Equal Pay for different Job roles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter J.T
  • Start date Start date
This is like some jobs I've seen. There are some jobs that pay someone £500 per year more just because they go on an event stand 2-3 times per year.

Yet I've known people and done jobs myself where technical skills are overused for job. Prime example I know more about office products than someone earning more than me. Their power points were atrocious but attracted a higher bracket on the band because of one line eg attend an event
 
FoxEye said:
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.
Click to expand...
And doctors should be forced to do time in the field picking turnips. That's how this is going
 
I used to deliver shopping for Asda whilst at Uni. This gender pay gap BS really hit a nerve. I remember every single female who started delivery driving at my store gave up after a few weeks. Its too hard, I don't like the rain, I don't like driving in the dark were the excuses for a few of them who ended up going into the store.

The delivery and warehouse guys had a much tougher role than in the store.

Equal pay for equal work. Nothing less.
 
I demand to be back paid the equivalent to the average barrister pay over the last 20 years that is my working life. I feel as humans we are all equal and all entitled to exactly the same pay. So regardless of your qualifications, I demand I am not treated as a lesser being and am paid equivalent to a barrister.

Of course I'm exaggerating but in all seriousness, if everyone insisted on back pay down to the fact things were different, the economy would be screwed.
 
antijoke said:
This is what happens when you let women vote and into the work place.

What a slippery slope we were on.
Click to expand...

I hate it when people say "I'm not racist, but". However, I genuinely mean it when I say "I'm not sexist, but" I have the utmost respect for women. They're amazing and superior to men in many more ways, yet they screwed a lot of things over back when they demanded equal pegging in everything in life. I think equality means something else to what the majority think, but most people don't realise that. They think equality means everything is equal, including the two sexes, but we aren't. The two sexes very different and equality to most people means nullifiying those differences and inferring that difference is a negative thing. It isn't.

To me, equality is about equal rights, but that doesn't mean that just because you're a woman you have a right to the same pay as a man. Just like everyone else, you need to prove your right. So if you're a woman on a building site labouring with the best of them,you should have the right to demand equal pay as the other lads. Just the same a man working successfully in a clerical role should have the right to demand the same pay as his female counter parts.

The feminist movement destroyed the family unit. So if you look back, whilst the intent was probably good, I think the feminist movement has actually been unintentionally bad
 
RoboCod said:
I demand to be back paid the equivalent to the average barrister pay over the last 20 years that is my working life. I feel as humans we are all equal and all entitled to exactly the same pay. So regardless of your qualifications, I demand I am not treated as a lesser being and am paid equivalent to a barrister.

Of course I'm exaggerating but in all seriousness, if everyone insisted on back pay down to the fact things were different, the economy would be screwed.
Click to expand...

Recently I had to deal with an incident of fighting between two groups of people (I was working on the door at the time). The first copper to arrive happened to be a woman. By herself, which surprised me because I thought police in cars always worked in pairs. Anyway, I'm sure she gets paid more than me because I'm a minimum wage flunkey. We were doing the "same" work, so it's "obviously" just sexism that causes her to be paid more, therefore I should get compo at least equal to 30 years of the difference in pay. The fact that the other 4 coppers who turned up were men is "obviously" irrelevant, as is the fact that the work isn't really the same at all and the fact that I could have applied to join the police myself if I had wanted to.

Off on a tangent, the police response was superb. Slightly over 2 minutes to the first copper arriving, a few seconds later to the next pair and a minute or so later for a larger vehicle with armed police festooned with kit and looking so bulky they must have been wearing armour of some kind (how much does all that stuff weigh?). Very efficient, very effective, very polite while maintaining a clear "causing trouble would not be a good idea" vibe. Threats to stab people to death don't go down well with the police.
 
So Auntie capitulated and gave away our money
the ezjet cabin staff should have a good case now.

A statement from the corporation on Friday said: “Auntie acknowledges that Carrie was told she would be paid in line with the North America editor when she took the role of China editor, and she accepted the role on that understanding.
Click to expand...
I suppose we will never know contractually how strong the agreement was - transparency
 
The Court of Appeal ruled against Asda today.

https://news.sky.com/story/asda-loses-latest-round-in-equal-pay-claim-battle-11623354

However, there's still a long way to go on this. All that has been decided is that the roles (store vs warehouse) are comparable. The law firm representing Asda employees still needs to prove that the roles are of equal value, and that there is no non-discriminatory reason for the difference in pay.

Even if they are successful on both accounts, Asda will almost certainly appeal, first to the EAT, then the Court of Appeal. Any resolution is years away. Resolutions to the cases for the other three supermarkets are even further behind.
 
