Sex discrimination and non-random sampling in the Australian labour market

Historically a significant gap between male and female wages has existed in the Australian labour market. Indeed this wage differential was institutionalised in the 1912 arbitration decision which determined that the basic female wage would be set at between 54 and 66 per cent of the male wage. More recently however, the 1969 and 1972 Equal Pay Cases determined that male/female wage relativities should be based upon the premise of equal pay for work of equal value. It is important to note that the mere observation that average wages differ between males and females is not sine qua non evidence of sex discrimination. Economists restrict the definition of wage discrimination to cases where two distinct groups receive different average remuneration for reasons unrelated to differences in productivity characteristics. This paper extends previous studies of wage discrimination in Australia (Chapman and Mulvey, 1986; Haig, 1982) by correcting the estimated male/female wage differential for the existence of non-random sampling. Previous Australian estimates of male/female human capital basedwage specifications together with estimates of the corresponding wage differential all suffer from a failure to address this issue. If the sample of females observed to be working does not represent a random sample then the estimates of the male/female wage differential will be both biased and inconsistent.

Sex discrimination and occupational segregation in the Australian labour market

This paper explores the implications of the difference between the occupational distribution for males and females in a joint model determining earnings and occupation. The male/female wage differential is evaluated for a number of broad occupational classifications. This is followed by an evaluation of the role and relative importance of inter-occupational and intra-occupational effects as contributors to the overall male/female wage differential The main conclusion following from the econometric results is that intra-occupational effects dominate Thus, policies which attempt to address the gender wage differential by re-allocation of labour across occupations are unlikely to solve the problem.

Improving the effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act: recommendations from the 2008 Senate Inquiry

One way to characterise the Rudd Government’s first year in office would be by the flurry of inquiries and reports that it commissioned. Three related to gender equality. The Productivity Commission conducted an inquiry into a national paid maternity, paternity and parental leave scheme and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations conducted an inquiry into pay equity. This article is concerned with a third inquiry — the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (the committee) inquiry into the effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) in eliminating discrimination and promoting gender equality. These inquiries were not the Rudd Government’s only activities in relation to sex discrimination and gender equality. It also enacted legislation which removed discrimination against same sex couples from 68 Commonwealth laws and announced its intention to accede to the Optional Protocol to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Advancing gender equality in the Caribbean: legislative approaches to sex discrimination

Includes bibliography

Sex discrimination : employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

"May 1995."

Title IX and sex discrimination : Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities which receive federal financial assistance.

Mode of access: Internet.

Women & housing : a report on sex discrimination in five American cities /

Mode of access: Internet.

Sex discrimination and sex bias in vocational education : a model for positive awareness change /

Final report of a project carried out at Richland Community College, July 1979 to June 1980, and funded by the Research and Development Section of the Dept. of Adult, Vocational, and Technical Education in the Illinois Office of Education.

Sex discrimination : employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

"January 2002 (Revised)."

Occupational Access and Wage Discrimination

This article presents a study on the quantification of the level of occupational access and wage discrimination in Great Britain. The traditional approach to quantifying the level of sex discrimination is to distinguish gender differences in productive characteristics from the unequal treatment of characteristics according to gender. The role of inter- versus intra-occupational effects in determining the magnitude of wage differences between men and women was examined. The econometric results provided estimates of the wage differential in six broad occupational classifications together with an aggregate picture of how important the occupational distribution of females is in explaining their lower average wage. In summary, the results of the study suggest that the vast majority of the male and female wage differential arises from intra-occupation effects. The results provide evidence to suggest that occupational segregation is not a major contributor to the observed male/female wage differential.

Statistics as a basis for discrimination in the insurance business

The European Court of Justice has held that as from 21 December 2012 insurers may no longer charge men and women differently on the basis of scientific evidence that is statistically linked to their sex, effectively prohibiting the use of sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefits for the purposes of insurance and related financial services throughout the European Union. This ruling marks a sharp turn away from the traditional view that insurers should be allowed to apply just about any risk assessment criterion, so long as it is sustained by the findings of actuarial science. The naïveté behind the assumption that insurers’ recourse to statistical data and probabilistic analysis, given their scientific nature, would suffice to keep them out of harm’s way was exposed. In this article I look at the flaws of this assumption and question whether this judicial decision, whilst constituting a most welcome landmark in the pursuit of equality between men and women, has nonetheless gone too far by saying too little on the million dollar question of what separates admissible criteria of differentiation from inadmissible forms of discrimination.

Supporting working parents: findings from the AHRC’s national inquiry into the prevalence of pregnancy and return to work discrimination in the workplace

In July 2014 the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) released the findings of its national review into pregnancy and return to work discrimination in the workplace1 which it conducted following a request from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.2 The review comes 15 years after the commission’s first inquiry into pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.3Federal law has prohibited pregnancy discrimination in the workplace since the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) came into force.4 It is now unlawful in every state and territory.5 Discrimination on the basis of breastfeeding and family or carer’s responsibilities is also prohibited.6 Since 2009 the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) has prohibited workplace discrimination based on pregnancy and family or carer’s responsibilities7 and the Act gives employees additional entitlements relating to their parental and caring responsibilities. Male and female employees who are the primary caregiver for a child are entitled to 12 months unpaid parental leave upon the birth or adoption of the child and can request an additional 12 months leave.8 Upon returning to work, they can request flexible working conditions9 and they are protected from adverse action, such as dismissal, for exercising these rights.10 Yet despite these legal protections, the findings of the national review show that employees continue to experience discrimination during pregnancy, when taking parental leave and upon re-entering the workforce. This note presents the main findings from the surveys and consultations that were held with employers and employees as part of the review and the review’s recommendations for addressing the prevalence of what it terms ‘pregnancy/return to work discrimination’.