Equal Pay for different Job roles?

[Caracus2k]

The first question to be asked of anyone claiming discrimination on the basis of a 'comparable' job paying more then there job should be....

"have you applied for that job? "

Followed by

"if not why not?"

Or "if you did and you rejected the job or were turned down for the role why?"

The answers to said questions would, I suspect, deal with the real reasons for a large amount of the supposed 'discrimination' at play.

Women are quite capable of dominating (numerically) a formerly male dominated and well paid profession (look at doctors for an example) so let's not hear any whinning about having to go work in an enviroment with an existing gender imbalance.

 

[dowie]

LMAO

That has to be parody right?

Yeah it is:

I beleive she's a 'spiritual' successor to a certain Godfrey Elfwick who was banned from twitter apparently for calling Gary Linkekar a virtue signalling ****

She does seem to retweet some of his articles etc..

 

[McPhee]

Well actually they do, minimum wage is banded according to age...

The age discrimination argument doesn't hold if it can be shown that discrimination is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". This is outlined specifically in the Equality Act 2010.

Parliament's justification for having tiered pay for under 25s is it makes them more competitive in the labour market. The relative inexperience of young people means they are potentially more vulnerable to long-term unemployment, if their labour is sold at the same price as older, more experienced workers.

It does not, unfortunately, count as age discrimination.

How is working in a warehouse comparable to working in the store?

Here's a summary of the original ruling by the Employment Tribunal:

Considering the comparator tests for an equal pay claim under the Equality Act and under European law, the ET found that the comparison between the store workers and depot workers was a valid one. The ET decided that there was the necessary ‘single source’ in relation to pay, i.e the pay of both groups of employees was determined by the Asda Executive board. In addition, whilst the two groups of employees worked at different sites, the test of ‘common terms’ of employment was satisfied. Despite some differences in specific terms, the ET found the employment terms to be broadly similar; the employees in store and those in the depot were all hourly paid and the structure of the terms in the handbooks was generally the same.

The store workers could therefore use the depot workers as comparators and could proceed with their claims.

This ruling has since been upheld by both the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal. However, passing this first test isn't actually all that significant; many widely diverging job roles could be considered comparable under the law. This is fairly common for laws with a multi-purpose test; the first is generally quite broad.

Note: the value of the work is not considered at this stage. That is a separate case being taken before the Employment Tribunal. Discrimination isn't considered until after that. So this ruling is not stating that the jobs are of equal value, or that Asda discriminated against store employees. This

 

[Mason-]

This ruling has since been upheld by both the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal. However, passing this first test isn't actually all that significant; many widely diverging job roles could be considered comparable under the law. This is fairly common for laws with a multi-purpose test; the first is generally quite broad.

Note: the value of the work is not considered at this stage. That is a separate case being taken before the Employment Tribunal. Discrimination isn't considered until after that. So this ruling is not stating that the jobs are of equal value, or that Asda discriminated against store employees. This

So they've ruled that the terms are the same but not that the jobs are?

So if the manager gets 25 days holiday, has hourly pay and their contract was written up by the same people as the store workers and the store workers have 25 days holiday and hourly pay too then they should be paid the same? How absolutely farcical this thing is.

Despite some differences in specific terms, the ET found the employment terms to be broadly similar;

Let me guess. Were the specific terms that differed the job title and job description by any chance? And the hourly rate? Un-*******-believable.

 

[McPhee]

So they've ruled that the terms are the same but not that the jobs are?

So if the manager gets 25 days holiday, has hourly pay and their contract was written up by the same people as the store workers and the store workers have 25 days holiday and hourly pay too then they should be paid the same? How absolutely farcical this thing is.

Why is it farcical?

It would be very easy to demonstrate that the manager's job has higher value, so any claim of pay discrimination would fall apart under the second test.

Such tests are common in law. The first test is usually quite broad, aiming to dismiss absurd cases without the need for much scrutiny. The second test will be tighter (though I suspect the claimants in this case will likely win that one as well). The final test usually cuts to the core of the issue. In this case, has any discrimination taken place?

 

[Mason-]

Why is it farcical?

It would be very easy to demonstrate that the manager's job has higher value, so any claim of pay discrimination would fall apart under the second test.

