In the current crisis, women are being thrown out of work at twice the rate of men and the old adage of 'a woman's place is in the home' is being wheeled out to curb any opposition.
The problem that women's right to work has never been recognised. part time and largely unand those employed the MOSL vulnerable industries, they are a front line target.
Job segregation, which means separating women into these types JODS and denying them the right to enter skilled jobs, key weapon for the bosses who can use women as a reserve army of labour women workers at Hoover Merthyr Tydfil The union leadership sold them Jown the river by negotiating a redundancy agreement which allows Unfortunately, of the male workers in the piant are under the illusion that this is to their advan: age. In fact, the male workers have no guarantee that the redundancies will ::op there.
The women have -artunities Commission to ane up their case of sex Socialist Challenge discrimination. A similar case was won recently by women workers in bill ingham who claimed that redundancies among part-lime WOrKCIS discriminated against women who were mainly employed in these job the way the law on positive action United States works means that fixed quotas women have to be employed in skilled jobs, in certain industries and so on. The two cases described above raise the question of whether a similar principle should also be applied in relation to job loss. Demand In other words, should redundancy agreements include a mechanism for retaining a proportionate number of women, even if this meant, as in the case of Hoover, moving those women Into skilea areas to avoid redundancy?
Many socialists would argue that such a demand 1 01 non-discriminator lay-offs is wrong. Surely as 28 January 1982 socialists we should have nothing to do with discussing any redundancy? We should be arguing that the way overcome discrimination to send men out in preference to women but to fight all redundancies!
But, as they stated in a recent Socialist Challenge, the hoover women walled their union to make a real night against dancies. When union sabotaged this reacers policy, they had no option but to fight the discrimination that was being used against them.
have the opportunity again arguing the need to fight all job losses.
The only wa! prevent this sort of sell our and dividing workforce in the future is to try and tie the hands of management and union eaters. ally policy against redundancies it should be specified that discriminatory layoffs are unacceptable Some socialists say that In?s means for women's jobs • This is a the pense of men. false argument.
The real threat at the moment is that women are being made scapegoats by the bosses and union leaderships alike. They are trying to male workers swallow the story that the lack of jobs is the fault of women workers who are taking work which really belongs men.
By arguing for unemployment policies in the unions which include opposition discriminatory lay-offs, wonter establish the principle that they have an Management and eduers will be less able, under such condi'divide and rule' tactics against workers. Women workers: should they be the first to be made redundant?
square and stopped, 20 yards from each other. Perhaps three or four of them. There were loud bangs as their backdoors opened against the metal. Crouching figures leaped out with thin weapons in their hands. They ran, left and right, mostcalmly litted ha casteise orward