Proposition 53K1675

Projet de loi visant à lutter contre l'écart salarial entre hommes et femmes.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq
Ecolo Zoé Genot
Groen Meyrem Almaci
LE Marie-Martine Schyns, Annick Van Den Ende
MR David Clarinval
Open Vld Maggie De Block, Lieve Wierinck
PS | SP Valérie Déom
Vooruit Maya Detiège

Submission date

July 12, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work mediator anti-discriminatory measure gender equality equal pay pay social dialogue

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 8, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. De Clercq, rapporteur, is not present. He apologized. Ms. Schyns will report and continue with her speech.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the problem of the wage gap came into discussion in the House thanks to the submission of several bills. These were reviewed by the Opinion Committee for Social Emancipation.

One bill came from Ms. Becq and Fonck, another from Ms. Detiège, another from Ms. Deom, another from Ms. Fonck and Becq, all related to the wage gap between women and men. They aimed to address discrimination, to ventilate the social balance sheets by establishing a report and a plan for equal opportunities between women and men.

Several resolutions were also submitted. Finally, the opinion committee decided to work on the basis of legislative proposals. He organized hearings, of which I will not give you the full report here. I will only cite the people we have had the opportunity to hear, who have largely justified the bill we will vote today.

Among the persons heard were the Minister of Employment and Equal Opportunities, the representative of the Institute for Gender Equality, the representatives of FGTB and CSC, the representatives of FEB, UCM and UNIZO, the representative of the Ministry of Equal Opportunities of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the representative of the Onderzoeksinstituut voor Arbeid en Samenleving of the KUL, the Nederlandstalige Vrouwenraad and the French-speaking Women Council of Belgium, as well as representatives of the Bank-Carrefour.

Following all these hearings, the solution was to coordinate the various proposals and agree on a common text. The bill we will vote for is the result of collective work. At the same time, there was no less expectation for such a topic.

This proposal introduces four new measures. First, certain sections of the social balance sheet will have to be divided according to gender. Second, the difference in remuneration and the classification of gender-neutral functions must become permanent topics of social consultation, with the establishment of a control procedure with the SPF Employment. Third, companies with an average of at least 50 employees will have to submit a report on the company’s remuneration structure every two years. Finally, companies will be able to optionally decide to appoint a mediator among staff members.

Then, the different opinions of the FEB, the Privacy Protection Commission and the trade unions were taken into account at the last meeting of the opinion committee on 15 February, which allowed voting at this session.

The vote in the Social Affairs Committee took place last week. Today we meet for the vote in the plenary session.

I would like to thank all the colleagues who collaborated on this proposal, namely Ms. Detiège, Déom, Becq, De Block and Genot, who are the co-authors, as well as the only man who supported us – I ⁇ ’t say supported! During these discussions, Mr. by Clarinval.

This is the conclusion of this report, Mr. President. I have tried to be short enough and I will try to be short enough for the presentation of the position of my group that I am addressing now.

The wage gap is not a myth. The latest report of the Institute for Gender Equality, published on 21 February 2012, shows that the wage gap based on hourly wage remains 10%. Furthermore, this figure must not forget that, according to the statutes, there are greater differences: 25% for employees, 17% for workers in the private sector. This is a persistent inequality that must be combated.

For our group, it was essential to act on three levels. First, at the interprofessional level, the classification of gender-neutral functions must become a permanent theme of social consultation. Then, at the sectoral level, parity committees should be supported in these steps of social concertation. Finally, at the business level, we demand the obligation to publish an annual report and a plan for equal opportunities as well as to modify the social balance sheet. We have actively collaborated with the draft law and we fully support it.

I would like to recall that the objectives of the work were to maintain a balance in order to take effective measures for real progress, for greater transparency in terms of wage differences, to avoid overloading companies as far as possible – and we have ensured this –, to guarantee privacy and to ensure coherence with existing legislation on social concertation and anti-discrimination.

Finally, it should be noted that this proposal also includes various recommendations at European level. In addition, the conclusions of the European Council of 6 December 2010 call on Member States to take measures to ensure greater transparency in wages and to promote the neutral classification of functions. Measures like ours are being taken in other European countries, ⁇ in Sweden or France.

Today we vote on a new law that is a step on the road to equality between men and women. However, there is still a path to go. The CDH will continue to be attentive to other challenges: improving the conciliation between family life and work, the fight against the glass ceiling, precarious work or even stereotypes.

I thank you for the work done.

Today is International Women’s Day. It is obvious that the N-VA considers gender equality important. The N-VA also wants equal pay for equal work. Employees who do the same job should get the same salary. That is out of doubt. A difference in remuneration based on gender is unacceptable. That must be clear.

I would like to point out that Belgium is not doing so bad with regard to the wage gap. A recent OECD report stated that Belgium is the third best country, after Norway and Hungary.

Of course, 8.9% is still too much for us, but it proves that the situation is not dramatic.

In addition, many factors cause the differences in remuneration, including in terms of employment, individual negotiations with the employer, or even the training programmes that women attend and even the cultural role pattern. For example, women work more than men in soft sectors, where wages are lower. They work more part-time with less chances of a career and in salary negotiations often play for them other priorities such as the combination work-family.

Often, external factors force women not to fully advance their careers. That is what needs to change. This cannot be achieved with this bill. This requires a change in mentality and that needs to grow.

The bill only addresses a small number of factors and will therefore make a small contribution to cutting the wage gap. Even after the text has been approved, wage differences will continue to exist. Therefore, we must not create the illusion that the proposal will solve everything.

A lot of work has been done before the draft law. Hearing was organised in the Advisory Committee for Social Emancipation. The N-VA has always insisted that the employers should also be heard here, so that we would get a balanced and nuanced story. From this work, the present legislative proposal emerged.

The proposal contains two recommended measures for us. First, in order to address the wage gap, it must first be mapped. Therefore, the salary data on the social balance is divided according to gender. This gives the government a better view of the differences between companies. The N-VA is in favour of this data collection.

Secondly, the wage gap becomes a fixed topic in social consultation. We also congratulate this. It is primarily the task of the social partners to monitor correct wage systems.

What we have a problem with is the appointment of a mediator responsible for the handling of complaints. After all, companies already have enough people at home who can take that job, such as the HR manager, the trade union representative or the trust person. They are very well placed to pass such complaints to the management.

The introduction of the measure may be non-binding, but it is clear that in practice the pressure to appoint a mediator will be great. It means an additional task burden for the companies and an increase in the burden for our entrepreneurs. Even the ACV acknowledges that the mediator often threatens to cross the normal consultation on wage and working conditions. It seems to us rather to be a symbol function without real added value. The file does not really need that.

However, the N-VA wants to deal constructively with the bill. We will therefore submit our amendment again to remove the articles on the mediator from the proposal. In that case, we would gladly support the proposal. If these articles are not deleted, we will abstain at the vote on the bill.

Equal work must be equally rewarded, that is obvious. However, the historical struggle for gender equality deserves better than approving a symbolic bill on a symbolic date. True gender equality begins with the mentality and attitude of the men and women concerned towards each other.

The equality of pay between women and men is a recurring issue. This has been discussed for a long time in Belgium but also at the European and international levels. Talking about it is good; acting is even better!

Today, for the first time in a number of years, a concrete proposal, intended to effectively combat the gender pay gap in our country, is subject to the vote of our assembly. Of course, the principle of equality between men and women and, in particular, that of equal pay, has been defended for decades. Of course, legislative initiatives in this area have already been made and, fortunately, progress has been made. However, as has already been said, the gender pay gap persists and cannot be tolerated. This text is therefore an important advance that we, as well as many women, have been waiting for for a long time.

The Social Emancipation Committee which I preside over has thus decided, a little more than a year now, to issue an opinion on its own initiative concerning precisely this problem of the gender pay gap to the attention of the Social Affairs Committee. In fact, it must be said, proposals from my group, the PS, but also other groups were already on the table. It was probably an obvious for many of us to have to work on this topic. Obviously, it was necessary to succeed but to succeed in a proposal that makes sense and can be a real lever to remove this wage gap without obviously blocking the economic development of our companies.

I insist on the fact that this text is truly the fruit of collective work. As a co-signatory of the text and above all as chairman of the Committee on Social Emancipation, I would like to thank all the political groups who participated in a very constructive way in the debate. The project on the table today is not a soft compromise. He is strong and will, I hope, be effective. Thank you again to all members of the Social Emancipation Committee.

Our meetings were numerous. We did a lot of auditions and we got there. Even though we accelerated the rate somewhat without distorting the quality, this work ended in a Thursday plenary session. The 8th of March fell on a Thursday. Beyond the effectiveness, it was an important symbol to see this text come to fruition today.

