Translation of a Kein Kommentar! podcast by Herbert Auinger, November 9, 2021

Work – a feminist perspective?!

The issue of unpaid labor

Radio Orange is currently running a series of broadcasts titled “Work – a feminist perspective.” I do not want to take a feminist perspective on women’s work, but an objective and dispassionate one. What do I mean by “not feminist”? There is a feminist saying that you still hear in connection with the world of work: “If men had children, then the world of work would be organized completely differently, in a totally child-friendly way, or one oriented to the needs of child care.” A fact check shows: This is wrong; this thought has nothing to do with economics or a market economy. An example of this is contrary information from at least 10 years ago in “profil” magazine, January 2012:

“The number of fathers on baby leave is on the rise. Quite a few employers react insulted when men abandon them for a child – and demote the fathers. ... Many men who go on maternity leave are bullied, demoted or dismissed as quickly as possible. An absurd version of equality that no one wanted – when fathers are treated just as badly as mothers.”

Why should the demand for equality or equal rights automatically lead to an improvement? Either is feasible through a downwards leveling, the main thing being “equally”! There is apparently “still” the widespread view that the modern working world is geared to pleasing men and that reservations about taking on childcare responsibilities have nothing to do with the vast requirements of companies, but are due to a completely baseless misogyny. The opposite is true: since men might still not be giving birth to children but are taking on roles previously reserved for mothers, the work world has not been reorganized in a child-friendly way, but rather it discriminates against fathers as well as mothers. A more recent example:

Kurier June 24, 2020: “This is not how Xaver Maier (name changed by the editors) imagined his parental part-time leave one year after the birth of his child: In the company, the team leader only received humiliating tasks, colleagues put up a dirty laundry rack next to his office. And supervisors made bets on how long the father would last. Because he continued to be harassed even after returning from part-time, Maier quit and sued for discrimination. Recently, the final judgment in his favor was handed down. The company must pay him 3,000 euros in damages. The company wanted to set a deterrent example for part-time fathers,” explains Sabine Wagner-Steinrigl, an equal opportunity lawyer who handled the case. The boss didn’t want a man to stay at home with the child.” Funny – or is it? The man may have collected a few kreuzer in damages, but he left the company long ago.

In “profil” (February 20, 2017), Elfriede Hammerl once profiled a couple (called Adam and Eve) who, after giving birth, fell back into so-called older role models, with the woman combining childcare and part-time work. The resigned conclusion:

“Since Adam and Eve had children, however, everything was completely different anyway, because Eve now works part-time. This (part-time work) doesn’t quite correspond to her original plan, which envisaged that she would continue her career as a mother, but reality sometimes deviates from what one imagines in youthful cluelessness. In theory, it seemed simple enough: Adam and she would share household and childcare duties fairly and coordinate their careers equally. But it didn't work out that way. The work world is not set up for fifty-fifty. ‘For me, it’s all or nothing,’ said Adam, who didn’t even ask his company for other solutions because he knew they wouldn’t exist. And then, after all, he was drawing the higher salary. To jeopardize it would have been crazy.”

Let’s note again that in this sketch taken from real life the company certainly didn’t roll out a red carpet for the father as soon as he as a man wanted to take care of his child and work part-time to do it. It’s a little strange: the “working world is not set up for fifty-fifty” – the young people only noticed this part of “reality” after the child had already been born? Until then the young mother thought she could “continue her career” as if nothing had happened? Then the man only came to the conclusion that he would prefer not to ask for part-time work at the company because he might have “jeopardized” their income by doing so?

The arrangement described is not a relapse into outdated, outmoded patterns, but a pragmatic, practical way of dealing with the situation. As soon as the child is born, the two need more money than before, and they also need it more reliably – quitting their jobs, trusting that they will be able to find something better in a month or two, is no longer an option. And thirdly, it’s a situation in which earning money has become more difficult because, after maternity leave, childcare is on hand, i.e. one of the two parents has a limited earning capacity. The partner who earns more money then just stays on the job, the other earns a “supplementary” income, as it is called, if at all ... There are no mysterious traditional mechanisms or social psychological origins at work. The brutal mistake of the two is the idea that they could choose how they wanted to organize gainful employment and childcare, that they could divide it up according to their needs. But there is a third party called “the economy” that doesn’t give a damn about these needs.

