Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,903
If she earned 3x as much as you she wouldn't be your partner
That's very presumptuous of you.
If she earned 3x as much as you she wouldn't be your partner
I'd support your right to give birth Loretta.
That's very presumptuous of you.
Who's Loretta?
So just answer this in summary.I'd support your right to give birth Loretta.
So just answer this in summary.
Are we paying equal pay for equal performance, or are we paying equal pay and expecting less performance from women because they bear children?
You appear to have just contradicted yourself tho. You start by saying that that's not what we're doing - that in actual fact we're discriminating because men are in charge, and men prefer men, and women have just as much experience - then you throw this in there, which suggests otherwise?I mean another way to look at it is if we’re going to pay women less because they have the front to continue the race (and do something men are physically incapable of doing and I suspect wouldn’t do even if they could)
You appear to have just contradicted yourself tho. You start by saying that that's not what we're doing - that in actual fact we're discriminating because men are in charge, and men prefer men, and women have just as much experience - then you throw this in there, which suggests otherwise?
And you finish by saying that GD couldn't possibly have a reasonable discussion about it, so it's best left to lefties/feminists (one presumes) to decide what's fair or not.
But what of this specific case? Where the unknown (virtually) presenter was paid the same as her male predecessor?
For all we know her predecessor might have tried to increase his pay and been rebuked. Samira won at tribunal on sex discrimination grounds.
Clearly if she was being paid the same as her male predecessor this is just gaming the system...?
And as has been said by multiple lawyers, this now opens the BBC up (and others) to thousands of claims, perhaps many on similarly dubious grounds.
Yes, dubious grounds. Which isn't to say there aren't genuine claims, but very much not all claims will be genuine.
LOL I take it you havent seen the short back and sides on the women that was complaining about it.
I suspect the honest-to-goodness, actual legal position is no, because he's a man. Therefore no discrimination could have taken place.Does this mean the previous male presenter can now sue for back pay due to being paid less than the current female presenter?
LOL you right wingers are funny old people.Very uneducated attitude towards how businesses work such as insurance and reputation.
Yes its exactly the same scenario.Why you would expect a barber who has trained doing mens' haircuts to attempt to do a woman's haircut, risk messing it up and having their reputation tarnished or being sued? It's like expecting a GP to do brain surgery because they're both a type of doctor.
Never heard of Samira Ahmed, But i heard of Jeremy Vine. I would have paid him more on that reason if this is how everyone else felt?
Anyone else do a Samira who who?
LOL you right wingers are funny old people.