As recalled, even if we are not a bad student on the European level – I will not say that Belgium is a good student because as long as there is a pay gap, we will not be good – even if the figures differ according to studies and calculation methods, even if some try to make us believe that this problem does not exist or is limited, the pay gap between men and women is and remains a reality.

The proportion of this wage gap that cannot be explained objectively is also a reality!

Wage discrimination based solely on gender persists. The principle "equal work, equal wage", already enshrined in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, is, however, still not a reality, and this, more than half a century later. This is unacceptable!

The consequences for women of wage inequality are immediate in terms of amounts received at the end of the month but they also manifest throughout their lifetime. Women are therefore unjustly exposed to an increased risk of poverty during their working life but also at the time of their retirement since their pension will be calculated on the basis of what they earned during their working life and will therefore, de facto, be lower.

The latest figures are eloquent. On average in Belgium, a man receives 950 euros of pension. It is still too little, but the average for a woman is 650 euros. No one can live with that money today.

According to the figures already recalled, the wage gap varies between 10% and 23% on the basis of a gross annual wage, all sectors confused and regardless of working time. The gap is even greater if one takes into account only the private sector and if one takes into account the famous extra-legal advantages such as utility cars, GSM, computers, etc.

We have therefore decided to continue our work in line with the conclusions of the Conference on Pay Gap held during the Belgian Presidency of the European Union in late 2010. We also followed a series of recommendations from the Institute for Gender Equality. When the government announced, in its government agreement, that it wanted to address the problem, we put the double blows because we knew we would be supported.

As I said before, this text will not eliminate the pay gap from day to day. There is still a lot to be done to reconcile private and professional life.

But, I am convinced, it will ⁇ allow to reduce it by cutting it even better. In fact, it should lead to a more effective implementation of existing legislation, an even greater accountability of social partners and ⁇ , but also a greater transparency of wages. This will obviously only be possible with the contribution of each and thanks to the complementarity of the proposed measures, namely the gender segregation of certain data from the social balance sheet, including the well-known extra-legal benefits, the assessment of the neutral character of the classifications of functions developed by the parity committees, the obligation for employers to carry out an analysis of their remuneration structure with a key action plan if inequalities are found, in order to overcome them and, finally, the possibility of appointing a mediator within the company.

These are so many measures for which we found it appropriate to involve every level of social consultation, the interprofessional level, the sectoral level and the level of the company.

I would also like to reaffirm that these measures, in particular that relating to the obligation for the employer to carry out an analysis of the wage structure, will not result in a considerable additional workload. I’m not saying there will be no one at all, but it will, in any case, not be enormous since this measure applies to companies of at least 50 workers. At this level, the numbers exist. This was repeated during the hearings we conducted. The aim is to highlight or highlight these figures in order to drive a true dialogue within the companies themselves.

In conclusion, I hope that today we will take another important step in promoting equality between women and men. More than ever, in this period of rigour, budgetary difficulties for each of us, it is indispensable that women and men are equal in terms of economic independence, now and in the future.

Mevrouw Becq and then after Mr. by Clarinval. There are still six interventions. by Mr. Clarinval will help us move towards parity in this debate.

I think the parity is corrected in the entire hemisphere.

It is not a coincidence that we are here today for discussion and vote. Since we have said across the various political groups that we want to bring this to an end and that we would like to vote on it today in the plenary session, we succeed today in presenting a rounded proposal here. This proposal, made with the efforts and contributions of the various groups, aims primarily to combat the famous wage gap. With regard to the wage gap, there is a lot of discussion about the figures, but research shows that it would be over 10% across the different sectors. In the private sector, the wage gap based on gross hourly wages for employees is 25 %, for workers 17 % and for statutory officials, the wage gap is virtually nonexistent. This is an important aspect to be emphasized, in addition to the fact that more than one-third of women are financially dependent on the income of their householdmates. For men, this is one in ten. It is relevant to argue that women’s income, even when it relates to the efforts and work they do, should be closer to that of men.

The wage gap can be attributed to numerous and complex factors. I think of employment in different sectors or the choice of part-time work. Forty-four percent of women choose part-time work compared to 9 percent of men. Furthermore, there is interruption for care tasks, but also the unequal appreciation of male and female tasks, and even unequal pay for the same task package. The difficult combination of work and family remains one of the major causes of women’s financial dependence.

We believe that the fight against this wage gap is a matter of fairness, but it is also of great importance for women’s economic independence, not only during the period they work, but indeed, as colleague Déom has cited, up to the amount of pension. After all, we must conclude that the consequences of an incomplete career and a low salary also have consequences on the amount of pension women receive. The pension gap is not up to 10%, but up to 23%. Nearly 60 % of women who are entitled to retirement claim less than EUR 1 000 per month. Retired women are five times more likely to fall below the poverty line.

These are sufficient reasons to say that we have an effective interest in making this wage gap as small as possible.

The first initiatives date back a long time ago. I refer to then Minister Miet Smet from our party – then still CVP – who in 1994 already asked attention and took action to draw attention to the fact that in the classification of functions and the valuation of jobs, one had a different appreciation for jobs performed by women than for jobs performed by men. There were various campaigns, codes of conduct and sectoral systems to organize job evaluation in a different way.

That is why we from our group wanted to pay a lot of attention to the job classification, the negotiation, the social partners and the wage negotiations in which they must assist. Together with our colleagues in the Senate, we submitted a proposal in 2009 to take measures to close the wage gap.

We find these things back in today’s proposal, where we initially found it important to make the wage gap visible. We have effectively advocated the transparency of the social balance sheet because it is a public document and it is linked to the financial statements. It is also a validated document because it is an annual report.

We have pledged to divide the data contained in the annual report on wages into data on men and data on women, which not only concerns the basic wage but also clarifies the social benefits received. These benefits should also be divided between men and women. This also makes the wage gap between men and women clear.

We advocate for a social balance, which will enable objective data to make averages and comparisons within sectors and between sectors, to look at the reasons for this inequality and to enable further monitoring.

The preparation of a two-year analysis report will also contribute to bridging that gap and will provide the opportunity to develop further action programmes.

Also in the evaluation of functions and the preparation of function classifications the gender test should be made. We find that in the way a job is formulated or classified, other amounts or wages are attached to it.

Finally, there is indeed also the function of mediator, who could intervene in individual situations. I must admit that we were not very enthusiastic about this. In that sense, I actually do not understand the N-VA, because it is very clear in the text that the undertaking is not obliged to designate such an intermediary, but that that possibility is given. There is therefore no “must”, there is a “can”, with which we very clearly say that it is not an obligation and therefore we also see no reason why one should object to such a provision.

It says: “On the proposal of the business council, and in the absence of a business council by the committee, the employer of any company can...” There is no “must”, there is a “can”. This possibility is given if it is desired at the enterprise level. The possibility is there, but there is no necessity.

In that sense, we say that these are different measures to effectively bridge that wage gap, to start from objective data, to develop programs to work out that wage gap.

We are aware that this is only one step in raising awareness among men and women to be able to work and not work in a similar way and to make equal pay for men and women, and to ensure that we can also build careers so that women can also be financially independent.

In this sense, I find it important to call on you, colleagues, to be vigilant, also with regard to the further savings that are yet to come, also with regard to the further changes that are yet to come in the labour law and possibly in the pension reform. We must see together that pension reforms that do not increase but rather reduce the pension gap, also for women, precisely in order to minimise the risk of poverty, including for retired women.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, on this World Women’s Day, we could not have dreamed of a better timing to consider in plenary session this bill aimed at reducing the gender pay gap.

Before addressing the bill filed on our banks, I would like to mention a few figures. The gender pay gap, calculated on the basis of a gross hourly wage, is 10%, all sectors confused. This general figure, however, conceals large status differences. For example, in the private sector, it is 25% for employees and 17% for workers. The larger the wages at stake, the greater the wage gap. One of the reasons for this difference is the fact that women work much more often part-time than men.

Several bills were on the table of parliament and were discussed. We have worked for many months within the Opinion Committee on Social Emancipation in order to refine a common text. The proposal presented today is the result of a compromise.

During the discussions, the MR insisted on the importance of respecting social concertation. We have asked the social partners for their opinion. We also recalled the importance of respecting and protecting privacy. In fact, we had expressed concerns about the role of mediator. For this and many other issues, we have taken into account in our amendments the opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission.

Over the course of the discussions, the text has evolved considerably. We can see the following improvements. First, SMEs are excluded from its scope.

Secondly, the drafting of the analysis report has been simplified. The initial proposal provided for several reports, including an evaluation. We have removed duplicates by providing only the writing of a single report.

Thirdly, the scheduled deadlines have been adjusted and now correspond better to the reality experienced.

Fourth, the role of the Ombudsman has been clarified. Thus, his independence was recalled, as well as the need to make a royal decree determining his competences and aptitudes as well as the deontological rules he will have to respect. The protection against dismissal has been removed. Furthermore, the use of a mediator has become a mere possibility, and more a duty. Finally, flexibility in the implementation of the law is guaranteed.

Fifth, the Privacy Protection Commission will issue a consistent opinion on the Royal Decree determining the Ombudsman’s competence, skills and ethical rules. The legal force of a conforming opinion is greater than a simple opinion.

Sixth, in order to respect privacy, the risks of identifying the employee have been carefully framed and limited in order to guarantee the anonymity and confidentiality of the data.

Finally, seventh, we can be pleased to have been able to obtain the introduction of a compliance or explanation procedure, as part of possible sanctions that would be imposed on parity committees.

I will not return here to the measure concerning the social balance sheet, for which the MR had proposed an alternative solution, more appropriate in our eyes and less binding for companies, via the Trillium file. This solution was unfortunately not followed by the members of the committee although it would have enabled a great deal of administrative simplification. I regret this, but I hope that social partners will review this possibility later.

Dear colleagues, before concluding, it is important to say that beyond the proposed measures, which frame the working relations, the fight against the wage gap is a social debate whose causes go beyond the business world. In fact, in order to effectively and sustainably combat the pay gap, we must also better adapt and multiply the childcare structures, work on mentalities, promote equal behaviors, better inform children and parents of future professions.

We will also need to take measures to support families in order to make it easier to reconcile private and professional life, such as deductibility of custody fees, adapted schedules, service titles, etc.

In addition, we talk a lot about the wage gap among employees, but very little about that of the self-employed. However, this phenomenon is also present, which we will also have to fight against. This will probably be the subject of further discussion.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all the colleagues who have worked on this subject. It was sometimes complicated, because this debate is exciting, sometimes passionate, but the constructive spirit of everyone has allowed to end favorably. I wanted to emphasize this tonight.

Today is Women’s Day, so women are allowed to celebrate today.

Today is International Women’s Day and it commemorates the first women’s strike, targeting the poor working conditions in the textile industry. This strike was the beginning of a long struggle against women’s discrimination. Over the past few years, many incomprehensible and unacceptable thresholds have been removed. As a reminder, I take a few to show how far we are actually going.

In 1948, women were granted the right to vote at parliamentary level. They were eligible for the first time. The period in which married women were equated on the level of civil law with abducted minors is over. The time when mothers were not allowed to attend the baptism of their newborn child because they were unclean is, fortunately, also behind us. Women who choose BOM maternity are no longer required to adopt their own child.

Fortunately, much has changed in employment as well. For a long time, women were not considered to work, unless possibly in the period between their school time and their marriage. Fortunately, this situation has improved dramatically The number of women entering the labour market today is much higher than in the post-war period. The willingness to study has increased and the quality of work has improved.

In other words, many good things have been achieved, but the bill we are discussing now shows that not all discrimination has yet been eliminated.

The bill, which required a lot of prior work, would really not have come without the good cooperation between the various majority parties and with the support of Ecolo-Groen. I would like to thank all those people once again because the point is on the agenda today.

Let’s talk about the history of the wage gap. Some people say that the problem of wage gap is negligible and that it was only put on the agenda to bully employers, but it has existed longer than today. I did some research work.

The Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957. That convention literally states that work of equal value must be equally remunerated and that gender must in no way be a criterion in determining wages. The intention at that time was actually to address the problem of cheap female labor.

The power lines were sadly weakened by the patrons. They pointed to the low yield of the female labour force, to the international competition – the Belgian wage costs would be too high – and to the fact that the woman was not a food winner.

As early as the 1950s, the women’s movement called for a system of functional qualifications to demonstrate wage differences. At the same time, the employers’ difficult preparation of job classifications was invoked as an excuse to delay the introduction of equal pay.

Fortunately, the workers’ movement was much more positive. For them, not only justice was an argument, but also the falling wage competition between men and women.

However, governments and employers continued to shake down and shrinking manoeuvres out of their sleeves, such as not finding or not wanting to find identical functions. As a result, there were no concrete achievements.

In 1960, there was a recommendation to expand the scope of equal remuneration. In the mid-1960s, wage discrimination largely disappeared from the COAs. Unfortunately, this did not mean that men and women were paid equally in practice.