Such tests are common in law. The first test is usually quite broad, aiming to dismiss absurd cases without the need for much scrutiny. The second test will be tighter (though I suspect the claimants in this case will likely win that one as well). The final test usually cuts to the core of the issue. In this case, has any discrimination taken place?

It literally says the terms are broadly similar. Which in my analogy would be true for the majority of jobs in any company. The point that the terms were dictated by the same people would also be true for the majority of roles in any company. It's not adding any weight. Was one of the terms for both jobs that they will be employed by ASDA "Aha, see they're the same job!!!" We just all work for ASDA guys so we should all be paid the same. We're all paid by the hour rather than salary, we should all be paid the same. They're not relevant to pay at all.

It then says "some terms differ", yes the terms that actually make the jobs different, which is the whole point. They are different jobs. Them both being paid hourly is completely irrelevant to what the pay for the job should be. Or even that the majority of the terms of employment are similar.

The terms of employment I have will be incredibly similar to people on salaries twice as much as me. And will be broadly the same. They will differ on certain terms, and these are the terms that differentiate my role from theirs. And the reason why I'm paid less. Just because the terms are 95% similar doesn't mean they're the same job.

 

[McPhee]

It literally says the terms are broadly similar. Which in my analogy would be true for the majority of jobs in any company. The point that the terms were dictated by the same people would also be true for the majority of roles in any company. It's not adding any weight. Was one of the terms for both jobs that they will be employed by ASDA "Aha, see they're the same job!!!" We just all work for ASDA guys so we should all be paid the same. We're all paid by the hour rather than salary, we should all be paid the same. They're not relevant to pay at all.

It then says "some terms differ", yes the terms that actually make the jobs different, which is the whole point. They are different jobs. Them both being paid hourly is completely irrelevant to what the pay for the job should be.

Yet in the words of Lord Justice Underhill, "Asda applied common terms and conditions wherever they [both types of workers] work".

I think you're still misunderstanding the question. The court wasn't asked to identify if the jobs are the same. It was asked to identify if they are comparable.

 

[Mason-]

Yet in the words of Lord Justice Underhill, "Asda applied common terms and conditions wherever they [both types of workers] work".

I think you're still misunderstanding the question. The court wasn't asked to identify if the jobs are the same. It was asked to identify if they are comparable.

Yes... paying someone an hourly rate, giving them the same number of days annual leave, sick pay, benefits, doesn't make them at all similar.

Well if the metrics they're using for comparable are "are they both paid an hourly rate" then you can compare a lot of jobs.

It really is as simple as what I said before. Are women and men in the same role paid the same? Yes? No discrimination. No? Justify why they're paid differently, and if you can't or the reasoning is discriminatory then it's discrimination. You might as well be comparing hairdressers and bricklayers... They're both paid an hourly rate, work on a contract basis, they're comparable!

 

[McPhee]

Yes... paying someone an hourly rate, giving them the same number of days annual leave, sick pay, benefits, doesn't make them at all similar.

Well if the metrics they're using for comparable are "are they both paid an hourly rate" then you can compare a lot of jobs.

It really is as simple as what I said before. Are women and men in the same role paid the same? Yes? No discrimination. No? Justify why they're paid differently, and if you can't or the reasoning is discriminatory then it's discrimination. You might as well be comparing hairdressers and bricklayers... They're both paid an hourly rate, work on a contract basis, they're comparable!

Of the 32 terms of employment contested between the claimants and the defendant, the Tribunal considered that only 6 terms were significantly different between stores and depots (significant being, for example, that "evening shift" premium was at one point paid over a larger time window in Supermarkets). 14 points were deemed to be identical. 12 were considered minor deviations (for example, the date of policy changes was different).

The courts considered far more than just hourly rate, sick pay, annual leave and benefits. A hairdresser and a bricklayer won't have mostly the same terms of employment, worded in mostly the same way.

Fortunately, the courts go in to much more depth than forming a simple knee-jerk response to the scant detail present in a press article.

 

[Jokester]

Should get the judges to work these jobs for a week each and then see if they think they are comparable.

 

[Caracus2k]

Of the 32 terms of employment contested between the claimants and the defendant, the Tribunal considered that only 6 terms were significantly different between stores and depots (significant being, for example, that "evening shift" premium was at one point paid over a larger time window in Supermarkets). 14 points were deemed to be identical. 12 were considered minor deviations (for example, the date of policy changes was different).

