BBC Womens pay gap
Discussion
I drove along a long stretch of dual carriageway this morning, the outer lane near the central reservation was cloned off on both sides of the road for a good distance.
There was a long line of men clearing up, brushing and doing general maintenance in the rain, no doubt cold and miserable.
However I was struck by the complete absence of women among the large group. Disgraceful I thought and surely down to discrimination. After all how else can we explain the complete over representation of men in this dirty, potentially dangerous job being undertaken in cold wet conditions?
Surely feminists are fighting for more women to be represented in these glass cellar jobs aren’t they? Surely they are not just arguing about high paid relatively safe jobs in warm offices? Oh no, wait........
There was a long line of men clearing up, brushing and doing general maintenance in the rain, no doubt cold and miserable.
However I was struck by the complete absence of women among the large group. Disgraceful I thought and surely down to discrimination. After all how else can we explain the complete over representation of men in this dirty, potentially dangerous job being undertaken in cold wet conditions?
Surely feminists are fighting for more women to be represented in these glass cellar jobs aren’t they? Surely they are not just arguing about high paid relatively safe jobs in warm offices? Oh no, wait........
steveatesh said:
I drove along a long stretch of dual carriageway this morning, the outer lane near the central reservation was cloned off on both sides of the road for a good distance.
There was a long line of men clearing up, brushing and doing general maintenance in the rain, no doubt cold and miserable.
However I was struck by the complete absence of women among the large group. Disgraceful I thought and surely down to discrimination. After all how else can we explain the complete over representation of men in this dirty, potentially dangerous job being undertaken in cold wet conditions?
Surely feminists are fighting for more women to be represented in these glass cellar jobs aren’t they? Surely they are not just arguing about high paid relatively safe jobs in warm offices? Oh no, wait........
I've honestly no idea, but I can only imagine the workplace death ratio isn't on message either. I'll place my money on 3 to 1. There was a long line of men clearing up, brushing and doing general maintenance in the rain, no doubt cold and miserable.
However I was struck by the complete absence of women among the large group. Disgraceful I thought and surely down to discrimination. After all how else can we explain the complete over representation of men in this dirty, potentially dangerous job being undertaken in cold wet conditions?
Surely feminists are fighting for more women to be represented in these glass cellar jobs aren’t they? Surely they are not just arguing about high paid relatively safe jobs in warm offices? Oh no, wait........
dmulally said:
I've honestly no idea, but I can only imagine the workplace death ratio isn't on message either. I'll place my money on 3 to 1.
IIRC it's 10 to 1, UK & US data showed more than 90% of workplace deaths to be men. As a side note , the like for like pay gap is 0.8% in the UK.
wsurfa said:
IIRC it's 10 to 1, UK & US data showed more than 90% of workplace deaths to be men.
Yep - but it's all to maintain the patriarchy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqts_CU7c6o
Asda lose equal pay case on supermarket checkout workers vs warehouse workers. In case that may cost industry £8bn
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-asda-equ...
Once this goes through if I were a warehouse worker I would ask to be relocated to a nice warm checkout job, sitting down all day, and getting paid the same
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-asda-equ...
Once this goes through if I were a warehouse worker I would ask to be relocated to a nice warm checkout job, sitting down all day, and getting paid the same
JagLover said:
Asda lose equal pay case on supermarket checkout workers vs warehouse workers. In case that may cost industry £8bn
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-asda-equ...
Once this goes through if I were a warehouse worker I would ask to be relocated to a nice warm checkout job, sitting down all day, and getting paid the same
That is an utterly ridiculous rulling. As long as the men and women get paid the same for the same work, and both roles are open to both generers, then there is no gender pay gap.https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-asda-equ...
Once this goes through if I were a warehouse worker I would ask to be relocated to a nice warm checkout job, sitting down all day, and getting paid the same
Ruling that both roles must pay the same because people choose different roles is bonkers. Why are those two roles somehow linked?
