So it's been revealed that the women have been hardest hit by the recent downturn in unemployment.

Why do you think this has happened?

Are you also aware that the definition of employed is, wait for it; '1 hour per week'!

Now this method has been used by consecutive governments for many years and it's a joke. You can't even employ someone for just 1 hour per week.

No government can change this as the opp would have a field day.

Bussiness leaders are suggesting that real unemployment is more like 16% and, that many people in work are struggling as thier hours continue to be cut.

So, what now?

Are the new IR laws going to make it all better, or worse?

rehctub:"So it's been revealed that the women have been hardest hit by the recent downturn in unemployment."

No, it hasn't. A "study" funded by the National Foundation for Australian Women found that some women are making lifestyle choices which preclude them from working.

As an example, look at this extract from the ABC,s report on The World Today http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/24/2665345.htm?section=australia

"Tasmanian woman Kate Routley recently moved to the small coastal town of Swansea with her partner and two young children.

Ms Routley used to run her own business but now she is staying home to care for her children.

"I would love to go back to work at some stage for lots of reasons - for my own peace of mind and my own ability to be able to get out there and talk to adults," she said.

"But at this stage I have chosen not to go back to work. My children are really young and I realise that they are only this little once and I guess, also living in Swansea I am limited to the work opportunities that are down here.

"It would all be based on minimum wages and once I start paying out childcare and then what I would actually earn, it makes it very unenticing to go back to work." "

In other words, she isn't "hidden unemployed" she's being paid for by her husband (and no doubt the taxpayer) to stay home.

The whole thing is a beat-up designed to justify more money to "women's groups" for political activism. Nothing to see here...

Antiseptic
"In other words, she isn't "hidden unemployed" she's being paid for by her husband (and no doubt the taxpayer) to stay home."

One assumes her husband also wishes his children to be cared for by their mother and the decision was a joint one. Particularly if after taking childcare costs into account, makes the potential wages earned hardly worthwhile.

Children (should) come first in a relationship. Families are a team and the team discusses what they desire in their particular group which might be different to what you would want for your family. My husband's salary is our salary just as my salary is our salary. We are a team not adversaries.

rehctub
The new IR laws have nothing to do with it, it will be the same as it was always even under the Libs. Hidden unemployment is where figures are not kept on the actual number of people seeking work because they are not listed ie. not receiving Newstart or other benefits. A woman who has been at home raising her children and is now seeking work but not receiving Newstart will not be counted in the unemployment figures. This is just one example as is the case where someone who is working one hour a week will not be counted despite seeking longer hours. Howard thought up that little nugget to support his claim that WorkChoices would increase employment which it did not except in the mining sector which would have occurred anyway given the boom.

Both sides of politics play games with unemployment figures - it is naive to think otherwise.

How unsurprising that Antiwomen neglected to include this bit from the article to which he's linked:

<< The report is not about mothers who want to stay at home to care for their children, because those women are not classified as unemployed. >>

He also managed to miss this article, which is on rehctub's topic:

<< Australian women 'underpaid, underemployed'

A new national report has found Australian women are chronically underpaid and underemployed.

The Impact of the Recession on Women report, released by the ACTU, shows women in some sectors earn 31 per cent less than men.

The report also finds more women are opting out of the labour market because of child care and other caring responsibilities. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/24/2664199.htm?site=news

rehctub, I understand that the 1 hour a week nonsense was introduced by the Howard government in order to disguise both unemployment and underemployment. The casualisation of the workforce in recent years has impacted more upon women than men, which results in them working less hours due to inequitable child care and housework arrangements if they have a partner. Less hours worked = less pay = less promotion = less superannuation = underemployment.

Pelican:"One assumes her husband also wishes his children to be cared for by their mother "

Presumably, or he'd not agree to the arrangement. We don't hear anything about him other than that he exists. He certainly isn't given any credit for supporting her while she is not working, presuming he has work himself. Regardless, it doesn't alter my point. She and her young family have moved to a small town, presumably for lifestyle reasons and she has fewer opportunities as well as having family responsibilities.

CJMorgan:"The Impact of the Recession on Women report, released by the ACTU, shows women in some sectors earn 31 per cent less than men. "

Well, hit me with a flower! What a shock! Checkout chicks aren't paid as much as store managers. Who'd a thunk it, eh?

CJMorgan:"neglected to include this bit from the article to which he's linked:"

Which bit, little fella? This one: "The report also finds more women are opting out of the labour market because of child care and other caring responsibilities."?

As I said, they're making lifestyle choices or choosing to prioritise work less highly than other responsibilities. Thanks for pointing that out, little fella. It's always nice when we achieve consensus on something.

CJMorgan:"Less hours worked = less pay = less promotion = less superannuation = underemployment."

Thay have a choice. If work and career are sufficiently important to an individual she will give them priority. Childcare costs affect both members of a couple, not just the woman. If they both work, they have to pay for someone to look after the kids. If one of them doesn't, they have to be supported by the other partner. Each couple will work out a calculation to suit themselves as to which they choose and which partner takes on the carinhg role if they choose to go that way.

The bottom line is that kids cost money. Blaming gender bias for that is simply stupid.

In order to question some of the issues I need to provide a pre-amble, so would ask that it acceptable to provide such in this forum.
As a community Advocate it disturbs me to see a “them and us” trend shown by some who are more fortunate than others.
One issue is the fact of industry lobbying governments towards cheaper labour, using arguments about global economy and level playing fields. We need to be careful going down this path because the result so far has not meant an improvement of living standards for many other countries but a lowering of Australian standards and an ever increasing shortage of employment that ensures the future of Australian workers.
Allowing Australian businesses to move “off-shore” or to be sold off to multi-national corporations, asset stripped and closed has meant the loss of jobs in Australia. The next step has been to lobby governments to allow almost unrestricted importation of goods and services from third world countries at almost slave labour wages. These citizens of these countries have not benefited from an improvement of the market for them. It has only benefited the rich, e.g. shareholders living in other richer countries.
Meanwhile, changes to Industrial Relation laws in Australia has seen a major change from permanent employment to temporary positions created and paid at minimum wage levels. Certainly I would agree that they have been aimed at the female worker but not exclusively.
This new system has created wage and social injustice with an increase in the numbers of some workers being employed as contractors, wearing their own costs of holidays, sick leave, superannuation, etc., resulting in a further reduction of income, frequently below the minimum wage level.
continued:
professori_au