This week, Royal Holloway, University of London, agreed a settlement with one of its employees, Professor Liz Schafer, after she launched legal proceedings on the grounds she had been consistently under rewarded compared to male colleagues. There were a variety of strands to her argument however one struck me as particularly interesting. In the reserve judgment issued by Reading Employment Tribunal there is a discussion of ‘retention payments’ which are paid to staff who might be applying for posts elsewhere, been offered a job elsewhere or indeed have simply been asked to submit an application to another institution. The tribunal argued that such payments could be seen as discriminatory as ‘women disproportionately carry the burden of familial responsibilities’ (para 17.12.1) as a result they less able to relocate or accommodate a longer commute and therefore seen as less likely to leave an institution. Therefore the Tribunal found ‘that on the face of it a financial benefit which is linked to the ability, or perceived ability, to be mobile, whether considered in career terms, or geographically, or both, operates to the disadvantage of women’ (para 17.12.8).
Despite this geographical mobility seems particularly prised in academia, probably because of, compared to other ‘industries’ at least, the limited number of workplaces. I know a number of PhD students who have been told that if they want a career in academia they must be prepared to apply for jobs not only across the UK but must also posts around the world. For early career researchers who may not have strong familial ties this might not be an issue but as the Reading Tribunal states it disadvantages those who cannot so easily up sticks and leave.
Of course this is not a situation unique to academia. Last week Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary gave an interview in which he discussed how the Coalition Government were drawing up proposals that would enable people living in social housing to become more mobile, in order that they might be able to move more easily from areas of low unemployment to places where work might be more readily available. It seems therefore that there is a financial advantage, if not a financial imperative, to be geographically mobile. If this is the case we must consider what this means for those left behind, both physically and metaphorically. Should people with caring responsibilities expect to be taken for granted as they are perceived as too rooted to move on? And what does this mean for communities who may have to deal with their members continually being forced to uproot in response to changing economic situations? These problems are certainly not new, after all people have been moving for better prospects for millennia. However if we are going to only reward those who are prepared to cut ties and move on, we need to be careful that we do not further disadvantage the already disadvantaged.
Annie Gosling
King George VI Fellow
This November Cumberland Lodge is organising a conference on gender equality. To find out more, please visit:
www.cumberlandlodge.ac.uk/gender
