Latest news with #Ovens
The National
12-05-2025
- Business
- The National
Scottish 'butcher king' wins two world championships in two days
Nigel Ovens took his first title – of world champion Scotch pie – at the 2025 World Championship Scotch Pie Awards at the Hilton in Glasgow on Saturday. The 25th anniversary of the grand prize event saw 50 expert judges assess more than 500 products from 88 different butchers, with prizes for everything from macaroni pies to bridies. READ MORE: I tried haggis from Aldi, Tesco, M&S and more — one of them reminded me of dog food Ovens, representing James Pirie and Sons, took home the top Scotch pie prize – as well as a gold award for their steak pie. And on Sunday, in Perth, Ovens then took home the world championship title for his haggis at the Scottish Craft Butchers Trade Fair. Ovens took home that award for McCaskie's Butchers in Wemyss Bay, beating 55 other producers. Nigel Ovens with his world champion haggis (Image: Supplied) McCaskie's Butchers completed the purchase of James Pirie and Sons butchers, in Newtyle in Angus, in April last year, our sister paper the Largs and Millport News reported. Responding to the haggis prize, Ovens said: 'This is the culmination of a lifetime's work to perfect our haggis recipe. 'I've spent years watching, tasting, tweaking and learning from others and I'm absolutely thrilled to be lifting the world championship – it's a dream come true.' Asked to reveal his recipe, Ovens remained understandably tight-lipped. READ MORE: Google AI claims haggis is a real animal in embarrassing blunder 'Let's just say lamb fat probably helps sweeten the haggis and give it broader appeal,' he said. 'But after a lifetime spent perfecting the recipe, I'll keep the rest a secret.' Lesley Cameron, the chief executive of Scottish Bakers, said: "This year marks a significant milestone as we celebrate 25 years of the World Championship Scotch Pie Awards. 'It's a true testament to the passion, skill, and dedication of our butchers, bakers, and pie makers who continue to set the standard for quality and innovation in our industry. 'Our winners should be incredibly proud – to stand out in such a fiercely competitive field is an outstanding achievement.' Carol Smillie joins the winning butchers on stage at the Scotch pie awards (Image: Supplied) TV host Carol Smillie, who presented the awards, added: "I am always thrilled to be part of the World Championship Scotch Pie Awards, celebrating the incredible talent and dedication of Scotland's butchers, bakers and pie makers. 'Every year, I am amazed by the passion and craftsmanship that goes into creating these delicious pies, and it's fantastic to see both familiar faces and exciting new talent taking part. The high standard of entries proves that the industry continues to thrive, with more professionals than ever showcasing their skills. 'Congratulations to all of this year's winners, your hard work and commitment to quality truly deserve to be recognised."
Scoop
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Women's Rights Party On The Pay Equity Issue
Press Release – Women's Rights Party The Womens Rights Party says that cutting back on pay equity for women workers will have a long-lasting effect. Many years ago, Women's Rights Party Co-leader Jill Ovens had a button that said 'Equal Pay for Mother's Day'. 'How relevant is that this week!' she says. Women's Rights Party members are concerned about the impact on women of changes to pay equity legislation under urgency last week. An estimated 150,000 women workers whose pay equity claims have been extinguished are now in limbo. Many of these claims will not be able to restart under the new pay equity regime. As we celebrate Mother's Day today [Sunday, 11 May] we acknowledge that our mother's work and contributions to society, whether paid or unpaid, have been systematically undervalued over a very long time. 'Work typically done by women, continues to be undervalued, and this contributes to the on-going sex-based pay gap,' Ms Ovens says. She says the 14 pay equity settlements to date, mostly in the core public sector and the education and health sectors, have made a big difference in the pay of women workers, and of men working in women-dominated sectors. Low paid workers such as teacher aides and care and support workers now have more money in their pay packets to feed, clothe, and house their families. But the settlements created pay disparities with those employed in organisations largely dependent on government funding, like Plunket, hospices, medical laboratories, and community organisations employing social workers. Many of the 33 pay equity claims that have been extinguished, pending the Governor General's assent to the new Pay Equity legislation, were to address pay parity with nurses and social workers who are directly employed in public sector agencies like Health NZ and Oranga Tamariki whose pay equity settlements were settled some time ago. 'This is where market forces come in as it becomes impossible for non-government organisations to attract and retain staff if they are not being funded to pay the same rates,' Ms Ovens says. As a negotiator for MERAS, the midwives' union, Ms Ovens says she was aware of the struggle of private birthing centres to pay midwives and nurses the same rates as those directly-employed by Health NZ, even though birthing centres are highly dependent on Health NZ funding. A pay equity claim for midwives employed by private birthing centres is among those cancelled this week. Long lasting effect on women The Women's Rights Party says that cutting back on pay equity for women workers will have a long-lasting effect. A major source of the disadvantage women face in retirement is inequity in retirement savings because women earn less than men on average over their working life (this is called the 'pay gap penalty'). Women are also disadvantaged by unpaid responsibilities caring for children, family members with disabilities, and their elders (this is called the 'mothering penalty'). According to the Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), the average KiwiSaver balance for women is 25% lower than the average balance for men across all age groups, The NZIER reports that at 65 years old, a woman working full-time and earning the median wage, will have the equivalent of at least three years less retirement income in her KiwiSaver account than a man her age; a meaningful difference as women tend to live longer than men. Ms Ovens says Health NZ, New Zealand's largest single employer of women, contributes the minimum statutory 3% KiwiSaver employer contribution to its women-dominated workforces – nurses, midwives, clerical workers, cleaners and food services workers. But the historically male-dominated doctors and dentists are paid a 6% employer contribution on much higher salaries. Police also have a healthy employer contribution to KiwiSaver, as do many other male-dominated occupations. 