Gender Discrimination in Training: An Australian Perspective
| Published date | 01 December 1994 |
| Author | Paul W. Miller |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1994.tb01050.x |
| Date | 01 December 1994 |
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
32:4
Dec
1994
0007-1080
$3.00
Gender Discrimination in Training:
An Australian Perspective
Paul
W.
Miller
Abstract
Analysis
of
the Australian
How Workers Get Their Training
survey indicates
considerable male-female differentials in the incidence and duration
of
training. For external training, which women can undertake without the
sanction
of
the firm, the gender effect
is
that women undertake more training
than men, other things being the same. However, for in-house training, which
requires the sanction
of
thefirm, the gender effect
is
that women undertake less
training than men, other things being the same. One interpretation
of
this
is
that the gender effect reflects both the discriminatory attitudes held by firms
and the greater propensity to train among women, with the relative weights
varying across types
of
training according to the discretion that women have in
determining the training outcome.
1.
Introduction
Studies
of
gender discrimination in wages and occupational attainment have
typically been based on the human capital model. This model attempts to
relate differences in labour market outcomes to differences in characteristics
of
the work-force, such as educational attainment and volume
of
job-related
training. Differences in these characteristics are assumed to be non-
discriminatory.
This assumption has been challenged in recent studies. Green
(1991: 296), for example, attempts to ‘estimate a measure
of
market
discrimination in access to training analogous to conventional measures
of
market discrimination in pay’. Based on data from the 1985 Labour Force
Survey, the detailed statistical analyses undertaken for the
UK
labour
market revealed that younger women are discriminated against in access to
training.
Greenhalgh and Stewart (1987), usingdata for 1975, Booth (1991), on the
basis
of
analysis
of
data
for
1987, and Green (1993), using data for 1987, also
report that females are less likely to receive training than males in the
UK
labour market.’ According to Booth’s (1991) findings, male-female
Paul Miller
is
in the Department
of
Economics, University
of
Western Australia, Perth.
540
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
differences in this regard are particularly pronounced among the young and
the better-educated. However, Greenhalgh and Mavrotas (1993) show that
the pattern of training in the
UK
labour market has changed in recent years,
with the incidence
of
training among females exceeding that among males by
1989.
In this paper advantage is taken
of
a rich set of data on the distribution
of
training opportunities in the Australian labour market to expand upon some
of
the analyses presented by Green (1991, 1993). In particular, concern is
usually expressed in ‘discrimination’ studies as to whether the component
of
the differential in the labour market measure isolated is actually attributable
to demand-side discrimination
or
supply-side choice (see e.g. Booth 1993).
Models of several types of training, distinguished by the degree
of
control
the worker has over the training outcome, are presented to provide insight
into this issue.
This study is structured as follows. Section 2 presents a brief overview
of
the institutional and legal background on gender discrimination in
Australia, provides a review of the training debate, and introduces the
How
Workers
Get
Their Training
data set used in the empirical analysis.2 Farber’s
(1990) modification
of
the decomposition technique developed by Blinder
(1973) is used in Section
3
to
determine the discriminatory component of the
gender training differential. A summary and conclusion are presented in
Section 4.
2.
Training in the Australian labour market: issues and data
Gender differences in the Australian labour market, and the changes to
these differences, are derived in large part from the institutional environ-
ment. A brief overview is presented below with regard
to
the equal pay
decisions
of
1969 and 1972, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the
Affirmative Action Act 1986.
Issues
(a) The equal pay decisions
Institutional wage determination in Australia has a history
of
discrimination
against women. In the early 1900s, the female wage was generally set at 54
per cent
of
the male rate
of
pay (as females were presumed not to be
breadwinners!). The labour shortages during the Second World War
resulted in higher wages for women, with many women receiving between 90
and
100
per cent
of
the male rate. This gain was short-lived, however, and
the 1950s saw the reaffirmation
of
wage discrimination against women, with
the discount for being a female reduced to
75
per cent
of
the male rate
of
pay.
This situation prevailed until 1969, when the predecessor to the Industrial
Relations Commission adopted the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work.
This ruling meant that by 1972 the gender
of
the worker was not to be an
To continue reading
Request your trial