Transcript presentation

Collective care: recent collective
actions in paid and unpaid care
work in New Zealand
Dr Katherine Ravenswood
Overview
• New Zealand in 1 slide
• Paid work and unpaid care work in NZ (undervalued)
• Recent legal action to address wages and care work
• Equal Pay Act 1972 – case in residential aged care
• Averted action for ‘inbetween client travel time’ in
home/community care
• New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act (No 2)
2013).
• How effective has the action been?
• Conclusions - Why/Why not effective?
A brief history of New Zealand...
Unpaid care work....
• Women make up 62% of all unpaid carers in NZ (Grimmond,
2014).
• The approx 431 649 carers’ contribution is estimated to be
worth in the range of $7.3 bn (3.4% of GDP) to $17.6 bn
(8.1% of GDP) (Grimmond, 2013).
• Career income penalty of approx 10% (Grimmond, 2013)
• BUT family care work is undervalued in policy eg:
• Paid Parental leave less than the minimum wage
(Ravenswood, 2008);
• Sole parent support work requirements and penalties
for non-compliance;
• Prior to 2014, no government payments for family carers
of disabled adult children – payments for non-family
carer.
Paid care work...
A typical aged care worker...
(Ravenswood, Douglas &
Teo, 2015)
• 45 years +
• Main earner in her family
• Earns $15 per hour or less
• Feels that she has the skills
she needs for her job
• Loves the job itself
• Feeling less valued
Equal Pay Act 1972
We therefore reject the
argument that the sole
mischief the Act was intended
to address was different rates
paid by the same employer to
males and females for the
same work. We similarly
reject the argument that in a
predominantly female
workforce what was intended
was a solely internal
comparison limited to the
wage rates and policies of the
employer concerned (clause
103, Terranova Homes & Care
Limited vs Service and Food
Workers Union and Kristine
Bartlett, 2014).
In-between client
travel time –
Minimum Wage Act
1983
• Time travelling between
clients should be paid.
• Legal action averted.
• Resulted in tri-partite
discussions and
agreement.
• Also resulted in ongoing
discussions on the
regularizing of work.
Family Carers Action –
Human Rights Act 1993
• Group of families –
discrimination on the basis of
family status.
• Ministry of Health argued that
parental care of children was
natural and part of social
contract.
• Judge ruled non-payment was
discriminatory, and that care
for adult disabled children went
‘social contract.
• Resulted in the New Zealand
Public Health and Disability
Amendment Act (No 2) 2013..
How effective are these actions?
Conclusions
• Most effective (so far) in changing funding and payments is
under the Minimum Wage Act.
• What is the difference?
• It is not claiming discrimination and is less ‘gendered’ –
technicality about wages rather than drawing attention
to care work.
• Different industry and stakeholders/actors.
• Least effective, perhaps the Family carers case:
• punitive – prevents further action on the basis of
discrimination..
• Has transgressed norms of care and families.
• Contrary also to current government policy on care work
in the home and paid work.
• Stigma of disability.