This is barmy.
Job A: £2/hr
Job B: £3/hr

If everyone doing Job B, men and women, are paid the same, and everyone doing Job A, men and women, are paid the same. Then there's no discrimination. The reasons for paying more for Job B could be numerous, difficult to recruit, highly competitive market and losing people to competitors.

This **** is a slippery slope argument towards communism, "every job is equally valuable" no it's not.
 
I do wonder where all this stops, do we move onto age discrimination in saying that why should person A get paid more than person B just because he's 10 years older.

At this rate we may as well have everyone on the same rate of pay regardless of experience, job performance etc.
 
Mason- said:
This is barmy.
Job A: £2/hr
Job B: £3/hr

If everyone doing Job B, men and women, are paid the same, and everyone doing Job A, men and women, are paid the same. Then there's no discrimination. The reasons for paying more for Job B could be numerous, difficult to recruit, highly competitive market and losing people to competitors.

This **** is a slippery slope argument towards communism, "every job is equally valuable" no it's not.
Click to expand...

Not really. The law on the matter is considerably more complicated than that.

So far, it has been decided that Job A and Job B are comparable (which, often, they are; it's basically just moving stock from one place to another). It still needs to be decided whether they are of equal value, and then that discrimination is the only reason for the difference in pay.

It's more likely than not that the cases will fall apart on one of the last two points. But so far, the legal system has done exactly what it is designed to do.

If the pay difference is because of any of the reasons you stated, and this can be demonstrated in court, then the claim will fail.
 
Semple said:
I do wonder where all this stops, do we move onto age discrimination in saying that why should person A get paid more than person B just because he's 10 years older.

At this rate we may as well have everyone on the same rate of pay regardless of experience, job performance etc.
Click to expand...

You can't pay Person B more than Person A "because he's 10 years older". You can pay Person B more than Person A because Person B has more experience or performs better.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Warehouse staff have to go through some more safety training and are less flexible with their hours, as they must receive deliveries as they come, scan them in, sort them and then store them before goods perish. They have to deal with massive holiday/worldcup/euro/easter/any excuse for promotion deliveries and are responsible for the planning of the warehouse, unlike the shop floor which is all done at head office with minor changes made by line managers.
Click to expand...
I don't work for a supermarket, but this pretty much describes my 3 day a week job, as well as other things I do like general maintenance. I start work at 4am, spend most of my shift either outside around artics, or inside at -25 in a freezer and absolutely think I am worth more than someone who turns up at 8am and sits down pressing buttons all day.
If they want equal pay, then I'm sure they can find a spot in a warehouse carrying heavy boxes around all day with all the unsocial hours, discomfort and risk of injury that goes with it.
 
satchef1 said:
Not really. The law on the matter is considerably more complicated than that.

So far, it has been decided that Job A and Job B are comparable (which, often, they are; it's basically just moving stock from one place to another). It still needs to be decided whether they are of equal value, and then that discrimination is the only reason for the difference in pay.

It's more likely than not that the cases will fall apart on one of the last two points. But so far, the legal system has done exactly what it is designed to do.

If the pay difference is because of any of the reasons you stated, and this can be demonstrated in court, then the claim will fail.
Click to expand...
How is working in a warehouse comparable to working in the store?

And also the obvious argument is, if it pays more go and do that job??? Oh, you don't want to? Why's that? Maybe because it's a different job has different requirements and you don't want to do it? is it maybe because the store job is far less strenuous, and you don't spend the whole time in a warehouse only interacting with the occasional lorry driver whereas in the store you get to interact with the public and also in a place that is cleaner and more pleasant a place to be because umm well the public go there to buy things? Yeah, that's the reality of it.
 
satchef1 said:
You can't pay Person B more than Person A "because he's 10 years older". You can pay Person B more than Person A because Person B has more experience or performs better.
Click to expand...
Well actually they do, minimum wage is banded according to age...
 
Mason- said:
This is barmy.
Job A: £2/hr
Job B: £3/hr

If everyone doing Job B, men and women, are paid the same, and everyone doing Job A, men and women, are paid the same. Then there's no discrimination. The reasons for paying more for Job B could be numerous, difficult to recruit, highly competitive market and losing people to competitors.

This **** is a slippery slope argument towards communism, "every job is equally valuable" no it's not.
Click to expand...

Sadly, in reality, if job B is mostly undertaken by men and job A is mostly undertaken by women then that alone is sufficient for screeches of "discrimination". Throw in some gender stereotypes re: say checkout girls and warehouse guys that also fit the reality of the gender distributions and it just adds to the potential for screeching.

Likewise if it is some large organisation with pay grades and jobs C and D are both at say "grade 8" but job D attracts a bonus then if Job D happens to be mostly male and Job C isn't then potential for screeching re: discrimination is there too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom