They marched to the head office of Employers First, which Ms McManus said was the one employer body that was opposing the union's fight for better pay.

"There will be employers who don't want us to win this case," she told the crowd.

"There is one employer body opposing us now. This group is Employers First.

"They have a $1.5 million war chest dedicated to opposing us."

Today's rally comes 38 years after it was decided by the Arbitration Commission that women who were performing the same work as men should get the same award rate of pay.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/thousands-take-to-sydney-streets-to-demand-equal-pay-for-women-20100610-xz8i.html?autostart=1

A leading employers' group has defended its opposition to a historic test case for equal pay for women that was the focus of a union-backed national day of action.

Thousands of protesters took to the streets across Australia yesterday, in support of the case before Fair Work Australia which they say will help close the pay gap.

Recent figures suggest the pay gap has not moved much since the late 1980s and is hovering around 18 per cent.

Unions argue employees in the community sector, where women are in the majority, should be paid the same as employees doing similar work in the public service.

They say the marches were the biggest equal pay protests since the 1970s.

Gary Brack, executive director of the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries (AFEI), formerly known as Employers First, says the pay claim could have a negative impact on workers and could destabilise the wage fixing system.

"If the money goes into the paid rates order, then a whole host of other unions will be saying; they've got it, we want it," he said.

"That will destabilise the wage fixing system."

Mr Brack says the pay rises would also be dependent on funding from governments, which may not be forthcoming.

"They're talking about increases between 18 and 35 per cent and these are for people that might be at one end of the scale - a cleaner - and at the other end of the scale - a manager," he said.

"If the government doesn't support the outcome, if they don't get the funding increase, then they will go out the door backwards; they'll have to cut programs, sack employees, that's the reality.

----------

see toon at top...

from unleashed...

Miranda Devine's column in last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald, in which she bemoans the prevalence of "crotch flashing sluttiness" in raunch culture and champions a return to the exaltation of virginity as its antidote, is a typical but problematic approach to the issue of the exploitation of women's sexuality.

The problem is, by juxtaposing images of Miranda Kerr in naughty schoolgirl attire and Miley Cyrus's vow of chastity, Devine is still framing women's sexuality in one of two ways: the classic virgin/whore dichotomy, whereby a women is either a slut or a picture of innocence.

Such simplistic renderings do not take into account the rich complexity of women's sex lives. By framing abstinence as the only solution to 'trashy' behaviour proponents of 'morality', such as Devine and Wendy Shalit, author of The Good Girl Revolution, refuse to acknowledge that there is more to a woman than whether or not she has sex.

The truth is, chastity, virtue, innocence, whatever cute noun you choose to call it, is not really the opposite of 'raunch', it is merely the flip side of the coin, the 'virgin' to the whore' in that classic dichotomy.

As Jessica Valenti, author of The Purity Myth, states, 'By talking about how you're not having sex, you're still positioning yourself as a sex object.'Likewise, by assuming a higher ground of morality, public advocates of 'chastity' are still foregrounding the notion of sex in the public conscious.

...

By postulating purity as the answer to the 'problem' of raunch culture, Devine simply - and simplistically - serves to highlight how society has not yet reached the point where we can judge a woman on more that whether or not she has sex.

It is time to retire the virgin-whore dichotomy, because as almost any woman could tell you, most women are somewhere in between.

-----------------

 see toon at top...

Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick says today's resignation of David Jones CEO Mark McInnes highlights the extent to which sexual harassment remains deeply entrenched in Australian workplaces.

Mr McInnes released a statement to the ASX today announcing that he had ended his seven-year term at the helm of the department store giant because of two incidents of "unbecoming behaviour" towards a female staff member at company functions.

David Jones chairman Robert Savage told a press conference he first became aware of Mr McInnes's inappropriate behaviour a week ago and says the brand will "clearly suffer" in the wake of Mr McInnes's admission.

Ms Broderick says sexual harassment affects women in all levels of employment.

"The strong message from today's announcement and incident is that sexual harassment is systemic in Australian workplaces," she said.

"That is it can happen at the most senior levels right through to the most junior levels."

She says a recent study shows almost a quarter of women in the workforce have experienced some level of sexual harassment.

"The sad reality we found is that 22 per cent of women have been sexually harassed," she said.

Mr Savage said the board is addressing the complaint made by the female staff member's lawyers and to the best of his knowledge no complaint has been made to the police.

------------------

see toon at top...