies have been narrowly focused on traditional wage-fixing principles (from male-dominated sectors, by implication) and unable, or perhaps unwilling, to see skills rendered invisible by social norms.
This prompts the question: to what extent are gendered undervaluation of female work and cultural assumptions about unpaid caring responsibilities preventing women from being properly remunerated in other sectors where women dominate the workforce — childcare, health services, education?