Wearhouse work is going to be colder and harder than checkout work, that's why it pays more. You can bet that if ASDA could pay lower wages to it's Wearhouse staff it would.
98elise said:
JagLover said:
Asda lose equal pay case on supermarket checkout workers vs warehouse workers. In case that may cost industry £8bn
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-asda-equ...
Once this goes through if I were a warehouse worker I would ask to be relocated to a nice warm checkout job, sitting down all day, and getting paid the same
That is an utterly ridiculous rulling. As long as the men and women get paid the same for the same work, and both roles are open to both generers, then there is no gender pay gap.https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-asda-equ...
Once this goes through if I were a warehouse worker I would ask to be relocated to a nice warm checkout job, sitting down all day, and getting paid the same
Ruling that both roles must pay the same because people choose different roles is bonkers. Why are those two roles somehow linked?
Wearhouse work is going to be colder and harder than checkout work, that's why it pays more. You can bet that if ASDA could pay lower wages to it's Wearhouse staff it would.
g3org3y said:
Quite. This ruling is mental. Am I missing something that makes this less mental than it appears!?
One can only assume that a court has decided that the work is comparable.I'm not entirely sure how a judge/lawyer/etc can make that decision...and even if they could based on some objective measures, what does an employer do if they cannot attract staff to do one of the roles but the other is over-subscribed? The laws of supply and demand take over.
I've mused this before, but desirable social factors such as "equality" will tie us in knots eventually and will see real problems in in society - laws of unintended consequences, but ones that with any serious thought could be foreseen. And greatest strengths becoming critical weaknesses.
(I'm off to Tesco to stock up on tinned goods, then B&Q for sheets of MDF
).Murph7355 said:
One can only assume that a court has decided that the work is comparable.
I'm not entirely sure how a judge/lawyer/etc can make that decision...and even if they could based on some objective measures, what does an employer do if they cannot attract staff to do one of the roles but the other is over-subscribed? The laws of supply and demand take over.
I've mused this before, but desirable social factors such as "equality" will tie us in knots eventually and will see real problems in in society - laws of unintended consequences, but ones that with any serious thought could be foreseen. And greatest strengths becoming critical weaknesses.
(I'm off to Tesco to stock up on tinned goods, then B&Q for sheets of MDF).
In terms of unintended consequences if supermarkets start having to pay checkout workers the same as warehouse workers they might embrace technological solutions like this earlier.I'm not entirely sure how a judge/lawyer/etc can make that decision...and even if they could based on some objective measures, what does an employer do if they cannot attract staff to do one of the roles but the other is over-subscribed? The laws of supply and demand take over.
I've mused this before, but desirable social factors such as "equality" will tie us in knots eventually and will see real problems in in society - laws of unintended consequences, but ones that with any serious thought could be foreseen. And greatest strengths becoming critical weaknesses.
(I'm off to Tesco to stock up on tinned goods, then B&Q for sheets of MDF
).https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2018/12/amazo...
Judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/8.ht...
It was about if the claim could proceed to an employment tribunal, not the outcome of that tribunal.
It seems the 'comparable' nature of the jobs was decided by the terms and conditions being the same at the warehouses and supermarkets, not a specific warehouse person = cashier comparison. It means the claim for discrimination in pay can now proceed to being assessed against:
1) Are the roles of equal value (...good luck working that out..) - which the claimants must show they are
2) Are there any reasons other than sexual discrimination why the pay might differ.
Equal value test is broadly looking at:
•the job demands, such as the skills and knowledge the jobs require, and
•the responsibilities and sorts of problems the jobholders have to deal with
It will be these two points where the arguments that really distinguish the roles will come into play - job market, working duties etc. At which point if common sense doesn't prevail that Asda et al don't just choose to pay warehouse people more because of there average genitalia, its what the market requires to get and retain people because the roles are actually quite different, then there really is no hope.
It was about if the claim could proceed to an employment tribunal, not the outcome of that tribunal.
