Gender Equality and Labor Movement in Hong Kong

POLICY STATEMENT:

Despite having established two subsidiary agencies to push for gender equality, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government has yet to utilize the full potential of the Women’s Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission. In the past ten years, the government invested hugely in increasing employment opportunities in Hong Kong, but most of this money went into building infrastructure. Very few of these jobs, however, are relevant to women. Infrastructural construction jobs benefit either males or imported laborers. Instead, low-income women congregate in social service where little investment has been made so far. Similarly, the Equal Opportunities Commission has not seen its full potential. A decade ago, its attempt to assess Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value ended in a deadlock, and the Commission’s final report was never made public. As a result, occupation types for women today remain limited compared to men’s, and very few of women-dominated jobs offer good future prospects. At the same time, many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are not paying attention to gender discrimination because they do not see the business value of alleviating inequality. Although women make up 45% of the Hong Kong labor force, women with the same access to education end up with lower salaries and fewer career opportunities than men due to gender discrimination. At the same time, the lower they are on the social spectrum, the more likely they are to be hindered by family and household obligations, the glass ceiling, and sexual harassment in the workplace.

In addition, many low-income families worry that if both adults work full time at minimum wage, their family income could exceed these application qualifications for public housing and/or many other need-based benefits. Currently, public rental housing estates in Hong Kong are rented to low-income resident at a discounted rate, and low-income eligibility criteria for public rental and subsidized-sale flats is considered on an applicant-based scenario. Losing these supplementary welfare payments could be a financial disincentive for many women to work, and this as a result perpetuates the gender stereotype of women being the homemaker while men belonging in the workforce.

Although many low-income women have tried to voice their concerns toward such discriminatory gender bigotries in union settings, their voices are often undermined in male-dominated unions, which reflect the same gender hierarchy inherent in conventional workplaces. The masculine culture of unions limits women’s mobility, as access to training is at times denied to women because men wanted to keep training resources for themselves. Such “boy’s club” environment often hurt women’s self esteem, leaving them feeling marginalized and unable to enjoy work due to sexism and discrimination. When this problem is coupled with a lack of resources in most unions and activist groups, the wellbeing of women workers rank low on many top administrators’ lists. As a result, low-income women workers are left in the dark, uninformed about their predicament and lacking empowerment to act on it.