The courts considered far more than just hourly rate, sick pay, annual leave and benefits. A hairdresser and a bricklayer won't have mostly the same terms of employment, worded in mostly the same way.

Fortunately, the courts go in to much more depth than forming a simple knee-jerk response to the scant detail present in a press article.

What the hell have the terms of employment got to do with salary?

Its quite possible for a large company to have similiar terms of employment for a wide variety of jobs with varying roles.

Its really is very simple as I outlined in another thread..

These claims for 'equal' pay for different jobs are an attempt to inject a key tenant of literal socialism (in practice) into society.

Essentially the idea being espoused is that ideologically driven central planning (from the state) and not markets should determine pay rates (by determining the 'worth' of different jobs)

But Socialist style central planning has consistently been shown to be a failure time and time again if for no other reason than an (ideologically driven) bureaucrat can't actually tell you the worth of any particular job, good or service divorced from markets.

Now markets aren't perfect so it's not to say that everyone is paid a rate 100% consumerate with their worth to their employee....

But broadly speaking pay generally represents a large number of variables which are not just limited to certain mechanical aspects of how bits of the job are done.

Yes a warehouse worker and a shop worker have some similarities (move stock about in a building ) but there also some big differences to their jobs including but not limited things such as the suitability for part time work and flexible hours and the accessibility of the workplace for the workers from their homes.

Warehouses are generally more remote from housing then shops, have less amenable hours for family life and dont tend to be in a position to offer as much flexibility as shop work when it comes to part time work and flexible hours.

All these factors cumulatively affect the ability to hire and retain suitable staff.

The answer is simple if you think a comparable job is paid more then your current one.... Apply for the job!


If you answer is I would but some aspect of the job doesn't suit my life or other commitments then the jobs aren't as comparable as you thought....


If you find some uneccesary
barrier to you applying or working in the job then we can look to see if sexism etc is at play.....


Uneccessary barriers shouldn't include the fact that some aspect of the job or hours required don't suit you!

If you think the socialism thing is a bit hyperbolic just look at the comments in the article from a representative of the firm launching the equal pay claim...

“It is nuanced and complex but we do need to change how we measure work and value work,” she said.

Socialist feminists are hilarious one minute big business is universally evil oppressing the working classes in general then the next minute they claim the same businesses can somehow find the money to pay one group £3-4 an hour more than another for 'equivalent' work , apparently for no other reason then the second group are predominately men and the former predominately women!

And here we see the whole pack of lies collapse...... If businesses could get the same amount of work done to the same standard for less wages by hiring one group over another they would do it .. . .

But they dont because it doesn't work out like that in reality

 

[chrcoluk]

The ongoing asda saga, is going to be a game changer if it passes in the workers favour.

Capitalism would usually indicate this case should be a no go yet the workers are winning legal rulings.

 

[Angilion]

Of the 32 terms of employment contested between the claimants and the defendant, the Tribunal considered that only 6 terms were significantly different between stores and depots (significant being, for example, that "evening shift" premium was at one point paid over a larger time window in Supermarkets). 14 points were deemed to be identical. 12 were considered minor deviations (for example, the date of policy changes was different).

The courts considered far more than just hourly rate, sick pay, annual leave and benefits. A hairdresser and a bricklayer won't have mostly the same terms of employment, worded in mostly the same way.

Fortunately, the courts go in to much more depth than forming a simple knee-jerk response to the scant detail present in a press article.

Some of the terms of employment in different jobs being the same doesn't make the jobs the same. Or even similar. It's mostly irrelevant to that. You could give a hairdresser and a bricklayer mostly the same terms of employment, worded in mostly the same way.

I think this is the right approach:

The first question to be asked of anyone claiming discrimination on the basis of a 'comparable' job paying more then there job should be....

"have you applied for that job? "

Followed by

"if not why not?"

Or "if you did and you rejected the job or were turned down for the role why?"

The answers to said questions would, I suspect, deal with the real reasons for a large amount of the supposed 'discrimination' at play.

Women are quite capable of dominating (numerically) a formerly male dominated and well paid profession (look at doctors for an example) so let's not hear any whinning about having to go work in an enviroment with an existing gender imbalance.

