cleaners

We pay a lot of lip service to those who work with children, don’t we? Moulding young minds, shaping the future, the most difficult (but rewarding!) job in the world (after motherhood, of course)…blah, blah, blah. Yes, so rewarding and important and indispensable that we can justify paying teachers, and particularly early years child care workers, a pittance. Some argue that teachers have shorter days and a shorter working year than most, with more holidays and job security. Therefore, they don’t need/deserve as much. Some people, like a man on BBC London’s call-in radio show this morning, say teachers aren’t paid that well, no, but they can take on extra jobs after school hours and in the summer holidays to supplement their incomes.

Correction: male teachers, the currently able-bodied and well-connected, and those without school-age children can take on temporary, part-time jobs as it suits their schedule (but only if they can find one — they’ll be in fierce competition with teens looking for summer jobs and the unskilled unemployed during a recession). Many teachers, however, are women with school-age children themselves and who are the primary carers, or primary child care arrangers, for their families. If a teacher is not teaching, her children aren’t in school either. What, pray tell, would this male caller propose she do with her children while she shuffles off to a part-time job, perhaps in retail, caring or tutoring, one that is unlikely to even cover the costs of paying someone to look after them? I’m guessing the caller’s wife took care of all that, leaving him free to take on the building and courier jobs that supplemented his below-average income. Well bully for him. Must be nice living in a bubble of privilege where child care is sourced and performed by the Child Care Faeries.

But ‘regular’ teachers’ pay isn’t even the issue here. The actual topic of discussion on this radio show was whether it was fair for a head teacher of a state school in Lonodn, which is publicly funded, to be earning more than £230,000 a year while the teachers themselves faced pay freezes under new government budget slashing, and the cleaners at the same school earn £10,000 per year, which is not even a living wage. Many callers thought he earned this high salary because, at the end of the day (the most overused expression in Britain), he takes full responsibility for the school’s performance. Oh, the weight on his shoulders is heavy alright — earning 20 times as much as some of your staff must be quite a gold-plated burden indeed. Pulling up in the Jag, sliding into that Reserved spot, clutching your lambskin briefcase and Starbucks coffee as you wave to the cleaning crew straggling in off the public buses after being up since 5am getting their own children dressed, fed and off to school across town before coming into work to mop floors and scrub toilets for below the minimum wage…what a chore! So worth the ridiculous salary, that.

As is often the case, even in female-dominated sectors like schools, the people at the top get all the credit and pay with little regard for the machine, as it were, as a whole. Instead of looking at employment structure as a pyramid, with one person on top and the rest of the underlings trickling down en masse, it would be helpful to consider it as a cog with interlocking teeth. All the parts have to work perfectly and in harmony to make things run smoothly. If even one small bit breaks down, the whole machine comes grinding to a halt. That includes the cleaners, cooks and teaching assistants at a school.

But after all, as one caller said, pushing a mop around or serving spaghetti isn’t exactly rocket science. Neither is changing nappies, caring for babies or running a pre-school, apparently. It’s not until you get to the prestigious job of shaping those young minds and filling them with information (or propaganda and biases, if you’re not a fan of education with a capital E) that it becomes real work worthy of a high salary and oodles of respect. Funnily enough, these top jobs are more often than not filled by men, even though the vast majority of those working within the state school system are women. Why might that be? Let me scratch my chin for a bit here. I’m thinking it starts with P and ends in -archy.

It’s the same reason why women are cooks but men are chefs. It’s why stay-at-home mums aren’t given a second thought but stay-at-home dads are fawned over and patted on the back. It’s why even in mummy blogging, dads come out top. It’s why men working in unskilled jobs (grave diggers, bin men, street cleaners, etc..) for Birmingham Council were given ‘bonuses’ to supplement their paltry base pay while women working similarly-skilled jobs (cleaners, teaching assistants, carers, etc..) were kept in the dark about this practice and remained on the base salary.

Until roles traditionally performed by women are given the respect and remuneration they deserve and until our disgusting, capitalist ‘winner takes all’ system is turned on its head or gotten rid of altogether, we will continue to see men in tweed jackets and business suits growing rich and fat on the backs of women, the poor and the disadvantaged.

Image credit