It seems the 'comparable' nature of the jobs was decided by the terms and conditions being the same at the warehouses and supermarkets, not a specific warehouse person = cashier comparison. It means the claim for discrimination in pay can now proceed to being assessed against:
1) Are the roles of equal value (...good luck working that out..) - which the claimants must show they are
2) Are there any reasons other than sexual discrimination why the pay might differ.
Equal value test is broadly looking at:
•the job demands, such as the skills and knowledge the jobs require, and
•the responsibilities and sorts of problems the jobholders have to deal with
It will be these two points where the arguments that really distinguish the roles will come into play - job market, working duties etc. At which point if common sense doesn't prevail that Asda et al don't just choose to pay warehouse people more because of there average genitalia, its what the market requires to get and retain people because the roles are actually quite different, then there really is no hope.
Edited by bstb3 on Friday 1st February 10:19
Won't ASDA just lower the warehouse wage and not raise the checkout staff? Everyone one will lose! Working there as a student on a deli, the butchers next door got paid more and I accepted it as they were classed as skilled, alongside the Bakers. The warehouse guys could drive a folk lift so for me that was reflected in their wages.
bstb3 said:
Judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/8.ht...
It was about if the claim could proceed to an employment tribunal, not the outcome of that tribunal.
It seems the 'comparable' nature of the jobs was decided by the terms and conditions being the same at the warehouses and supermarkets, not a specific warehouse person = cashier comparison. It means the claim for discrimination in pay can now proceed to being assessed against:
1) Are the roles of equal value (...good luck working that out..) - which the claimants must show they are
2) Are there any reasons other than sexual discrimination why the pay might differ.
Equal value test is broadly looking at:
•the job demands, such as the skills and knowledge the jobs require, and
•the responsibilities and sorts of problems the jobholders have to deal with
It will be these two points where the arguments that really distinguish the roles will come into play - job market, working duties etc. At which point if common sense doesn't prevail that Asda et al don't just choose to pay warehouse people more because of there average genitalia, its what the market requires to get and retain people because the roles are actually quite different, then there really is no hope.
The judges should spend a day working on the checkout and a day working in the warehouse, only then can they make an accurate assessment.It was about if the claim could proceed to an employment tribunal, not the outcome of that tribunal.
It seems the 'comparable' nature of the jobs was decided by the terms and conditions being the same at the warehouses and supermarkets, not a specific warehouse person = cashier comparison. It means the claim for discrimination in pay can now proceed to being assessed against:
1) Are the roles of equal value (...good luck working that out..) - which the claimants must show they are
2) Are there any reasons other than sexual discrimination why the pay might differ.
Equal value test is broadly looking at:
•the job demands, such as the skills and knowledge the jobs require, and
•the responsibilities and sorts of problems the jobholders have to deal with
It will be these two points where the arguments that really distinguish the roles will come into play - job market, working duties etc. At which point if common sense doesn't prevail that Asda et al don't just choose to pay warehouse people more because of there average genitalia, its what the market requires to get and retain people because the roles are actually quite different, then there really is no hope.
Edited by bstb3 on Friday 1st February 10:19
WinstonWolf said:
The judges should spend a day working on the checkout and a day working in the warehouse, only then can they make an accurate assessment.
Or all checkout operators need to have a satisfactory month's work in the warehouse before going on the checkout. Repeat annually.WinstonWolf said:
bstb3 said:
Judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/8.ht...
It was about if the claim could proceed to an employment tribunal, not the outcome of that tribunal.
It seems the 'comparable' nature of the jobs was decided by the terms and conditions being the same at the warehouses and supermarkets, not a specific warehouse person = cashier comparison. It means the claim for discrimination in pay can now proceed to being assessed against:
1) Are the roles of equal value (...good luck working that out..) - which the claimants must show they are
2) Are there any reasons other than sexual discrimination why the pay might differ.
