Remember Resolution A27 from Conference? The one that asked us to consult about a sex worker policy?
You know, the one where I thundered that a worker was a worker was a worker?
Well, here is my Branch response to the 5 questions the consultation paper asked. Massive thanks to Dr Ana Lopes from UWE Bristol for her help with this.
Now that I have the full consultation paper here I am reproducing the whole repsonse document, INCLUDING all that we thought wrong with the paper in the first place.
I would be very grateful if you could get your Branches to respond too. The response needs to go to equality@pcs.org.uk by 18th October
- Branch Response to SW policy paper.
Consultation Document on A27, a response
The document has been obviously had a good amount of work invested in it. Unfortunately in an effort to not offend anyone from either side of the argument on this it patently fails to address and confront the deeper issues. There are time and again an implied gender bias across the document that this is only a women’s issue, it applies only to those who were born a woman and not those who have transitioned from one gender to another and that any woman who chooses to be a SW can only be doing so under duress from an influencing male. This is seen in information presented in support and opposition of the view of whether or not there should be a policy. (capital P below means page)
P5 implied gender bias, it implies with some of the language used (particularly in para 2) that it is only women (and women who are of an age to consent) that this impacts. It also implies by omission that this is only a heterosexual issue (although later does address that sexual orientation identity and practise may not be the same, but does not expand on this or explain why men may have sex with men but identify as heterosexual etc). It would be beneficial that in future work like this that because of an unconscious bias of many readers, that they should specifically state that SW are not limited to women, who were women at birth but that it is an issue for women, men, this who are or have transitioned gender, who are heterosexual, homosexual and any SO in between.
Paragraph 3 on P5 coyly avoid any strong language in regard to illegal trafficking of people and that this is effectively slavery and could/should/must be viewed differently from and not confused with those who have freely consented to participate as a SW
P8 you should define LGBT and not assume that everyone understands what is meant by it, even amongst PCS branches. It is important to not confuse sexual orientation (LGB) with gender transition, change or non-binary status that may be considered by the individual to place them within the Trans community (T). This paragraph garbles the situation.
P9 ‘men enter sex work for different reasons’ from who? ‘Come from different backgrounds’ from who? ‘Have different life experiences’ from who? ‘Not all male sex workers have support needs’ but all women do? Why is there such an explicit gender bias? Is this evidenced??
P10 information presented seems to seek to confuse not inform any decision, is this actually relevant at this point? Is there information missing to lead into and clarify this information?
P11 4th question, seems to be very one sided in presentation. What is the GMB experience of organising SW? What are GMB Sisters experience of organising with SW? Why is it not here?
P12-14 Seems to be situation and fact and an absence of consideration that SW are people and this section feels like SW are objects not people, I’m sure that this is an unintended consequence in presenting the evidence without any emotional bias.
P15 second bullet point;- ‘yet women, trans, male…’ Trans what? Trans it vans??? Those who have undergone or are undergoing gender transition are people not objects. This and every other use of ‘trans’ must be in future modified to acknowledge that they are people by simply saying ‘trans people’ (or in specific cases ‘trans woman’ or ‘trans man’). It implies an unconscious bias against LGBT people that Trans and LGB SW are to be objectified and dehumanised (same at 6th bullet point). There may be an implied unconscious bias here to demonstrate the argument against SW and that they are exploited people, but if your argument is thus, please be explicit.
Now to the questions
Is sex work a trade union issue?
Yes. Sex work has been hotly debated within feminism of the 1st and 2nd waves – therefore, it became seen as largely a feminist, gender issue. However, sex worker voices have changed the picture and reclaimed the labour character of their activity.
Sex workers themselves have demanded union representation and membership as a basic labour right.
Sex work isn’t unique in the way that they face exploitation, violence and or abuse. There are plenty of industries that face these but already have trade union representation and protection.
There are many similarities between sex work and other work. It is work and therefore a trade union issue. This is also about equality and equality should be the cornerstone of every trade union.
Health and safety being one of the other cornerstones must be relevant to sex work, especially regarding HIV/AIDS. Trade unions have an important role to play here.
Should sex workers be considered as workers and have employment rights?
If we accept as above that sex work is a trade union issue then yes, sex workers should be considered workers. Dismissing the whole industry as abuse is patronising and denies the lived experience of sex workers who chose to be in the industry. Situations where people are forced into commercial sexual activities should be dealt with as abuses and are already covered by law. Not making a distinction between forced and consensual sex work means that resources that should be channelled to prevent and deal with real abuses are being wasted.
Abuses faced by sex workers are the same abuses that are faced by other vulnerable workers in low status jobs in the informal economy and yet we wouldn’t question whether cleaners, bar staff etc are actually workers and ‘deserve’ employment rights.
The title is in the name. Sex workers. And workers should have employment rights.
Should trade unions organise sex workers?
Yes. In fact there are already unions that do organise these workers. GMB and Unite have sex worker branches. There is also the International Sex Workers Union (ISWU). Also unions organise already in Argentina, Germany, the Netherlands and Greece.
There is a temptation to make judgement calls on the type of sex work. It isn’t all about prostitution, it includes chat lines, sauna, pornography, massage parlours, the list is endless. It could even include being an Ann Summers representative.
The temptation is to decide that certain sex work is more acceptable than other types. I have heard that we can support people working on chat lines but not those working in rape porn. This is naivety at work and a lack of understanding about separating the work from the worker. No one would say that we shouldn’t organise traffic wardens or tax officers as they recognise that while they may loathe the work they do that there are workers attached to the work and these workers need the unions.
A worker is a worker is a worker. And workers need to be unionised.
Should PCS support the criminalisation of purchasers and/or providers of sexual services?
In short, no. Criminalising purchasers (clients) would only move the problems to other areas and push sex workers to more isolated areas making them even more vulnerable. The Swedish model where they criminalised everything shows that this would be the case. Sex workers would be even harder to reach by support services. As the demand went up and the supply became less prices would rise. Sex workers would lose time to negotiate safe sex and assess the client. The police get tip offs about abuse and bad practice from purchasers and they would be far less likely to come forward with information about trafficking etc if they were further criminalised.
Criminalisation will only deter the ‘nice’ clients, not the nasty ones. This becomes a health and safety in the workplace issue as the nasty ones are less likely to use condoms and are more likely to be abusive and put sex workers in physical danger.
The same kind of danger that seeing sex work as ‘wrong’, ‘bad’ or dirty puts sex workers in. There is a feeling that sex workers need ‘rescuing’ from their lives. Where this will be the case when sex workers are being abused, as already mentioned, those cases should be dealt with under the law on abuse (Offenses Against a Person Act 1981) and should not be informing the debate on whether or not a person who willingly undertakes sex work should be persuaded because of moral judgements not to do so.
Nor is it just austerity that ‘forces’ people into sex work. Anecdotally there are plenty who don’t go into sex work to pay the bills but to go on holiday, festivals etc. We must get away from the moral judgements and see this as work. Criminalisation will not end sex work. It is called the oldest profession for a reason and is a growing industry.
We have to protect and not demonise the workers.
Should PCS develop a policy regarding the treatment by the employer of members with secondary or prior work in the sex industry?
Yes. This is trade unionism 101. It should always be that we protect and support workers. Unsure as we are about whether it needs a separate policy, sex work should not be seen as bringing the department into disrepute and all other conduct and discipline policies should cover this aspect of other work.
We already have policy that says that members have to get permission to do other work outside the department. Members engaged in sex work may well fall foul of this. Hence it is vital that PCS has policy on sex work and sex workers so that we may properly protect and support our members that take part in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment