Tesco Equal Pay Case
Discussion
Can someone explain to me in plain English what the case being made is here please?
Tesco and Morrisons equal pay cases face ‘pivotal moment’
This doesn't sound like two people doing the same role it sounds like different roles and in different locations so I'm not clear how it could be viewed to be discriminatory on the assumption a men and a women doing the same role in store are paid the same and a man and a woman doing the same role in a distribution centre (but a different role to the in store role) are being paid the same?
Tesco and Morrisons equal pay cases face ‘pivotal moment’
This doesn't sound like two people doing the same role it sounds like different roles and in different locations so I'm not clear how it could be viewed to be discriminatory on the assumption a men and a women doing the same role in store are paid the same and a man and a woman doing the same role in a distribution centre (but a different role to the in store role) are being paid the same?
Unlawful discrimination can be direct or indirect. Imagine a town where rich people live one side of town and poor live on the other. You run two identical shops in that town, one in "richside" and the other in "poorside". You decide you need to pay higher wages to attract staff in Richside than you do in Poorside. So you have two different rates of pay in the same town for the same jobs. Then it turns out most of the staff in Richside are men and most of the staff in Poorside are women. The women realise this and claim it's unfair that they're paid less for doing the same jobs and that it's because they're women.
Shop owner argues: It's not indirect discrimination, it's just an effect of the employment market. Men are willing to travel further for work.
Women argue: It's unfair sex discrimination. We're doing the same job so should get the same pay. The only reason we have to work in Poorside is because we are women with children to look after and can't spend so much time travelling to Richside.
If you were the judge how would you decide?
Shop owner argues: It's not indirect discrimination, it's just an effect of the employment market. Men are willing to travel further for work.
Women argue: It's unfair sex discrimination. We're doing the same job so should get the same pay. The only reason we have to work in Poorside is because we are women with children to look after and can't spend so much time travelling to Richside.
If you were the judge how would you decide?
I can't comment on the legal situation there but there are two words in that piece which leap off the page.
Leigh Day. The law firm bringing the case. See recent comments about human rights lawyers including one who became our attorney general and attempts to sue the military for invented offences. Leigh Day founder Martyn Day together with Phil Shiner and Hermer were all in that mix together.
Leigh Day. The law firm bringing the case. See recent comments about human rights lawyers including one who became our attorney general and attempts to sue the military for invented offences. Leigh Day founder Martyn Day together with Phil Shiner and Hermer were all in that mix together.
Edited by FiF on Saturday 2nd May 10:50
Panamax said:
Unlawful discrimination can be direct or indirect. Imagine a town where rich people live one side of town and poor live on the other. You run two identical shops in that town, one in "richside" and the other in "poorside". You decide you need to pay higher wages to attract staff in Richside than you do in Poorside. So you have two different rates of pay in the same town for the same jobs. Then it turns out most of the staff in Richside are men and most of the staff in Poorside are women. The women realise this and claim it's unfair that they're paid less for doing the same jobs and that it's because they're women.
Shop owner argues: It's not indirect discrimination, it's just an effect of the employment market. Men are willing to travel further for work.
Women argue: It's unfair sex discrimination. We're doing the same job so should get the same pay. The only reason we have to work in Poorside is because we are women with children to look after and can't spend so much time travelling to Richside.
If you were the judge how would you decide?
Perhaps this is where I've misunderstood but I didn't read it as two identical shops.Shop owner argues: It's not indirect discrimination, it's just an effect of the employment market. Men are willing to travel further for work.
Women argue: It's unfair sex discrimination. We're doing the same job so should get the same pay. The only reason we have to work in Poorside is because we are women with children to look after and can't spend so much time travelling to Richside.
If you were the judge how would you decide?
I read it as working in a large warehouse v working in a retail store.
Isn't this very similar to the Birmingham council pay dispute thing? i.e. workers doing fundamentally different jobs with different working hours and expectations getting paid differently, but claiming that these jobs are the same for the purposes of sex discrimination - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y9p1jl8wqo
What I don't understand is that within those roles, there are women and men doing both roles and within those roles they get paid the same regardless of sex. i.e. a bin lady gets paid the same as a bin man, a checkout man gets paid the same as a checkout lady - the pay is for the role not the person - Surely as soon as this is pointed out, the case gets thrown out......Surely.....
i.e. If the female checkout worker wants to get paid more to work in the cold warehouse, or the male warehouse worker wants to work the warm checkout sat on their arse for less, it's a free market and they have a choice?