The “gender pay gap” is really a “mothers’ pay gap”

In general: Why do women earn less than men? (In this context, it is always averages that are meant.) Well, it’s because of so-called “unpaid work,” which is primarily child care. If women take on a large part of these non-monetarily remunerated services, it shouldn’t be too surprising that “unpaid work” doesn’t earn any money.

This “unpaid work” is expressed in someone’s so-called “employment history.” Mothers go on “maternity leave” and then work part-time at least significantly more often than fathers – and also more often than women without childcare responsibilities. Because of these interruptions and because of part-time work – compared to men and non-mothers – they get stuck in the lower and worse paid levels of the company hierarchy; they are not as mobile and flexible as their other colleagues, which affects their career; and they are promoted less often. All these aspects impact pay according to the usual pay calculations. In the relevant literature, the first child is considered a decisive turning point and a career interruption in subsequently reducing women’s average lifetime incomes. In a book (Johanna Dürrholz, “Die K-Frage”; K stands for child) a German author devotes herself to this question, and in a review the Kurier writes:

“Women in particular procrastinate (about having children) because inequality still prevails in the labor market. ‘Mothers are systematically discriminated against, hired less often, promoted later or not at all’ ... 93 percent of German fathers worked full-time in 2019, but only 34 percent of mothers. ‘I then ask myself: do I also want to be a part-time wife?’ Because the compatibility of children and career is ‘a lie’, the working world does not adapt enough to young families.” (Kurier March 16, 2021)

All true, but then again not at all. Because on the labor market it is not inequality, but equality that prevails – and that is why mothers, generally meaning: people with care-giving responsibilities, are systematically discriminated against. Mothers are not as mobile and flexible, they are not as easily usable as people without such off-the-job duties, hence the lamented “discrimination.” This is a consequence of equal treatment. Of course, the compatibility of children and career is a lie; after all, a woman or a man can’t work and take care of a child at the same time. The only strange thing about the presentation is the accusation that the economy should actually try to do right by young families – why should it? Just because this obvious “lie” about “compatibility” has been repeated tirelessly for several decades now? To summarize:

“The overwhelming share of the gender pay gap is 'attributable to income losses resulting from maternity leave and, above all, from the predominance of part-time work' by mothers. If those factors related to parenthood are factored out, the pay gap shrinks to about two percent, according to the report. Agenda Austria economist Monika Köppl-Turyna therefore speaks of a 'motherhood gap' instead of a gender pay gap.” (Die Standard March 8, 2020) “If you delve into the matter, you’ll find few examples where two people equal in education, experience and personality end up in the same industry and the same job, and one earns more only because he's a man.” So: same industry, same career, roughly the same pay. “Very often, however, there is evidence that equally qualified women don’t get a job because business owners fear that pregnancy will soon mean they'll be gone for some time. Strictly speaking, this is illegal, but it is rarely provable.” (Die Standard March 5-6, 2016)

The gender pay gap is in fact a mothers’ pay gap. But to speak plainly, namely that motherhood significantly hinders money earning, and that mothers are therefore exposed to a higher risk of poverty, at the latest in retirement or after a divorce – this is just not compatible with the socially desired and propagated cult of motherhood, and probably why it is not addressed by feminists.

“A woman gets 19.3 percent less only because she is a woman!”

The public and feminists discuss “unpaid work,” but when it comes to analyzing the lower average incomes of women, everyone wants to imagine that this is due to injustices within the sphere of paid work!

“A woman gets 19.3 percent less for doing the same work as a man. Simply because she’s a woman. That’s called the gender pay gap.” (kontrast.at October 22, 2020)

Other reports currently speak of 13.6 percent; there are always different figures. The emphasis here is explicitly on “the same work is paid less, by this percent” – and beyond that, the calculation becomes nonsense. First, there is a trivial error of interpretation in that average figures are regarded as individual general cases. Second, the scenario is economically nonsensical; it has nothing to do with a market economy. If it really were the case that a woman does the same work, but 16 or 19 percent cheaper – then the more expensive men would be replaced by cheaper women in no time at all, or reference to the cheaper women would be used to depress wages. Cost-cutting is a permanent effort in capitalism; more expensive older workers are replaced by cheaper younger workers, qualified workers are replaced by unqualified workers, permanent workers are replaced by temporary workers or atypical workers, by relocating to cheaper foreign countries, etc. etc. It would be economically stupid to pay men more just for the sake of it if the work can be done more cheaply. The economically normal cost-cutting calculation also explains a phenomenon that is often lamented in this context: As soon as women conquer real or so-called formerly male professions, wages in these fields fall. Of course, this is how economics works: as soon as more workers are available, wages fall because men lose a former competitive advantage!