'This is why we argued in the midwives' claim that KiwiSaver contributions should be taken into account in comparing work covered by the claim with the comparators,' Ms Ovens says. To help with understanding pay equity, here are two fact sheets with more information. Fact Sheet 1: Pay Equity history Despite its name, the Equal Pay Act 1972 (passed by a National Government), did allow for pay equity, i.e. equal pay for work of equal value, as the NZ Court of Appeal found in 2014 in the Terranova Homes and Care case taken by the Service and Food Workers Union in the name of aged care worker Kristine Bartlett. Subsequently the National Government of the day passed legislation approving an interim settlement for care and support workers across the country who would be acknowledged for the work they were doing and properly rewarded. The legislation also approved principles of pay equity and the establishment of a Joint Working Party of employers, unions and government. The Joint Working Party came up with processes that would mean those in women-dominated occupations, including men in those occupations, would not have to go all the way to the Court of Appeal to get a settlement. Ms Ovens says it should be stressed that while redress to employment jurisdictions was still possible, the process that was recommended involved employers and unions working together to achieve a negotiated outcome. The then National Government attempted to bring in amendments to the Equal Pay Act in 2017 to reflect the outcomes of the Joint Working Party, but these amendments were defeated. In 2020, the then Labour Government introduced amendments on similar lines as National's 2017 previous amendments, after much criticism by National MPs for the length of time it was taking. This was supported enthusiastically by MPs on both sides of the House. The 2020 Equal Pay Act Amendments aimed to provide a 'simple and accessible process to progress a pay equity claim'. There were duties on the parties (unions and employers) to 'act in good faith towards each other' and to use 'best endeavours' to reach an agreement. In fact, the requirements were rigorous. For example, unions had to contact all those covered by the union-raised claim to see if they wanted to opt out, and they could not charge a fee to non-union workers who had agreed to be part of the process. There were also requirements around claims involving multiple employers that allowed for an employer to opt out of the multi-employer process for 'genuine reasons' based on 'reasonable grounds'. There would then be a separate process for that employer. A Pay Equity Taskforce was set up within the State Services Commission (now the Public Sector Commission) which developed tools and benchmarks to be signed off by the parties along the way. This was disestablished soon after the 2023 Election. Fact Sheet 2: Our response to the case for a reset of the pay equity legislation 1. The Government is saying the costs to the Crown have been considerable as most claims have been in the public sector. However, that shows the extent of the sex-based discrimination in public sector pay. 2. The fiscal costs of two large unresolved claims (teachers and care and support workers) are significant. This has given rise to suggestions that the timing of the legislation and its progress under urgency could be seen as a cynical move to show a surplus in the upcoming Budget. The Government is saying that addressing the pay gap for women in the public sector will mean trade-offs in terms of service provision in other areas. This is why pay equity needs to be addressed as a separate Budget item. Why should women workers continue to suffer lower pay than men in comparable occupations? 3. The Government has said that the claims currently underway will be able to be reinitiated under the new legislation. However, the new threshold of 70% women in an occupation covered by a claim (up from 60%) rules out secondary teachers, 63% of whom are women, and probation officers, 68% of whom are women. It may be that other women-dominated occupational groups will be unable to pursue pay equity claims as a result. 4. The government says the threshold for accepting a pay equity claim is too low. In deciding whether it is 'arguable' that work covered by a pay equity claim is currently undervalued or has historically been undervalued, the 2020 Equal Pay Act Amendments suggested that the origins and history of the work, including wage setting processes, may be considered, as well as any social, cultural, or historical factors. Characterisation of the work as 'women's work', with skills or qualities overlooked in pay setting could also be included. The skills that Kristine Bartlett possessed as an aged care worker with 12 years' experience had been considered to be of less value than those of the gardener because caring for our elders was not considered as physically demanding as pruning the bushes. The midwives pay equity claim was lodged before the 2020 legislation and a detailed case for the 'merit' of the claim was made, which included all of the above. However, the argument against having to prove the merit of the claim is that this is putting the cart before the horse because it pre-empts the pay equity process. 5. The government says there was not enough guidance on the selection of male comparators. Selection of potential comparators is agreed by the parties. In the case of the Nurses and Midwives claims, the criteria for selecting the comparators was based on factors such as the number of employees in the potential comparator occupation, whether there was a Collective Agreement in place so there could be a full examination of pay rates, and whether training or educational requirements were comparable. The employers of the potential male comparator groups also needed to agree to be part of the process as they would need to release their workers for the interview part of the process, and to release information to the parties to the pay equity claim. Some potential comparators were discarded by the parties after a rigorous process of interviewing role holders, evaluating the evidence against agreed factors, and further analysis and negotiation between the parties as to the extent of the sex-based discrimination. It should be noted that it is because of the amount of evidence that has been collected, and the amount of resource involved, that the same male comparators have be used in other pay equity claims with the agreement of their employer. 6. The government wants to limit comparators to the same employer or sector. Limiting male comparators to a single employer or a single industry or sector rules out many, if not most, women-dominated industries and sectors as there may be virtually no potential male-dominated comparators within the employer or sector. In the case of the midwives employed by Health NZ, the only possible male comparators within the health sector were limited by the fact that almost all occupations in the health sector are women-dominated. The unions argued for GPs as a potential comparator as they had been used as a comparator in the self-employed Lead Maternity Carer (LMC) midwives High Court case. The then Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield unilaterally ruled out GPs. Another potential comparator was employed dentists. The parties went all through the pay equity process, including interviews with role holders, and at the end of the process of evaluating the respective roles against the agreed factors, they were the closest comparator. However, the cost of addressing the gap between employed midwives and dentists was so great that Health NZ ruled out the dentists. The only other potential comparator was Nurse Practitioners, but they were ruled out as they were subject to another pay equity claim; that of the Nurses. It should be noted that the pay equity process does not require an exact match on all factors. Some potential male comparators might score highly on the degree of exposure to hazards, noise levels, and other factors that may impact the working environment, for example. Work typically performed by women might score highly on interpersonal skills and emotional demands, or fine physical skills. Exposure to hazards may be applicable in both the claimants and the comparators. It also doesn't mean the same pay is due. For example, if the work of the women-dominated occupation is evaluated at 80% of the male comparator, then the pay adjustment would be 80% of what the male comparators are paid. The other point to note is that men performing work in a women-dominated occupation also suffer from the same sex-based discrimination as the women they work alongside. 7. The government wants to add more prescription to comparison methodology. The intention is to separate out market factors that affect pay, but are not related to sex-based discrimination. Skills shortages are one such market factor, but these could be directly linked to the comparatively low pay of work typically performed by women because that work is undervalued. Nurses, midwives, teachers are among workforces that have been on the skills shortage list for decades. The other change is to only assess whether the workforce has experienced sex-based undervaluation since the work became predominantly performed by women. It is well known that the more women who enter a profession or occupation, the less value is put on the work by society and by employers, and the pay will reflect that. This is surely an example of blatant sex-based discrimination. On the other hand, kindergarten and primary school teachers have always been predominantly women, as have nurses and midwives. The fact that these occupational groups have historically been subject to sex-based undervaluation, which continues to this day, does not diminish their claim that this is discriminatory. 8. Remove the ability for a settlement to include a review clause and to limit when claims can be re-issued to 10 years. The intention is to determine whether concerns about pay are related to the re-emergence of sex-based undervaluation or other market forces. The problem is when the comparators negotiate a pay hike after the extent of the undervaluation in relation to one or more comparators has been calculated and agreed between the parties. This will disrupt the calculation of the undervaluation. How can we be sure that ratcheting up pay rates for male-dominated occupations is not related to the re-emergence of sex-based undervaluation? Extending the re-issuing of reviews to 10 years seems on the face of it to be arbitrary. It means, for example, that care and support workers will not be eligible for a review until 2027, and midwives will not be eligible for a review until 2033.
Scoop
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Women's Rights Party On The Pay Equity Issue
Press Release – Women's Rights Party The Womens Rights Party says that cutting back on pay equity for women workers will have a long-lasting effect. Many years ago, Women's Rights Party Co-leader Jill Ovens had a button that said 'Equal Pay for Mother's Day'. 'How relevant is that this week!' she says. Women's Rights Party members are concerned about the impact on women of changes to pay equity legislation under urgency last week. An estimated 150,000 women workers whose pay equity claims have been extinguished are now in limbo. Many of these claims will not be able to restart under the new pay equity regime. As we celebrate Mother's Day today [Sunday, 11 May] we acknowledge that our mother's work and contributions to society, whether paid or unpaid, have been systematically undervalued over a very long time. 'Work typically done by women, continues to be undervalued, and this contributes to the on-going sex-based pay gap,' Ms Ovens says. She says the 14 pay equity settlements to date, mostly in the core public sector and the education and health sectors, have made a big difference in the pay of women workers, and of men working in women-dominated sectors. Low paid workers such as teacher aides and care and support workers now have more money in their pay packets to feed, clothe, and house their families. But the settlements created pay disparities with those employed in organisations largely dependent on government funding, like Plunket, hospices, medical laboratories, and community organisations employing social workers. Many of the 33 pay equity claims that have been extinguished, pending the Governor General's assent to the new Pay Equity legislation, were to address pay parity with nurses and social workers who are directly employed in public sector agencies like Health NZ and Oranga Tamariki whose pay equity settlements were settled some time ago. 