What I don't understand is that within those roles, there are women and men doing both roles and within those roles they get paid the same regardless of sex. i.e. a bin lady gets paid the same as a bin man, a checkout man gets paid the same as a checkout lady - the pay is for the role not the person - Surely as soon as this is pointed out, the case gets thrown out......Surely.....
i.e. If the female checkout worker wants to get paid more to work in the cold warehouse, or the male warehouse worker wants to work the warm checkout sat on their arse for less, it's a free market and they have a choice?
On face value Stewie think I read it the same way. Two different operations, different locations, but both part of the same holding company. I'm fairly confident that Tesco are smart enough that in terms of hiring, pay and conditions male and female workers will be treated equally at each individual establishment.
Presumably Leigh Day think they have a case, Tesco / Morrisons think they don't.
What was the other equal pay case, Birmingham council? What were the details and turning point there? That bankrupted the council iirc.
Edited just seen link to Brum case.
Presumably Leigh Day think they have a case, Tesco / Morrisons think they don't.
What was the other equal pay case, Birmingham council? What were the details and turning point there? That bankrupted the council iirc.
Edited just seen link to Brum case.
It's a repeat of previous cases, which slightly perversely found that humping boxes around all day vs being sat at a till were 'equivalent' and shouldn't be paid differently.
This was found in part as being gender discrimination as the physical roles in an unpleasant environment being paid more were many done by men, and the other lower paid roles were mainly done by women, and obviously this is unfair.
Lots of compensation money flying around to skim, and ultimately the workers lose out. Parasite lawyers the only winners.
Gender imbalance in roles remains, just with poorer pay for some and likely all losing out overall.
This was found in part as being gender discrimination as the physical roles in an unpleasant environment being paid more were many done by men, and the other lower paid roles were mainly done by women, and obviously this is unfair.
Lots of compensation money flying around to skim, and ultimately the workers lose out. Parasite lawyers the only winners.
Gender imbalance in roles remains, just with poorer pay for some and likely all losing out overall.
Funnily enough when it comes to gender imbalances in jobs everyone is keen to grab the juicy management or STEM jobs, no ones want to touch campaigns for rebalancing the lower end physical jobs.
HR departments also seem immune from gender balance, guess people don't mind when it's their own cosy nest.
HR departments also seem immune from gender balance, guess people don't mind when it's their own cosy nest.
This is the Next precedent being applied.
FWIW, I think the Next judgement was ridiculous - politics entering the judiciary.
Basically, the judiciary can declare *any* two jobs to be "equal" under the Equality Act - on any basis.
And it did this for Next, declaring the warehouse workers and the retail staff to be "equal" jobs, requiring equal payment. In Next, c. 75% of retail were female, and c. 50% of warehouse were male. As far as anyone can figure out, this discrepancy in gender distribution was all it took for the judgement to declare the two role equal and to therefore require NEXT to pay retail staff the same as warehouse staff.
The simple fact that the warehouse work is physical and dangerous and had therefore traditionally being more male orientated and offering a higher wage (call it danger money) was decreed to be irrelevant. Simply just because the lower paid retail job had a higher portion of females in it, Next was told the two roles were the same and the pay has to be the same - politics entered the arena.
These two cases read the same.
FWIW, I think the Next judgement was ridiculous - politics entering the judiciary.
Basically, the judiciary can declare *any* two jobs to be "equal" under the Equality Act - on any basis.
And it did this for Next, declaring the warehouse workers and the retail staff to be "equal" jobs, requiring equal payment. In Next, c. 75% of retail were female, and c. 50% of warehouse were male. As far as anyone can figure out, this discrepancy in gender distribution was all it took for the judgement to declare the two role equal and to therefore require NEXT to pay retail staff the same as warehouse staff.
The simple fact that the warehouse work is physical and dangerous and had therefore traditionally being more male orientated and offering a higher wage (call it danger money) was decreed to be irrelevant. Simply just because the lower paid retail job had a higher portion of females in it, Next was told the two roles were the same and the pay has to be the same - politics entered the arena.
These two cases read the same.
Panamax said:
Unlawful discrimination can be direct or indirect. Imagine a town where rich people live one side of town and poor live on the other. You run two identical shops in that town, one in "richside" and the other in "poorside". You decide you need to pay higher wages to attract staff in Richside than you do in Poorside. So you have two different rates of pay in the same town for the same jobs. Then it turns out most of the staff in Richside are men and most of the staff in Poorside are women. The women realise this and claim it's unfair that they're paid less for doing the same jobs and that it's because they're women.
Shop owner argues: It's not indirect discrimination, it's just an effect of the employment market. Men are willing to travel further for work.
Women argue: It's unfair sex discrimination. We're doing the same job so should get the same pay. The only reason we have to work in Poorside is because we are women with children to look after and can't spend so much time travelling to Richside.
If you were the judge how would you decide?
I would want to see photos of the women and if they were pretty I would find in their favour.Shop owner argues: It's not indirect discrimination, it's just an effect of the employment market. Men are willing to travel further for work.
Women argue: It's unfair sex discrimination. We're doing the same job so should get the same pay. The only reason we have to work in Poorside is because we are women with children to look after and can't spend so much time travelling to Richside.
If you were the judge how would you decide?
JoshSm said:
It's a repeat of previous cases, which slightly perversely found that humping boxes around all day vs being sat at a till were 'equivalent' and shouldn't be paid differently.
This was found in part as being gender discrimination as the physical roles in an unpleasant environment being paid more were many done by men, and the other lower paid roles were mainly done by women, and obviously this is unfair.
Lots of compensation money flying around to skim, and ultimately the workers lose out. Parasite lawyers the only winners.
Gender imbalance in roles remains, just with poorer pay for some and likely all losing out overall.
This is where I'm still not clear from what I've read if this is "humping boxes around all day vs being sat at a till" which to me clearly sounds like two very different roles or if it's working in the warehouse of a retail store v working in a distribution centre but doing essentially the same thing.This was found in part as being gender discrimination as the physical roles in an unpleasant environment being paid more were many done by men, and the other lower paid roles were mainly done by women, and obviously this is unfair.
Lots of compensation money flying around to skim, and ultimately the workers lose out. Parasite lawyers the only winners.
Gender imbalance in roles remains, just with poorer pay for some and likely all losing out overall.
I don't know if the reporting is vague or I'm being stupid.
Trying to be as objective as possible. In one sense part of the warehouse job involves taking goods off shelves, loading up those mobile stillages, consolidating a load in despatch and then loading a truck for transport to the store.
Part of the store job involves unloading the stillages from the lorry, putting them into the stock room, then wheeling the spillages out onto shop floor and putting the goods on the shelf.
Of course each operation will have different aspects not applicable to the other. Example store interaction with customers, distribution centre not applicable. Yet distribution handling larger and heavier packages / pallets, store loads have been broken down into smaller units.
Still doesn't alter my opinion of the lawyers.
Part of the store job involves unloading the stillages from the lorry, putting them into the stock room, then wheeling the spillages out onto shop floor and putting the goods on the shelf.
Of course each operation will have different aspects not applicable to the other. Example store interaction with customers, distribution centre not applicable. Yet distribution handling larger and heavier packages / pallets, store loads have been broken down into smaller units.
Still doesn't alter my opinion of the lawyers.
_Rodders_ said:
File firmly in the world has gone mad drawer.
Agreed.I don't know if people are aware but this was rife in the Public Sector in the 90's where, for example, dinnerladies were arguing that their jobs were of "equal value" to those of bin men and Diversity managers were claiming their jobs were "equal value" to HR Directors (actually that one is quite believable).
So most if not all Public sector bodies have gone through something called "Job Evaluation" / "Single Status exercises where each job has been scored on a range of characteristics which supposedly eliminate any biases e.g.
Knowledge
Skills
Responsibilities (for people, finances, resources)
Effort (physical, emotional)
Environment
Initiative, independence.
The processes were uniformly awful.
People who were put into lower bands were demotivated (even though they had pay protection)
People who were in the same bands were p155ed off because others had had pay rises
People who had had pay rises were p155ed off because they didn't get enough of a pay differential between those of a lower grade OR people in other teams/departments had had a bigger increase.
The only people who were happy were the HR department who (surprisingly) had all been rebanded upwards. this had nothing to do ith the fact that they knew the JE process inside out and made sure they maximised their scores.
It's a crap process and it benefits those who aren't able or willing to compete in an open jobs market.
My simple summary:
Tesco and Morrison pay two different roles slightly different amounts. These roles are predominantly filled by male for one role and female for the other.
Chancer legal firm sees an opportunity to claim this pay difference is sex-based, therefore illegal, and wants to rake in thousands of 30% commissions.
Tesco and Morrison pay two different roles slightly different amounts. These roles are predominantly filled by male for one role and female for the other.
Chancer legal firm sees an opportunity to claim this pay difference is sex-based, therefore illegal, and wants to rake in thousands of 30% commissions.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff