TY  - JOUR
AB  - If equal pay for equal work were already the rule, it would be difficult to adduce reasoned arguments for paying different remuneration for people doing the same work alongside one another, once family responsibilities had been covered by social security legislation. In the Civil Service and among employers and owners of businesses and professional practices it is the rule, but for employees a different system applies. It is over eighty years since the TUC first demanded equal pay for equal work and now that the Equal Pay Act of 1970 is on the statute book, it might be thought that the battle is won. But the Act will slumber until the end of 1975 unless information reaching him can spur the Minister to invoke his powers under the Act and require earlier but partial implementation. The subject, like the poor, continues to be with us; many women will find that when the Act does become fully operative they will gain nothing, for equal pay as a concept is based on comparability within an organisation (or associated ones) and at least 700 000 are estimated to be unaffected by it. Also, one reason why other women who could do similar work to that of more highly paid male colleagues may be unable to claim equal pay is because they lack the necessary training; so they will continue to be under‐used as far as their potentialities are concerned. The poor record of training of women is a severe indictment of the multi‐million pound ITB system and of the costly (and equally paid) Department of Employment which purports to supervise it.
VL  - 5
IS  - 1
SN  - 0019-7858
DO  - 10.1108/eb003282
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1108/eb003282
AU  - BROADHURST ALISON
PY  - 1973
Y1  - 1973/01/01
TI  - EQUAL PAY: The discriminating Act
T2  - Industrial and Commercial Training
PB  - MCB UP Ltd
SP  - 35
EP  - 38
Y2  - 2024/04/19
ER  -