The demand for wages for housework

As is well known, this demand is also old, having arisen in the last century. By the way, in some accounts the "unpaid work" thing reads a bit obliquely, as if women were virtually conscripted to do a job but without getting paid. That, by the way, would be contrary to human rights; forced labor is prohibited in this country. Any refusal to work without pay would be completely okay in this capitalist system, completely in conformity with the system: No money, no fun, no money, no music ... I allow myself to think further about the complaint about unpaid work, and the result is – just stop! Let it be! Knock it off! Why didn’t the complainants think of this long ago?

So what’s the catch? Well, it’s clear and well known that the so-called “unpaid work” does not take place in a company, but within the family – and women nowadays are not forced to marry or have children, so they get involved in this of their own free will and maybe with some nonsense about love and the happiness of motherhood. But since no woman believes that she will earn money through pregnancy and motherhood and children, the reference to “unpaid” fizzles out rather inconsequentially with the persons concerned – pay was after all not expected anyway! (Surrogate motherhood is expressly excluded here).

But be that as it may, if this has been lamented for decades, why doesn’t a lawyer finally get down to business and write a model contract that sets down a list of services and the corresponding compensation? There are a few things to consider: Since children, as the beneficiaries of a lot of unpaid work, are generally unable to pay, who has to pay? Under the law, it is the child’s father who is liable to pay maintenance – and this is, by the way, a functional equivalent to a wage for housework anyway; there is, after all, the obligation to pay maintenance on the part of the parent who is able to work full time because someone else is taking care of the children and the household. In this case, the “wage” or, to be more specific, the compensation for housework are benefits in kind in the form of room and board which is paid by the breadwinner. This could probably be regulated more precisely by drawing up a list so that the housework is charged for in detail, so that the partner doing the housework would also get money and could then pay the rent and the living costs on a pro rata basis – this would not change the standard of living. However, there is also a high probability that this would break up the marriage – wanting to make money from each other means wanting to make money against each other, which would mean arguments about wages and performances.

Or the state could conclude a contract with the mother on certain services for the child and corresponding remuneration. At least with regard to the well-known figure of the single mother, this would presumably be a step forward – no longer dependent on the child’s father’s ability and willingness to pay; and after all, Burgenland now employs family caregivers, why not mothers too?! A small bourgeois dogma, however, diametrically opposes this: the modern state categorically insists that the family is the nucleus of the state, which means that children are a private matter and the costs and efforts are privatized – and it is only because the perfectly normal poverty makes childcare basically unaffordable for large parts of the population that there are various subsidies for “our families” as a stopgap measure.

Family as a place of “unpaid work”: Spouses are legally obligated to support each other because the legislator sees the members of the best of all possible worlds as a collection of creatures in need of help, support or care who are suffering from all kinds of problems – and the state issues a clear mandate: They should take care of each other, no matter where these problems come from, what they consist of, and whether either of the two has the means suitable to remedy them. The family is the state-organized and orchestrated instrumentalization of love for the purpose of coping with that tasks that people in capitalism are constantly confronted with. The burdens on families under the conditions of pandemic or lockdowns are an object lesson on what the state intends for the family. All kinds of damages are caused from the outside world: The state partly restricts people from earning money because social contacts are prevented, which means that incomes are partly reduced while living costs continue to rise. In addition, there are the additional burdens that schools are closed and children are not supervised for at least half the day – and families are left to to pay the price, to cope with it and to compensate for the damage! That’s exactly what is intended, and if the “family” had not already existed, the state would probably have had to invent it: Damaged individuals are supposed to turn to each other and compensate each other for all the worries that they are not the cause of and that they can’t ever really get rid of. In the framework of the state, the family is part of the welfare state; it is the functionalization of affection for welfare state services for those who are not yet able to take care of themselves – children – or who can no longer – burnt out – take care of themselves, although nowadays it is recognized that families can hardly cover the costs of the number of people in need of care.