Equal value test is broadly looking at:
•the job demands, such as the skills and knowledge the jobs require, and
•the responsibilities and sorts of problems the jobholders have to deal with
It will be these two points where the arguments that really distinguish the roles will come into play - job market, working duties etc. At which point if common sense doesn't prevail that Asda et al don't just choose to pay warehouse people more because of there average genitalia, its what the market requires to get and retain people because the roles are actually quite different, then there really is no hope.
The judges should spend a day working on the checkout and a day working in the warehouse, only then can they make an accurate assessment.It was about if the claim could proceed to an employment tribunal, not the outcome of that tribunal.
It seems the 'comparable' nature of the jobs was decided by the terms and conditions being the same at the warehouses and supermarkets, not a specific warehouse person = cashier comparison. It means the claim for discrimination in pay can now proceed to being assessed against:
1) Are the roles of equal value (...good luck working that out..) - which the claimants must show they are
2) Are there any reasons other than sexual discrimination why the pay might differ.
Equal value test is broadly looking at:
•the job demands, such as the skills and knowledge the jobs require, and
•the responsibilities and sorts of problems the jobholders have to deal with
It will be these two points where the arguments that really distinguish the roles will come into play - job market, working duties etc. At which point if common sense doesn't prevail that Asda et al don't just choose to pay warehouse people more because of there average genitalia, its what the market requires to get and retain people because the roles are actually quite different, then there really is no hope.
Edited by bstb3 on Friday 1st February 10:19
John145 said:
WinstonWolf said:
bstb3 said:
Judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/8.ht...
It was about if the claim could proceed to an employment tribunal, not the outcome of that tribunal.
It seems the 'comparable' nature of the jobs was decided by the terms and conditions being the same at the warehouses and supermarkets, not a specific warehouse person = cashier comparison. It means the claim for discrimination in pay can now proceed to being assessed against:
1) Are the roles of equal value (...good luck working that out..) - which the claimants must show they are
2) Are there any reasons other than sexual discrimination why the pay might differ.
Equal value test is broadly looking at:
•the job demands, such as the skills and knowledge the jobs require, and
•the responsibilities and sorts of problems the jobholders have to deal with
It will be these two points where the arguments that really distinguish the roles will come into play - job market, working duties etc. At which point if common sense doesn't prevail that Asda et al don't just choose to pay warehouse people more because of there average genitalia, its what the market requires to get and retain people because the roles are actually quite different, then there really is no hope.
The judges should spend a day working on the checkout and a day working in the warehouse, only then can they make an accurate assessment.It was about if the claim could proceed to an employment tribunal, not the outcome of that tribunal.
It seems the 'comparable' nature of the jobs was decided by the terms and conditions being the same at the warehouses and supermarkets, not a specific warehouse person = cashier comparison. It means the claim for discrimination in pay can now proceed to being assessed against:
1) Are the roles of equal value (...good luck working that out..) - which the claimants must show they are
2) Are there any reasons other than sexual discrimination why the pay might differ.
Equal value test is broadly looking at:
•the job demands, such as the skills and knowledge the jobs require, and
•the responsibilities and sorts of problems the jobholders have to deal with
It will be these two points where the arguments that really distinguish the roles will come into play - job market, working duties etc. At which point if common sense doesn't prevail that Asda et al don't just choose to pay warehouse people more because of there average genitalia, its what the market requires to get and retain people because the roles are actually quite different, then there really is no hope.
Edited by bstb3 on Friday 1st February 10:19
If the job is open to everyone but women *choose* not to do it then there's no pay bias.
John145 said:
Based on bstb3's summing up here it seems sensible. All the judge has allowed is that they can argue their case. I'm struggling to see what other option the judge has. It's not for the judge to refuse the right for them to argue their case is it?
Yep - they just have to apply the previous case law and legislation to make sure the claim is valid and made correctly. The tribunal makes the ultimate decision. It's not worth throwing toys out of the pram until and if the tribunal lose the plot. I do agree on the way its been presented in the original linked article it would be a nonsense decision, it just hasn't happened. Yet.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff