Equal Pay for different Job roles?

[FoxEye]

Its heavily dependent on so many things. Store location, type of customer, what shifts you work, how well the TL/manager can run the line, PoS hardware, store size etc. etc. Heck even the economic climate can effect how stressful that job can be, working when staff are being cut and you're expected to deliver more with less resources is a pain. For example my 7-1 Saturday morning shift was nothing compared to working 5-9:30, 30mins of that evening shift pulled in more than the entire 7-1 shift.

But a lot of that is nothing to do with stress created by the job role (ie the factor we're supposed to be comparing). Those other stresses - such as how good your manager is, location, the prevailing economic conditions... surely you have to discount those as not being relevant when making a strict comparison between one job role and another. Just about any job can be made stressful by introducing a terrible manager, let's put it that way. Even your dream job could be ruined if your manager is an asshat.

Things that would be taken into account from your list would be shift patterns, ease of using required equipment, time pressures, etc.

I don't know how things are now, but being a till assistant was pretty darned easy for the few months I was there in school holidays. Lots of people had time and opportunity to goof around, engage in idle chatting, etc, etc.

Heck, you walk into any store today and you can find (often) store workers having a chat whilst they walk around the store, or whilst there's nobody on their checkout. There certainly are lulls, and we can all see that with our own eyes.

I find it hard to believe that checkout operators are dealing with constant emotional stresses that would need a significant increase in their pay to account for.

The physical stress of a warehouse staff is more easily measured and observed. And there is no getting around the fact that all warehouse staff will be subject to those physical demands.

Whereas it's perfectly possible for the checkout operators to enjoy their job and not find it emotionally challenging at all. Depends on their personality, and of course the factors you mentioned above which apply to all jobs and situations.

But you can't (I think) look at a checkout operator job role and say, "This job has significant emotional demands equivalent to 10 hours of heavy lifting at a brisk pace in a warehouse." None of that sentence makes any sense to me.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

When I worked on Creda/Hotpoint for 27 years, around the 90s the women who did sub assembly jobs decided they wanted the same pay as the men and got the Union involved (me).
Just to clarify any men who also did sub assembly got less pay.
Anyway, Management said we'll pay you the same if you can do their jobs and over the remaining years it was open, only two women were able to do men's job roles but went back to the easy life.

 

[Freakbro]

This just smacks of solicitors doing what solicitors do and pushing the envelope with now spurious offshoot claims from an initially valid complaint just to get their pound of flesh

 

[arknor]

if tesco loses they should just drop store staff so their wage bill doesnt rise.
then get rid of as many womens as possible for the lulz

 

[jon86]

This just smacks of solicitors doing what solicitors do and pushing the envelope with now spurious offshoot claims from an initially valid complaint just to get their big pay cheque

FTFY

 

[FoxEye]

if tesco loses they should just drop store staff so their wage bill doesnt rise.
then get rid of as many womens as possible for the lulz

It's going to be bad if Tesco loses. That quote I posted a couple pages back... if Tesco loses it opens the door for a tidal wave of claims against employers up and down the country.

Literally £billions and £billions worth of back-dated claims from staff wanting to be paid the same as other staff with a significantly different job role.

I have sympathy for those being paid less to do the the same job. Literally the same job. I was involved in such a dispute myself. But this idea that you can suddenly decide to be of "equal value" to somebody doing a completely different role... it's bonkers.

 

[Nasher]

If we're going to have unskilled jobs paying as much as the skilled/hazardous ones, because there happen to be more men in the skilled jobs. We might as well all take the easy jobs

if tesco loses they should just drop store staff so their wage bill doesnt rise.
then get rid of as many womens as possible for the lulz

I can actually see it happening. If it carries on employers will end up quietly avoiding hiring women, because it's becoming to risky with all the crazy accusations and legal cases flying around.

 

[FoxEye]

If we're going to have unskilled jobs paying as much as the skilled/hazardous ones, because there happen to be more men in the skilled jobs. We might as well all take the easy jobs



I can actually see it happening. If it carries on employers will end up quietly avoiding hiring women, because it's becoming to risky with all the crazy accusations and legal cases flying around.

But they can't, because then women could launch discrimination lawsuits against companies who did this. It wouldn't be hard to prove that they weren't being hired on the basis of their sex. Because it would be blatantly obvious from comparing historical hiring practices to subsequent hiring practices.

If they win vs ASDA and TESCO, there is a big, largely unsolvable problem heading our way. And that problem is that you won't be able to use salary as a tool to recruit for hard-to-fill vacancies. Unpopular/difficult jobs won't be able to be paid any higher than the cleaners/checkout staff.

So nobody will want to take the jobs with unsociable hours, heavy lifting, etc. Unless they have no other option.

That means either you get rid of vast numbers of the other jobs (checkout staff via automation, etc). Or you give all jobs the same job description, and force all checkout staff to rotate into the warehouses. Firing them if they refuse.

In fact I take it back - this might be solvable. By forcing checkout staff to work in the warehouses against their will, and forcing the warehouse staff to spend time in store on the checkouts. Would be a mess tho. It's not what the checkout staff are gunning for...but they may be shooting themselves in the feet.

 

[Haggisman]

In fact I take it back - this might be solvable. By forcing checkout staff to work in the warehouses against their will, and forcing the warehouse staff to spend time in store on the checkouts. Would be a mess tho. It's not what the checkout staff are gunning for...but they may be shooting themselves in the feet.

This would probably be the best solution to be honest.

And by best, I mean for the lawyers making thousands/millions from these kind of lawsuits.

For everyone else involved it's a very poor solution, albeit one which will at least **** them all off equally!

 

[dowie]

If they win vs ASDA and TESCO, there is a big, largely unsolvable problem heading our way. And that problem is that you won't be able to use salary as a tool to recruit for hard-to-fill vacancies. Unpopular/difficult jobs won't be able to be paid any higher than the cleaners/checkout staff.

[...]

In fact I take it back - this might be solvable. By forcing checkout staff to work in the warehouses against their will, and forcing the warehouse staff to spend time in store on the checkouts. Would be a mess tho. It's not what the checkout staff are gunning for...but they may be shooting themselves in the feet.

You don't need to force people, you just merge the job titles and create an incentive separate to the base salary. If they all have the same job title whether they work in the warehouse or the tills then just pay additional shift allowances for warehouse shifts. Everyone with that same job title is allowed to put themselves forward as willing to work warehouse shifts or till shifts (some might only wish to work warehouse shifts, some might only wish to work till shifts and some will work both) and they can then be scheduled to work them as and when needed.

Unlike the dinner ladies and bin men this isn't then about a bonus one group isn't eligible for... all [generic title for till and warehouse monkeys] are eligible for warehouse payments by simply by putting themselves forward to work in the warehouse... the extra payment of course will initially be at the equivalent amount to bring the current till pay up to the current warehouse pay.

If more people are happy to work in the warehouse then the incentive will perhaps stagnate or drop over time, if on the other hand some of the current warehouse people want fewer warehouse shifts and more time on the tills (this will of course perhaps impact the availability of shifts for some of these women currently hoping for an easy pay rise) then they might have to raise the warehouse incentive higher than it currently is in order to attract people to those shifts.

 

[G-MAN2004]

Yes, I'm sure standing at a till all day is in any way comparable to being in the warehouse lifting all the heavy items. If they want the higher pay, then why not apply for the same job? Oh yeah, I forgot manual labour is beneath most women...

 

[Fubsy]

It's not that it's beneath them. They are sexist and EXPECT men to do that sort of work.

EDIT: Oh, and for the same money as a physically easier job.

 

[Fubsy]

meh db

 

[SexyGreyFox]

In fact I take it back - this might be solvable. By forcing checkout staff to work in the warehouses against their will, and forcing the warehouse staff to spend time in store on the checkouts. Would be a mess tho. It's not what the checkout staff are gunning for...but they may be shooting themselves in the feet.

Post #82

 

[Nasher]

...
That means either you get rid of vast numbers of the other jobs (checkout staff via automation, etc). Or you give all jobs the same job description, and force all checkout staff to rotate into the warehouses. Firing them if they refuse.

In fact I take it back - this might be solvable. By forcing checkout staff to work in the warehouses against their will, and forcing the warehouse staff to spend time in store on the checkouts. Would be a mess tho. It's not what the checkout staff are gunning for...but they may be shooting themselves in the feet.

Or this I guess. I wonder how many female staff will stick around when they have to work in a warehouse at 11pm in the middle of winter

Though I think in the end they will simply replace checkout staff with self service, maybe keep a handful to assist. They think they are in for a pay rise, but this isn't going to go the way they think.

It will be similar to what happened with the BBC, the men took cuts and the women still get the same. So in the end it was all for nothing and the guys got punished just for being guys.

 

[Angilion]

You don't need to force people, you just merge the job titles and create an incentive separate to the base salary. If they all have the same job title whether they work in the warehouse or the tills then just pay additional shift allowances for warehouse shifts. Everyone with that same job title is allowed to put themselves forward as willing to work warehouse shifts or till shifts (some might only wish to work warehouse shifts, some might only wish to work till shifts and some will work both) and they can then be scheduled to work them as and when needed.

Unlike the dinner ladies and bin men this isn't then about a bonus one group isn't eligible for... all [generic title for till and warehouse monkeys] are eligible for warehouse payments by simply by putting themselves forward to work in the warehouse... the extra payment of course will initially be at the equivalent amount to bring the current till pay up to the current warehouse pay.

If more people are happy to work in the warehouse then the incentive will perhaps stagnate or drop over time, if on the other hand some of the current warehouse people want fewer warehouse shifts and more time on the tills (this will of course perhaps impact the availability of shifts for some of these women currently hoping for an easy pay rise) then they might have to raise the warehouse incentive higher than it currently is in order to attract people to those shifts.

I doubt if that would work because it wouldn't change anything - warehouse work would still have a higher rate of pay and there would still be more men than women doing warehouse work for the same reason there is now. So there would still be a "pay gap" and it would still be "sexist". Equal opportunity doesn't matter - it's not what is wanted, being demanded and being received.

 

[antijoke]

This is what happens when you let women vote and into the work place.

What a slippery slope we were on.

Checkout staff > Would you like a bag?
Customer > No

The emotional stress would break a man in half, since men handle rejection far worse than a woman does. we should be paid more for the same roll

It traumatised me as a 17 year old asking if customers wanted help packing.

 

[Abraxaz1]

If this happens tesco, Asia and others will just run skeleton crews.

More automated tills and contract staff to be brought in.

They will just pass the pay dispute down the line to agencies and contractors.

Would save the company money on national insurance and would mean a lot more flexible staffing, I.e. For peak periods.

 

[Mjölnir]

Following this 'logic', through, then those on minimum wage and under 25 (hence on lower rates) will also have a case as well, as there could be some under 25's doing the same job for lower wages.

 

[dowie]

I doubt if that would work because it wouldn't change anything - warehouse work would still have a higher rate of pay and there would still be more men than women doing warehouse work for the same reason there is now. So there would still be a "pay gap" and it would still be "sexist". Equal opportunity doesn't matter - it's not what is wanted, being demanded and being received.

Well the idea is that you merge the job titles and make the base pay equal, the extra pay is for certain shifts such as a warehouse shift available to all. Just as you can now get extra pay for working antisocial hours(presumably also something that attracts more men, more young people etc..)