Further to my earlier submission, here is a supplemental submission. As a government social policy today’s workplaces are required to have employees with a diversity of backgrounds such as gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation etc. With regards especially to gender and hence women’s rights this was based on the concept of egalitarianism. However, when you create equality in one area you can create inequality in another area, and you need to address this. Even though many women say they support equality, most of them seek to have husbands with a higher-paying job. I believe it was Germane Greer who expressed the hope that many men would prefer a ‘thinker mate’ and would not mind holding a lesser-paying job. However, I don’t believe it has worked out this way. It is said that there are whole streets where everyone is on the dole and that resentment is shown against any employed person so that they get forced to move out. At the other end of the scale professional marries professional and wealth gets concentrated. Within the public service there are women who have a husband who is the main breadwinner, but the wife holds down a job because they want extra luxuries such as a swimming pool or a holiday house on the beach. There are also persons who may be single parents or may be the only breadwinner in the house who have to compete with these people for promotions. But this too is a social issue that is tied up with inequality. Selection panels are prohibited from asking about the personal background of the applicants, and thus finding out who needs the job the most. Those who need it tend to be the most loyal and reliable employees, whereas somebody in it for just the pin money are likely to move on when they have achieved their goal, thus requiring the use of more human resources in filling that vacancy through additional interviews and training for the job, and can thus be wasteful of time and money.
