You are here

Generation Equality - Realising Women's Rights for an Equal Future

Published 08/03/2020

SHARE THIS

Today 8 March is International Women's Day. This year the theme is Generation Equality which focuses on issues facing women across generations. Age Action today launched a briefing paper, Carrying Inequality - How Cumulative Inequality Impacts Older People. 

To understand more about the effects of discrimination and disadvantage across a lifetime, the paper explores current information about a number of the ‘grounds’ of discrimination. We focus on poverty, income, employment, and education as a simple way of introducing the idea of cumulative disadvantage, however this is just a small part of a much more complex picture that includes wider issues such as health, accommodation and transport.

 

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030.

The 17 SDGs are integrated—that is, they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and that development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability.

Equality for people who are older, and for each of us as we age, cannot be achieved without achieving equality for all of us throughout the life course.

 

 

It is clear that overall women are disproportionately impacted by cumulative inequality through their lives. Cumulative inequality is the idea that inequality adds up over the course of people’s lives, and across generations. This means that people with advantages are more likely to get opportunities for further advantages, and people with disadvantages are more likely to be exposed to risks of further disadvantage.

For example, people whose families have more money might get access to ‘better’ schools and then have a better chance of both getting into and paying for third level education, which in turn gives them a better chance to get a well-paid job.

Low socio-economic status - being in low-skilled work or a low-paid situation over the long term – is a particular type of disadvantage that has a large influence on cumulative inequalities in health and income security outcomes in later life.

Cumulative disadvantage is a predictor of inequality in older people, and an area of real concern particularly for women.

When we look at the statistics, it is clear that the odds are tilted towards women being less financially secure by the time they reach retirement age. The difference between men’s and women’s pension income in Ireland is estimated to be between 30-35%.

On average, women earn less money over a lifetime because women almost always take on the role of looking after family by being caregivers for children, parents and others.  This time taken out of the workforce to do the vital unpaid work of raising children or providing care to others can mean women are less able to contribute to their pension savings. For some women, the high cost of childcare can also make it difficult to return to work as the cost of care can eat up a large part of the earnings. The high cost of childcare can also mean that women seek part-time work to fit around their caring responsibilities.

Working women in Ireland, on average, earn less per hour than working men. There are many reasons for this, including that women more often have part-time work , are less likely to be at senior levels and are more likely to be in the lowest paid jobs . From this starting point, we can see that on average, women will have less money to put towards pension savings, home ownership, healthcare and education. 

Policy Implications

Age Action supports and advocates for equality and human rights for all older people. Everything we do is based on a recognition of the diversity of identity and situation among older people and a concern for equality for all older people. In addressing ageing, our work includes a concern to influence perspectives on and responses to ageing.

Age Action is calling on the Government to plan sufficiently for an ageing population to ensure that people remain active, engaged, and valued in their communities for as long as feasible, with choice and control over their lives, regardless of their age.

By implementing progressive policies across all Government departments, including social protection, health and housing, the State can improve quality of life for older people ageing in their community while providing value for money for the Exchequer.

There is a generation of older women who did not enjoy the protection of the State or a framework in which to realise their rights. Age Action frequently hears from women who continue to be affected by the unintended consequences of recent pension policy changes. Many were subjected to the Marriage Bar and remained at home to be the primary carer of raise their children. Recent changes to the averaging calculation of pensions and credits for caring have left many without eligibility for a full State pension in their own name.

Lessons should be learned in the development of policy responses now to protect future generations from the disadvantages these women have experienced: this includes recognising and planning for the experiences of women as carers, employees and mothers to making sure they reach old age with security and quality of life and are not disadvantaged by caring roles and gender norms.

Women's Rights in Review, 25 years after Beijing takes stock of how the landmark gender equality plan, the Beijing Platform for Action, is being implemented and calls for greater parity and justice. The review of women’s rights shows that despite some progress, no country has achieved gender equality.

To address the cumulative disadvantage in work and income experienced by many women, we need to address contributing factors such as the gender pay gap, the impact of caring responsibilities, discrimination, and women’s shorter working lives.

SHARE THIS

The new Bill is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.

According to Dr Nat O’Connor, Age Action’s Senior Policy Adviser: “Age Action strongly opposes the revival of the Employment (Restriction of Certain Mandatory Retirement Ages). Bill 2024, which is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.”

“Across political parties, in unions and among older persons, we see support for ending the practice of forcing people out of work before they are ready, but the proposed Bill makes no meaningful progress toward that end. The aim set out in its title, to restrict certain mandatory retirement ages, betrays its lack of ambition. All it provides for is the establishment of a complex, formal procedure so that employees can make a written request to stay on past their contractual retirement age; a request which can still be denied by their employer. This is the sole ‘restriction’ the Bill would impose on mandatory retirement.”

“This is a weak and ineffective Bill which is unlikely to help most employees who are forced out of work against their will for the offence of reaching a certain birthday. There is no reason for such timid action when we have seen other countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and the United States abolish mandatory retirement entirely, in some cases decades ago. These countries have continued to enjoy well-functioning and productive labour markets and workplaces, showing that there is no foundation for the fears expressed by people who want to keep mandatory retirement.”

“Mandatory retirement is age discrimination. If the State allows a form of discrimination to be practiced, it must set out clear justifications for the practice. However, the popular arguments in favour of mandatory retirement are all myths. There is no evidence that older persons are less able to contribute to a workplace, or that they cost more than they contribute, or that they prevent younger workers from gaining employment. In fact, research has demonstrated the many benefits older workers bring to workplaces, including institutional experience, mentoring, and soft skills like better stress management.”

“Mandatory retirement is based on gross and insulting stereotypes about ageing. It is experienced by workers as a humiliating and dehumanizing injustice. It takes away our autonomy and our control over how and when we retire, which is a major life event. People who had no choice in retiring report poorer mental health, life satisfaction, health status, dietary habits, marital satisfaction, self-efficacy, and income adequacy, even years into their retirement.”

Dr. O’Connor concluded: “The proposed Bill is an incomplete and inadequate response to the problem of mandatory retirement, and by virtue of its incompleteness, reinforces and legitimises the dangerous ageism on which mandatory retirement is founded. We want our new government to take strong and decisive action, rather than tinkering around the edges of a serious problem. The Bill needs to be abandoned in favour of legislation that really helps the workers who wish to remain in work for longer.”

Churn:
It is not reasonable to suggest that the abolition of mandatory retirement would create a large problem for companies, when the scale of churn in the labour market is already far higher. The Irish labour market experienced 12.8% churn in quarter 3 of 2024, meaning that 1 in 8 jobs were created, abolished or vacated during this period, which was 365,750 jobs (Central Statistics Office 2024).

Compared to this level of hiring and resignations, managing the relatively small number of older workers who may seek to work longer or whose productivity may fall in older age is a much smaller human resources management issue for companies.

CSO (2024) Labour Market Churn Q3 2024 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/fp/fp-lmc/labourmarketchurnq32024/

Age Action’s detailed policy paper outlining the case against mandatory retirement can be accessed here: https://www.ageaction.ie/sites/default/files/age_action_paper_abolish_mandatory_retirement.pdf