This is interesting:
Harriet Harman, the women’s minister, said: “There is a major fear about women being targeted by their employers during the downturn. This is unlawful.” Another senior minister said women could be set back for “a generation”.
The latest official employment statistics show that the number of women in full-time work fell by 53,000 in the last quarter, compared with a fall of 36,000 for men. It means women are losing full-time jobs at twice the rate of men, because men significantly outnumber women in the workplace.
Interesting for, in the US, the opposite is happening.
According to today\’s BLS report (Table A-1, Household Data), the U.S. economy lost 2.956 million jobs in the last year (Dec. 2007 to Dec. 2008). Further analysis shows that 82% of the job losses (2.413 million) were jobs held by males, and 18% of the jobs losses (460,000) were jobs held by females (see top chart above). Of the 806,000 decline in December employment (household data), 91% of the job losses were male jobs (730,000), compared to a 76,000 job loss for females (9% of total).
So, what might be behind this?
There is mounting alarm over recent figures suggesting twice as many women are being made redundant as men in some parts of the country.
Ministers fear some of those being laid off are victims of discrimination by bosses seeking to avoid costs associated with the introduction of longer maternity leave and new flexible working rights.
Gee, ya think?
Just to run through the logic for the dim (or Labour Ministers, but I repeat myself). If you make a certain type of labour more expensive to employ then employers will economise on that type of labour. In a country which does not weigh itself down with such maternity, flexible time and equalities legislation women are losing jobs at a slower rate than men. In a country that does weigh itself down with such legislation women are losing jobs faster than men.
So, such legislation should be repealed in order to aid the women who are victims of it, no?