'This is where market forces come in as it becomes impossible for non-government organisations to attract and retain staff if they are not being funded to pay the same rates,' Ms Ovens says. As a negotiator for MERAS, the midwives' union, Ms Ovens says she was aware of the struggle of private birthing centres to pay midwives and nurses the same rates as those directly-employed by Health NZ, even though birthing centres are highly dependent on Health NZ funding. A pay equity claim for midwives employed by private birthing centres is among those cancelled this week. Long lasting effect on women The Women's Rights Party says that cutting back on pay equity for women workers will have a long-lasting effect. A major source of the disadvantage women face in retirement is inequity in retirement savings because women earn less than men on average over their working life (this is called the 'pay gap penalty'). Women are also disadvantaged by unpaid responsibilities caring for children, family members with disabilities, and their elders (this is called the 'mothering penalty'). According to the Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), the average KiwiSaver balance for women is 25% lower than the average balance for men across all age groups, The NZIER reports that at 65 years old, a woman working full-time and earning the median wage, will have the equivalent of at least three years less retirement income in her KiwiSaver account than a man her age; a meaningful difference as women tend to live longer than men. Ms Ovens says Health NZ, New Zealand's largest single employer of women, contributes the minimum statutory 3% KiwiSaver employer contribution to its women-dominated workforces – nurses, midwives, clerical workers, cleaners and food services workers. But the historically male-dominated doctors and dentists are paid a 6% employer contribution on much higher salaries. Police also have a healthy employer contribution to KiwiSaver, as do many other male-dominated occupations. 'This is why we argued in the midwives' claim that KiwiSaver contributions should be taken into account in comparing work covered by the claim with the comparators,' Ms Ovens says. To help with understanding pay equity, here are two fact sheets with more information. Fact Sheet 1: Pay Equity history Despite its name, the Equal Pay Act 1972 (passed by a National Government), did allow for pay equity, i.e. equal pay for work of equal value, as the NZ Court of Appeal found in 2014 in the Terranova Homes and Care case taken by the Service and Food Workers Union in the name of aged care worker Kristine Bartlett. Subsequently the National Government of the day passed legislation approving an interim settlement for care and support workers across the country who would be acknowledged for the work they were doing and properly rewarded. The legislation also approved principles of pay equity and the establishment of a Joint Working Party of employers, unions and government. The Joint Working Party came up with processes that would mean those in women-dominated occupations, including men in those occupations, would not have to go all the way to the Court of Appeal to get a settlement. Ms Ovens says it should be stressed that while redress to employment jurisdictions was still possible, the process that was recommended involved employers and unions working together to achieve a negotiated outcome. The then National Government attempted to bring in amendments to the Equal Pay Act in 2017 to reflect the outcomes of the Joint Working Party, but these amendments were defeated. In 2020, the then Labour Government introduced amendments on similar lines as National's 2017 previous amendments, after much criticism by National MPs for the length of time it was taking. This was supported enthusiastically by MPs on both sides of the House. The 2020 Equal Pay Act Amendments aimed to provide a 'simple and accessible process to progress a pay equity claim'. There were duties on the parties (unions and employers) to 'act in good faith towards each other' and to use 'best endeavours' to reach an agreement. In fact, the requirements were rigorous. For example, unions had to contact all those covered by the union-raised claim to see if they wanted to opt out, and they could not charge a fee to non-union workers who had agreed to be part of the process. There were also requirements around claims involving multiple employers that allowed for an employer to opt out of the multi-employer process for 'genuine reasons' based on 'reasonable grounds'. There would then be a separate process for that employer. A Pay Equity Taskforce was set up within the State Services Commission (now the Public Sector Commission) which developed tools and benchmarks to be signed off by the parties along the way. This was disestablished soon after the 2023 Election. Fact Sheet 2: Our response to the case for a reset of the pay equity legislation 1. The Government is saying the costs to the Crown have been considerable as most claims have been in the public sector. However, that shows the extent of the sex-based discrimination in public sector pay. 2. The fiscal costs of two large unresolved claims (teachers and care and support workers) are significant. This has given rise to suggestions that the timing of the legislation and its progress under urgency could be seen as a cynical move to show a surplus in the upcoming Budget. The Government is saying that addressing the pay gap for women in the public sector will mean trade-offs in terms of service provision in other areas. This is why pay equity needs to be addressed as a separate Budget item. Why should women workers continue to suffer lower pay than men in comparable occupations? 3. The Government has said that the claims currently underway will be able to be reinitiated under the new legislation. However, the new threshold of 70% women in an occupation covered by a claim (up from 60%) rules out secondary teachers, 63% of whom are women, and probation officers, 68% of whom are women. It may be that other women-dominated occupational groups will be unable to pursue pay equity claims as a result. 