When Equal Pay Day was organized for the first time, we in Belgium had very few statistics and studies on the wage gap. Thanks to the actions of Zij-kant and ABVV, official and reliable data on wage disparities have been available for several years now, data which are published annually in the wage disparity report of the Institute for Equality of Women and Men.

The figures have already been cited. On a monthly gross basis, women earn on average 22% less than men. Some of the reasons have already been mentioned; I will not refresh them again.

I think the following is important. If we neutralize the effect of the fact that women are more likely to enjoy a different basic education, that they, for example, turn into other professions and that they are less likely to switch to certain positions, it shows that women earn 11 % less than men, merely because they are women. When I hear that, I actually get a little angry.

I understand the comments. Ms. Demir has just said that we must address the horizontal and vertical segregation, the glass ceiling. We must, for example, ensure that stereotypical study choices are addressed. Of course that must happen. Today, the new Equal Pay Day campaign has been launched that really hammer on it. I don’t know if you’ve seen it around the porn actresses. I see people watching now. Apparently, it is the only job in which women earn more than men. I don’t want to be that, but this is actually a provocative action that is being carried out today consciously to prevent us from earning more than men in those jobs only in the future. It would be best if we all deserve the same for the same job.

I also know that not all problems can be dealt with in the same law. For example, I think of longer parental leave or the glass ceiling. Treatment of certain problems sometimes needs to be done at a different level. For example, I think of affordable childcare, something that needs to be done at the Community level. Not everything can be regulated through a law, there must also be awareness-raising campaigns. You have just pointed out that household tasks should be fairly distributed. Sorry, I don’t know how we can ever pour that into a law. I think we need to make the men and women themselves who are standing there aware that they need to talk to each other and make sure that this happens more balanced. I wanted to give Mr. Bracke the message that he can wash his underwear himself, but he is unfortunately not there.

The legislation proposed today is intended to address the wage gap in the strict sense of the word. We said this very consciously. We will also address all those other elements, we are working with them on various levels, but today we are talking about that pure discrimination.

Colleagues, with this bill, we hope to quickly eliminate the salary backwardness of women. That women still earn less simply because they are women is indeed unacceptable. We expect your full support.

For more than a hundred years, feminists have denounced wage inequality. Since its founding in 1919, the ILO has focused on the gender pay gap. This is a struggle that has been going on for a long time. Everyone has the slogan of the workers of the FN: "For equal work, equal pay." Unfortunately, this is still not the case!

It could have been believed that when women gained access to education, this gap would fade. Today, women study, even better than men, and despite this, the pay gap still exists.

As you know, this difference has various causes. The wage gap has decreased, but not permanently. For example, between 2000 and 2005, this has grown again.

Therefore, waiting for this gap to disappear does not work. Therefore, action must be taken. It is not just about forbidding it – discrimination has been forbidden for many years and the wage gap persists – it is necessary to provide other tools.

The causes are diverse. The first is ⁇ the game of supply and demand. Obviously, many employers still prefer the work of men. Women work a lot in sectors where wages are less high. Just think about very useful sectors such as helping people where women are over-represented. In some positions, there is still too much tendency to not entrust responsibilities to women. There is also an over-representation of women in part-time work.

Even when all these elements are removed, the pay gap persists. That is why we had to act. We have been together for more than a year. We could almost fear not being able to do so. Finally, there was an agreement in which everyone could find themselves. I must confess that it is a pleasure!

This text contains various aspects. In the field of consultation, at the interprofessional level, at the level of sectors or at the level of the company, patrons and trade unions work, discuss and advance on this theme. At the individual level, mediation and complaints can be progressed more effectively. We hope that with this arsenal, we can see things evolve.

On this Women’s Day, I look forward to the vote of this text by a very large majority. But there are other areas where women remain the major victims. At the level of measures taken on time credit, 84 percent of these time credits are chosen by women because they are the ones who assume the greatest of family responsibilities; therefore, these measures will affect them ⁇ .

When we see the measures taken in the field of unemployment, the degressivity will hit the cohabitants in full. And again it is women who will be the victims, reaching the level of what women’s associations call a ridiculously low package.

They will obviously be affected by the pension measures. Currently, 33% of pensioners but 59% of pensioners receive a pension of less than 1,000 euros. Measures aimed at reducing assimilation will, of course, cause women to suffer first.

In 2007, this parliament welcomed the vote of the law on gender mainstreaming. It is about examining the differentiated impact of a new legislation on men and women. Unfortunately, this 2007 law is difficult to implement in practice. We have seen it during the debate on pensions when we questioned the Minister of Pensions, we have seen it when we took measures in the field of employment and we have questioned the Minister of Employment, we see it regularly when we discuss the general policy notes of the various ministers: we forget this famous aspect gender mainstreaming. Five years later, this law is still not enforced.

Mr. Wathelet, you are the only representative of the government today. I would like to remind the government of this 2007 law on gender mainstreaming. I would like the government to finally implement it. Five years later, I think that’s the least of the things.

Mrs. Werner, I give you the floor for your first speech in this Assembly. We will listen to you; we will applaud later.

For 101 years, the world celebrates International Women’s Day on 8 March. It commemorates the women’s strike in New York on the same day in 1908. Poor working conditions, low wages and long working hours in the textile industry were more than a century ago the fighting points of women, emancipation and burial of gender discrimination the goals. That poor working conditions for women, meanwhile, belong to a different era, but the gender pay gap is still a reality. I am therefore pleased that this plenary session, just on this symbolic day, will vote on a bill to combat the wage gap.

It was in 1948 that the principle of equal remuneration of male and female workers for work of equal value was inscribed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The international and Belgian framework for equal treatment and equal remuneration has since been greatly expanded. However, this has never led to a breakthrough. The fact that men and women are equal before the law does not eliminate the fact that many women are facing wage inequality.

For years, the case of the wage gap has been dealt with in the advisory committees Equal Opportunities of Chamber and Senate. Over the years, it has been constantly appearing in the discussion of the policy notes. Over the years, the social partners have also taken numerous actions to ensure compliance with the principle of equal pay for men and women. Despite all commitments, however, progress on the ground was limited.

It is therefore commendable that a number of MEPs have worked together to draft a bill on strict addressing the gender pay gap.

For my group, this is a coherent proposal in line with numerous parliamentary initiatives from different parties. I am pleased that the support for this bill is large.

The factors that determine the wage gap are well known. Part of the wage gap can be explained by the horizontal segregation. For example, women often choose welfare sectors and less for welfare sectors where wages are higher. Vertical segregation also plays a role. In fact, women are more employed in lower, executive or supporting positions, jobs that are less well paid, jobs that do not offer extra-legal benefits.

Most studies conclude that part of the pay gap is due to the function classification systems and systems to describe functions. After all, they often lead to underestimation of typically female functions. Ignoring female traits also leads to underestimating the wages of female workers. Among other things, it is on this issue that the bill seeks to work by stimulating action at the level of interprofessional and sectoral consultation.

During the negotiations on the agreements, the issue of the wage gap should be placed on the agenda, measures should be negotiated and, in particular, the job classification systems should be made gender-neutral. It is essential that greater transparency of wage gap is enforced at corporate level. By dividing some of the data in the social balance by gender, we gain a better understanding of the gender and wage gap situation in enterprises.

This proposal will not solve everything, but it is a step in the right direction. However, other measures must also be taken. In this regard, I think of roll-through education, breaking the glass ceiling, the presence of sufficiently high-quality and affordable childcare. These are all elements necessary to close the wage gap.

I strongly assert that this bill is a turning point, because it addresses the wage gap in the strict sense of the word. I would also like to emphasize here that each interested party has made concessions in the making of this proposal. However, we must keep the goal in mind: addressing the wage gap. We must therefore, in particular, not lose sight of the fact that these concessions do not outweigh the step forward set by this bill. An important step forward, which will lead to more actual equality between men and women.

Congratulations on your first intervention. (The applause)

Can we say that today is International Women’s Day? Per ⁇ it would be good to pause a moment on its origin. On March 8, 1908, the first women’s strike took place against abominable working conditions. It is the women who have pledged for the first time for an eight-hour working day, which has now become the norm, for better working conditions and for the right to vote for women, which had not yet been realized at that time.

On March 8, 1917 there was another women’s strike, followed by that in New York now in St. Petersburg. Since then, March 8 is International Women’s Day. The struggle for universal voting right may have ended – a long way has been taken since then – but there is still a lot to fight for.

For a population that makes up more than half of the world’s population, the figures of the statistics, to which we all have access, still appear to be ⁇ gloomy. Women do 66% of all work in the world, but they earn only 10% of the world’s income. They do 66% of all work, but they own only 1% of all property. Of all the poor in the world, 75% are women. For every dollar donated to a women’s project, $20 goes to a male-led development project. Of all illiterates in the world, 66% are women. Of all refugees in the world, 75% are women. Of all government leaders in the world, 5% are women.

