In 2003, women working part-time in the UK earned, on average, 22% less than women working full-time. Compared to women who work FT, PT women are more likely to have low levels of education, to be in a couple, to have young and numerous children, to work in small establishments in distribution, hotels and restaurants and in low-level occupations. Taking account of these differences, the PT penalty for identical women doing the same job is estimated to be about 10% if one does not take account of differences in the occupations of FT and PT women and 3% if one does. The occupational segregation of PT and FT women can explain most of the aggregate PT pay penalty. In particular, women who move from FT to PT work are much more likely to change employer and/or occupation than those who maintain their hours status. And, when making this transition, they tend to make a downward occupational move, evidence that many women working PT are not making full use of their skills and experience. Women working PT in the other EU countries have similar problems to the UK but the UK has the highest PT pay penalty and one of the worst problems in enabling women to move between FT and PT work without occupational demotions. At the same time, PT work in the UK carries a higher job satisfaction premium (or a lower job satisfaction penalty) than in most other countries. Policy initiatives in recent years like the National Minimum Wage, the Part-Time Workers Regulations and the Right to Request Flexible Working appear to have had little impact on the PT pay penalty as yet although it is too early to make a definitive assessment of the full impact of some of these regulations. The most effective way to reduce the PT pay penalty would be to strengthen rights for women to move between FT and PT work without losing their current job.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Centre for Economic Performance, LSE in its series CEP Discussion Papers with number
dp0679.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)