4. The government says the threshold for accepting a pay equity claim is too low. In deciding whether it is 'arguable' that work covered by a pay equity claim is currently undervalued or has historically been undervalued, the 2020 Equal Pay Act Amendments suggested that the origins and history of the work, including wage setting processes, may be considered, as well as any social, cultural, or historical factors. Characterisation of the work as 'women's work', with skills or qualities overlooked in pay setting could also be included. The skills that Kristine Bartlett possessed as an aged care worker with 12 years' experience had been considered to be of less value than those of the gardener because caring for our elders was not considered as physically demanding as pruning the bushes. The midwives pay equity claim was lodged before the 2020 legislation and a detailed case for the 'merit' of the claim was made, which included all of the above. However, the argument against having to prove the merit of the claim is that this is putting the cart before the horse because it pre-empts the pay equity process. 5. The government says there was not enough guidance on the selection of male comparators. Selection of potential comparators is agreed by the parties. In the case of the Nurses and Midwives claims, the criteria for selecting the comparators was based on factors such as the number of employees in the potential comparator occupation, whether there was a Collective Agreement in place so there could be a full examination of pay rates, and whether training or educational requirements were comparable. The employers of the potential male comparator groups also needed to agree to be part of the process as they would need to release their workers for the interview part of the process, and to release information to the parties to the pay equity claim. Some potential comparators were discarded by the parties after a rigorous process of interviewing role holders, evaluating the evidence against agreed factors, and further analysis and negotiation between the parties as to the extent of the sex-based discrimination. It should be noted that it is because of the amount of evidence that has been collected, and the amount of resource involved, that the same male comparators have be used in other pay equity claims with the agreement of their employer. 6. The government wants to limit comparators to the same employer or sector. Limiting male comparators to a single employer or a single industry or sector rules out many, if not most, women-dominated industries and sectors as there may be virtually no potential male-dominated comparators within the employer or sector. In the case of the midwives employed by Health NZ, the only possible male comparators within the health sector were limited by the fact that almost all occupations in the health sector are women-dominated. The unions argued for GPs as a potential comparator as they had been used as a comparator in the self-employed Lead Maternity Carer (LMC) midwives High Court case. The then Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield unilaterally ruled out GPs. Another potential comparator was employed dentists. The parties went all through the pay equity process, including interviews with role holders, and at the end of the process of evaluating the respective roles against the agreed factors, they were the closest comparator. However, the cost of addressing the gap between employed midwives and dentists was so great that Health NZ ruled out the dentists. The only other potential comparator was Nurse Practitioners, but they were ruled out as they were subject to another pay equity claim; that of the Nurses. It should be noted that the pay equity process does not require an exact match on all factors. Some potential male comparators might score highly on the degree of exposure to hazards, noise levels, and other factors that may impact the working environment, for example. Work typically performed by women might score highly on interpersonal skills and emotional demands, or fine physical skills. Exposure to hazards may be applicable in both the claimants and the comparators. It also doesn't mean the same pay is due. For example, if the work of the women-dominated occupation is evaluated at 80% of the male comparator, then the pay adjustment would be 80% of what the male comparators are paid. The other point to note is that men performing work in a women-dominated occupation also suffer from the same sex-based discrimination as the women they work alongside. 7. The government wants to add more prescription to comparison methodology. The intention is to separate out market factors that affect pay, but are not related to sex-based discrimination. Skills shortages are one such market factor, but these could be directly linked to the comparatively low pay of work typically performed by women because that work is undervalued. Nurses, midwives, teachers are among workforces that have been on the skills shortage list for decades. The other change is to only assess whether the workforce has experienced sex-based undervaluation since the work became predominantly performed by women. It is well known that the more women who enter a profession or occupation, the less value is put on the work by society and by employers, and the pay will reflect that. This is surely an example of blatant sex-based discrimination. On the other hand, kindergarten and primary school teachers have always been predominantly women, as have nurses and midwives. The fact that these occupational groups have historically been subject to sex-based undervaluation, which continues to this day, does not diminish their claim that this is discriminatory. 8. Remove the ability for a settlement to include a review clause and to limit when claims can be re-issued to 10 years. The intention is to determine whether concerns about pay are related to the re-emergence of sex-based undervaluation or other market forces. The problem is when the comparators negotiate a pay hike after the extent of the undervaluation in relation to one or more comparators has been calculated and agreed between the parties. This will disrupt the calculation of the undervaluation. How can we be sure that ratcheting up pay rates for male-dominated occupations is not related to the re-emergence of sex-based undervaluation? Extending the re-issuing of reviews to 10 years seems on the face of it to be arbitrary. It means, for example, that care and support workers will not be eligible for a review until 2027, and midwives will not be eligible for a review until 2033.
Scoop
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Women's Rights Party On The Pay Equity Issue
Sunday, 11 May 2025, 2:22 pm Press Release: Women's Rights Party Many years ago, Women's Rights Party Co-leader Jill Ovens had a button that said 'Equal Pay for Mother's Day'. 'How relevant is that this week!' she says. Women's Rights Party members are concerned about the impact on women of changes to pay equity legislation under urgency last week. An estimated 150,000 women workers whose pay equity claims have been extinguished are now in limbo. Many of these claims will not be able to restart under the new pay equity regime. As we celebrate Mother's Day today [Sunday, 11 May] we acknowledge that our mother's work and contributions to society, whether paid or unpaid, have been systematically undervalued over a very long time. 'Work typically done by women, continues to be undervalued, and this contributes to the on-going sex-based pay gap,' Ms Ovens says. She says the 14 pay equity settlements to date, mostly in the core public sector and the education and health sectors, have made a big difference in the pay of women workers, and of men working in women-dominated sectors. Low paid workers such as teacher aides and care and support workers now have more money in their pay packets to feed, clothe, and house their families. But the settlements created pay disparities with those employed in organisations largely dependent on government funding, like Plunket, hospices, medical laboratories, and community organisations employing social workers. Many of the 33 pay equity claims that have been extinguished, pending the Governor General's assent to the new Pay Equity legislation, were to address pay parity with nurses and social workers who are directly employed in public sector agencies like Health NZ and Oranga Tamariki whose pay equity settlements were settled some time ago. 'This is where market forces come in as it becomes impossible for non-government organisations to attract and retain staff if they are not being funded to pay the same rates,' Ms Ovens says. As a negotiator for MERAS, the midwives' union, Ms Ovens says she was aware of the struggle of private birthing centres to pay midwives and nurses the same rates as those directly-employed by Health NZ, even though birthing centres are highly dependent on Health NZ funding. A pay equity claim for midwives employed by private birthing centres is among those cancelled this week. Long lasting effect on women The Women's Rights Party says that cutting back on pay equity for women workers will have a long-lasting effect. A major source of the disadvantage women face in retirement is inequity in retirement savings because women earn less than men on average over their working life (this is called the 'pay gap penalty'). Women are also disadvantaged by unpaid responsibilities caring for children, family members with disabilities, and their elders (this is called the 'mothering penalty'). According to the Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), the average KiwiSaver balance for women is 25% lower than the average balance for men across all age groups, The NZIER reports that at 65 years old, a woman working full-time and earning the median wage, will have the equivalent of at least three years less retirement income in her KiwiSaver account than a man her age; a meaningful difference as women tend to live longer than men. Ms Ovens says Health NZ, New Zealand's largest single employer of women, contributes the minimum statutory 3% KiwiSaver employer contribution to its women-dominated workforces – nurses, midwives, clerical workers, cleaners and food services workers. But the historically male-dominated doctors and dentists are paid a 6% employer contribution on much higher salaries. Police also have a healthy employer contribution to KiwiSaver, as do many other male-dominated occupations. 'This is why we argued in the midwives' claim that KiwiSaver contributions should be taken into account in comparing work covered by the claim with the comparators,' Ms Ovens says. To help with understanding pay equity, here are two fact sheets with more information. Fact Sheet 1: Pay Equity history Despite its name, the Equal Pay Act 1972 (passed by a National Government), did allow for pay equity, i.e. equal pay for work of equal value, as the NZ Court of Appeal found in 2014 in the Terranova Homes and Care case taken by the Service and Food Workers Union in the name of aged care worker Kristine Bartlett. Subsequently the National Government of the day passed legislation approving an interim settlement for care and support workers across the country who would be acknowledged for the work they were doing and properly rewarded. The legislation also approved principles of pay equity and the establishment of a Joint Working Party of employers, unions and government. The Joint Working Party came up with processes that would mean those in women-dominated occupations, including men in those occupations, would not have to go all the way to the Court of Appeal to get a settlement. Ms Ovens says it should be stressed that while redress to employment jurisdictions was still possible, the process that was recommended involved employers and unions working together to achieve a negotiated outcome. The then National Government attempted to bring in amendments to the Equal Pay Act in 2017 to reflect the outcomes of the Joint Working Party, but these amendments were defeated. In 2020, the then Labour Government introduced amendments on similar lines as National's 2017 previous amendments, after much criticism by National MPs for the length of time it was taking. This was supported enthusiastically by MPs on both sides of the House. The 2020 Equal Pay Act Amendments aimed to provide a 'simple and accessible process to progress a pay equity claim'. There were duties on the parties (unions and employers) to 'act in good faith towards each other' and to use 'best endeavours' to reach an agreement. In fact, the requirements were rigorous. For example, unions had to contact all those covered by the union-raised claim to see if they wanted to opt out, and they could not charge a fee to non-union workers who had agreed to be part of the process. There were also requirements around claims involving multiple employers that allowed for an employer to opt out of the multi-employer process for 'genuine reasons' based on 'reasonable grounds'. There would then be a separate process for that employer. A Pay Equity Taskforce was set up within the State Services Commission (now the Public Sector Commission) which developed tools and benchmarks to be signed off by the parties along the way. This was disestablished soon after the 2023 Election. Fact Sheet 2: Our response to the case for a reset of the pay equity legislation 1. The Government is saying the costs to the Crown have been considerable as most claims have been in the public sector. However, that shows the extent of the sex-based discrimination in public sector pay. 2. The fiscal costs of two large unresolved claims (teachers and care and support workers) are significant. This has given rise to suggestions that the timing of the legislation and its progress under urgency could be seen as a cynical move to show a surplus in the upcoming Budget. The Government is saying that addressing the pay gap for women in the public sector will mean trade-offs in terms of service provision in other areas. This is why pay equity needs to be addressed as a separate Budget item. Why should women workers continue to suffer lower pay than men in comparable occupations? 3. The Government has said that the claims currently underway will be able to be reinitiated under the new legislation. However, the new threshold of 70% women in an occupation covered by a claim (up from 60%) rules out secondary teachers, 63% of whom are women, and probation officers, 68% of whom are women. It may be that other women-dominated occupational groups will be unable to pursue pay equity claims as a result. 4. The government says the threshold for accepting a pay equity claim is too low. In deciding whether it is 'arguable' that work covered by a pay equity claim is currently undervalued or has historically been undervalued, the 2020 Equal Pay Act Amendments suggested that the origins and history of the work, including wage setting processes, may be considered, as well as any social, cultural, or historical factors. Characterisation of the work as 'women's work', with skills or qualities overlooked in pay setting could also be included. The skills that Kristine Bartlett possessed as an aged care worker with 12 years' experience had been considered to be of less value than those of the gardener because caring for our elders was not considered as physically demanding as pruning the bushes. The midwives pay equity claim was lodged before the 2020 legislation and a detailed case for the 'merit' of the claim was made, which included all of the above. However, the argument against having to prove the merit of the claim is that this is putting the cart before the horse because it pre-empts the pay equity process. 5. The government says there was not enough guidance on the selection of male comparators. Selection of potential comparators is agreed by the parties. In the case of the Nurses and Midwives claims, the criteria for selecting the comparators was based on factors such as the number of employees in the potential comparator occupation, whether there was a Collective Agreement in place so there could be a full examination of pay rates, and whether training or educational requirements were comparable. The employers of the potential male comparator groups also needed to agree to be part of the process as they would need to release their workers for the interview part of the process, and to release information to the parties to the pay equity claim. Some potential comparators were discarded by the parties after a rigorous process of interviewing role holders, evaluating the evidence against agreed factors, and further analysis and negotiation between the parties as to the extent of the sex-based discrimination. It should be noted that it is because of the amount of evidence that has been collected, and the amount of resource involved, that the same male comparators have be used in other pay equity claims with the agreement of their employer. 6. The government wants to limit comparators to the same employer or sector. Limiting male comparators to a single employer or a single industry or sector rules out many, if not most, women-dominated industries and sectors as there may be virtually no potential male-dominated comparators within the employer or sector. In the case of the midwives employed by Health NZ, the only possible male comparators within the health sector were limited by the fact that almost all occupations in the health sector are women-dominated. The unions argued for GPs as a potential comparator as they had been used as a comparator in the self-employed Lead Maternity Carer (LMC) midwives High Court case. The then Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield unilaterally ruled out GPs. Another potential comparator was employed dentists. The parties went all through the pay equity process, including interviews with role holders, and at the end of the process of evaluating the respective roles against the agreed factors, they were the closest comparator. However, the cost of addressing the gap between employed midwives and dentists was so great that Health NZ ruled out the dentists. The only other potential comparator was Nurse Practitioners, but they were ruled out as they were subject to another pay equity claim; that of the Nurses. It should be noted that the pay equity process does not require an exact match on all factors. Some potential male comparators might score highly on the degree of exposure to hazards, noise levels, and other factors that may impact the working environment, for example. Work typically performed by women might score highly on interpersonal skills and emotional demands, or fine physical skills. Exposure to hazards may be applicable in both the claimants and the comparators. It also doesn't mean the same pay is due. For example, if the work of the women-dominated occupation is evaluated at 80% of the male comparator, then the pay adjustment would be 80% of what the male comparators are paid. The other point to note is that men performing work in a women-dominated occupation also suffer from the same sex-based discrimination as the women they work alongside. 7. The government wants to add more prescription to comparison methodology. The intention is to separate out market factors that affect pay, but are not related to sex-based discrimination. Skills shortages are one such market factor, but these could be directly linked to the comparatively low pay of work typically performed by women because that work is undervalued. Nurses, midwives, teachers are among workforces that have been on the skills shortage list for decades. The other change is to only assess whether the workforce has experienced sex-based undervaluation since the work became predominantly performed by women. It is well known that the more women who enter a profession or occupation, the less value is put on the work by society and by employers, and the pay will reflect that. This is surely an example of blatant sex-based discrimination. On the other hand, kindergarten and primary school teachers have always been predominantly women, as have nurses and midwives. The fact that these occupational groups have historically been subject to sex-based undervaluation, which continues to this day, does not diminish their claim that this is discriminatory. 8. Remove the ability for a settlement to include a review clause and to limit when claims can be re-issued to 10 years. The intention is to determine whether concerns about pay are related to the re-emergence of sex-based undervaluation or other market forces. The problem is when the comparators negotiate a pay hike after the extent of the undervaluation in relation to one or more comparators has been calculated and agreed between the parties. This will disrupt the calculation of the undervaluation. How can we be sure that ratcheting up pay rates for male-dominated occupations is not related to the re-emergence of sex-based undervaluation? Extending the re-issuing of reviews to 10 years seems on the face of it to be arbitrary. It means, for example, that care and support workers will not be eligible for a review until 2027, and midwives will not be eligible for a review until 2033. © Scoop Media
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
David Ovens: Athletics is, and has been for some time, Scotland's leading sport
David Ovens is understandably upbeat when talking about the recent past, present and future of his sport. The chair of scottishathletics has, after all, just witnessed a Scot win yet another major championship medal, he's played a significant role in ensuring the sport's primary competition venue will remain open and he's optimistic that a new generation of Scottish athletes will soon emerge onto the world stage. It comes, then, as little surprise that Ovens believes athletics is, as things stand, Scotland's leading sport. 'Athletics is clearly Scotland's most successful sport at the moment and, in my opinion, has been for the past decade or so,' he says. 'There's a range of factors that go into athletics being such a strong and successful sport but, from my perspective, the most important thing is that the foundations are really solid so it develops from there.' One of the most headline-grabbing moments so far of 2025 was Neil Gourley's silver medal-winning performance in the 1500m at the World Indoor Championships in Nanjing in March. It was an impressive performance in itself but even more impressive was its contribution to one of the most remarkable statistics in Scottish sport; Scottish athletes have won medals at nine of the past ten major athletics championships, with Olympic silverware and world titles included in that streak. For Ovens, Gourley's run was satisfying to watch not only because it extended the run of success of Scottish athletes at the highest level, but also because it was, at the grand old age of 30, the Glaswegian's first global silverware. 'Another major medal was fantastic and I'm really pleased for Neil because that medal has been coming for quite some time,' Ovens says. Neil Gourley won World Indoor 1500m silver earlier this year (Image: Getty Images) 'Neil is part of a generation where there's an ingrained mentality that they will be competing on the world stage for medals and so it was great for him, and the sport, to see it happen.' Gourley's world indoor silver medal came just weeks before what could be considered an even more significant development; the confirmation that Grangemouth Stadium would remain open. For several years, Grangemouth Stadium, which is used regularly for junior, senior and masters Scottish athletics competitions, has been under the threat of closure but finally, a solution has been found that will ensure at the very least, the short-term future of the venue and also, hopes Ovens, the long-term future too. David Ovens (Image: Bobby Gavin/Scottish Athletics) From the 1st of June, the Grangemouth Community Sports Trust will take over the facility and given the venue's significance for the sport in this country, Ovens is barely able to mask his relief that closure has been prevented. However, he also notes his disappointment that there's hasn't been greater understanding from those at the very top of quite how valuable sports facilities are to this country and its population. 'Grangemouth has been earmarked for closure for a number of years so we've worked hard to reduce what was a significant financial deficit when it was in the hands of the council to a place where it should break even,' he says 'It's a huge thing for the sport to keep Grangemouth open. It's our most important stadium geographically because 50 so many of our athletes can get there within an hour. It's our main national competition venue and it's a really busy stadium so it would have been a tragedy if Grangemouth had closed. 'Our chief executive, Colin Hutchison, put in a power of work and we got very good support from Falkirk Council as well as sportscotland and I think that was because Grangemouth is such a significant stadium for athletics both nationally and locally. 'But I don't think though that there's enough recognition at government level of the importance of these kind of facilities, and it's not just athletics facilities, it's swimming pools, hockey pitches and the rest. 'It goes back to the point that the reason athletics has been so successful in recent years is because of the foundations that are in place and facilities are a big part of that strong foundation. The danger for so many sports is that the foundations are starting to become shaky I don't think, at government level, there's a strong enough recognition of the importance of these facilities. 'Yes, these venues are important from a sporting perspective but I also think they're hugely significant in a societal sense for things like health and well-being and so I would like to see a change in the government's attitude towards this.' It is, justifiably, Scotland's current crop of world-class athletes such as Laura Muir, Josh Kerr, Eilish McColgan and Jake Wightman who dominate the media coverage afforded to athletics but given these athletes are all in their late-twenties and beyond, it's understandable that the question has begun to be asked as to who, if anyone, is going to fill the boots of these individuals when they inevitably retire. Ovens, however, is quietly confident that there is a wave of athletes coming through the ranks who will ably back-up the success Kerr, Muir et al have so regularly achieved on the global stage and particularly with the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow just 14 months away, he is keen for some of Scotland's younger athletes to begin to make their presence felt on the international stage. 'This summer, I'm really looking forward to seeing Scottish athletes achieve the qualifying times for next year's Commonwealth Games and I'm looking forward to seeing who's going to emerge,' he says. 'There's Sarah Tait, Brodie Young and Rebecca Grieve who are all out in America and are edging towards world class and there's also the sprinter Dean Patterson who's developing very well so there's a list of names who are looking very exciting. We've got very good depth and so that talent coming through, combined with the fact they can look up to these world-class athletes, makes me feel very optimistic for the future.' First thing's first, though, and before the Commonwealth Games there's this year's World Championships in Tokyo in September. Scottish athletes have enjoyed remarkable success at recent editions of the event, including two 1500m world champions in the shape of Wightman in 2022 and Kerr in 2023 and while Ovens would never be complacent about extending Scotland's medal-winning streak at major events, he remains quietly confident of yet more success this summer. 'We can never take for granted how many medals Scottish athletes have won in recent years,' he says. 'Having said that, there is yet another excellent chance this season of more silverware. 'I'd love to see Jemma Reekie get a gold medal and I'd love to see any of Jake (Wightman), Josh (Kerr) and Neil (Gourley) get a medal and continue that run in the 1500 meters. 'I'm confident that we will get some silverware at the World Champs.'