Then I haven’t talked about sexual violence, domestic violence, physical violence, women who die in childbirth, women who die as a result of illegal abortions, women who still live in slavery.

Today – this is ⁇ the most hallucinating figure – more than 60 million women are officially missing in the world, as a result of selective abortions and child killing of girls.

The picture is ⁇ serious. The temptation is great to think that the problem with us has already been solved, that we in Belgium and Flanders no longer know the problem. Nothing is less true.

One in four women falls off the stairs. Only 6% of professors are women. Only 7.5% of the mayors are women. One in three ship colleges is a full male bastion. These figures refute the idea that the battle was fought. The struggle for equal wages prevails everywhere in the world, including here. Equal pay for equal work, this slogan has been used since 1957, when in Europe and also in our own legislation this requirement was incorporated. Meanwhile, statistical regression analyses and multivariable analyses have demonstrated that this wage gap is not a myth, which can be explained by differences in starting positions. After all the variables have been clarified, there is still a difference of 10 %, as Mrs Becq has just demonstrated. After correction by all possible explanations, there remains a difference and that difference is unacceptable.

Do not be mistaken, it is not because we have a correction of 25%, of which we can declare 15%, that that 15% is also tolerable. It has already been quoted by several colleagues, behind those so-called objective factors are often unequal starting positions, stereotypes and equally discrimination. A good example from Jobat was the image of Donald Trump. One study showed that the male bullebak gets storage, but the female doesn’t. What is often heard is that the woman must stand up for her own rights.

A good study from America shows the following. I quote: “When men act brutally, they are seen as harsh negotiators, a positive trait in the business world. Those men will thus climb to the top faster than their softer counterparts. Strangely enough, this is true of everything except for women. Women who do not behave kindly are generally labeled as overly controlling personalities.”

Unfortunately for women – this has also been investigated – even the opposite does not happen. If they are kind and attentive, it will not lead to higher wages or a higher position. The conclusion of the study is that women in this case are simply ignored. In short, the wage gap will always remain.

If we find that, the question of how to eliminate the wage gap is, of course, interesting. It is the merit of the present bill, that it is the fruit of the work of various parties, that it really wants to do something about it, and not only on this symbolic day, the International Women’s Day. Work on the bill has been done for a long time. Various texts of proposals have been discussed in our board for years. In the month of Equal Pay Day, which, by the way, falls on March 25, for those who want to know it, it will finally be there.

Incentives are given in the hope that this will help to close the wage gap. After all, the wage gap is actually a career gap, which is deepened by differences in study choices, differences in careers, differences in work experience and so on. We need to work on all these fronts.

However, it must be said – I join colleague Becq – that this is bitterly limited in the savings. They are women, who effectively take on career interruption. The number of women who take time credit is approximately three-quarters. They are women who face the shortage of places in kindergartens and therefore need to look for solutions. These women are now excessively punished by the current government with its austerity measures. I hope that this will be corrected soon, because this also addresses the problem of the wage gap. Attention should also be paid to this front. One cannot, on the one hand, assert that it is necessary to work on different fronts and to submit the present bill, while on the other hand, on other fronts, one makes it much more difficult for those women and those families.

The monthly salary letter is effectively only a part of the story, a much-telling part of the story, a part that is too often blamed.

This new law will bring the gender debate into the social negotiations, will allow – one can choose – to establish a function of mediator. There could be a trust person. This is an important signal to the business world and to the employers, it is an important social signal that we are taking several steps in this problem. It may indeed be just one aspect, but it may be an aspect that is more than symbolic.

Colleagues, equal pay for equal work, maybe it is an old demand of the women’s movement, a principle that has been in place since 1957. Now is the time to take the step towards its realization. I would like to thank all colleagues for the joint work in which we have put a lot of time and energy. I am convinced that this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully the statistics will be different next time.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have responded to Mrs. Becq’s misunderstanding of the fact that we are against that mediator. Despite the fact that Mrs. Becq is not present, I would like to repeat this before the report.

The appointment of a mediator is not mandatory, but the pressure within the companies to appoint a mediator will be very large. We know all this. At that time, one is still in the company with an unnecessary position, as a number of people can handle any complaints in this regard. We think that mediator is really an increase in burden for our companies.

I would like to reiterate that the colleagues’ own ACV acknowledges that the mediator threatens to cross and overlap the normal consultation on wage and working conditions. I would like to have said this again.