If a person genuinely thinks they could get more money for a genuinely comparable job, why didn't they apply for that job? Either they're lying and don't really think it's a comparable job or they have a reason for not applying for it. A reason they could state.

This is just "I want money for being the right sex". There's nothing else behind it at all.

 

[McPhee]

Some of the terms of employment in different jobs being the same doesn't make the jobs the same. Or even similar. It's mostly irrelevant to that. You could give a hairdresser and a bricklayer mostly the same terms of employment, worded in mostly the same way.

I think this is the right approach:



If a person genuinely thinks they could get more money for a genuinely comparable job, why didn't they apply for that job? Either they're lying and don't really think it's a comparable job or they have a reason for not applying for it. A reason they could state.

This is just "I want money for being the right sex". There's nothing else behind it at all.

But the court hasn't yet been asked to consider discrimination. Asda asked for the case to be dismissed on the basis that depot workers are not a valid comparitor to store workers. This was tested in court, and Asda lost. Three times.

I totally agree about the ultimate question of discrimination. The case is bizarre and the ramifications of finding in the Claimants' favour would be huge. Any discrimination clearly isn't intentional, as it seems very unlikely that Asda have deliberately created a situation where the majority of depot workers are male, and majority of store workers female.

If anyone is interested, the Tribunal judgement can be read here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/employment-tribunal-judgment-brierley-v-asda/

It's a lengthy document though.

 

[Caracus2k]

But the court hasn't yet been asked to consider discrimination. Asda asked for the case to be dismissed on the basis that depot workers are not a valid comparitor to store workers. This was tested in court, and Asda lost. Three times.

I totally agree about the ultimate question of discrimination. The case is bizarre and the ramifications of finding in the Claimants' favour would be huge.

If anyone is interested, the Tribunal judgement can be read here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/employment-tribunal-judgment-brierley-v-asda/

It's a lengthy document though.

I just don't understand why the judges need to start with such a bizarre question?

Starting with (what are generally quite broad) term of conditions for employment) before actually really looking at how comparable the actual jobs are in practice appears to be putting the cart before the horse...


Its almost as if large chunks of the law are a racket designed to keep the legal profession (unnecessarily) employed!

I personally would like to see the shop workers win this and then be forced to work in the warehouse. After all its a comparable job right? The shop workers said so so it must be true.


Also I find point 25 of the ruling very illuminating .. ...

The TldR version is that there was evidence of some warehouse staff temporarily being deployed to stores but not the reverse.....

Colour me rather unsurprised at this rather one way exchange!

 

[McPhee]

From a management point of view, there are very few situations when you would want to take staff from stores (the profit-making, customer-facing part of the business), and put them in depots. The depots tend to use agency staff to pick up any slack any way, so it's rare that there's a need.

It happened to me once in 12 years. There was a huge water leak at a depot a few miles from the store I worked in. It flooded the entire warehouse and took the power out. They needed a lot of extra people on site, urgently.

We used to get distribution workers at Christmas, once the vast majority of stock had already been shipped to stores (so 23rd/24th December). Sometimes at Easter as well (though not in recent years). They weren't emergency cover or anything though; just a few excess members of staff that needed to be put to use.

It's odd to see this framed as "store staff couldn't do the depot job". Some of the in-store work is very similar, basically being the reverse of the process that's done in the depot. Granted, it will be true that some employees would have a problem doing distribution work. But nowhere near all of them.

 

[rIcK]

Equality of opportunity not in outcome is what matters. Some jobs naturally attract males and females alike. Assuming that the choice and training is there without discrimination then that is what matters.

Two different jobs requiring different skill levels should never have the same pay. To say they should, simply because one role attracts more genders is nonsense.

My own wage is different than my colleagues because my experience and skill set. Should we now be paying everyone the same?

 

[Angilion]

[..] It's odd to see this framed as "store staff couldn't do the depot job". Some of the in-store work is very similar, basically being the reverse of the process that's done in the depot. Granted, it will be true that some employees would have a problem doing distribution work. But nowhere near all of them.

So why didn't they apply for it, if it's truly comparable and it paid better? It's more "didn't want the depot job" than "couldn't do the depot job".

If the jobs are comparable and were paid differently, a reasonable case could be made that's unfair. But calling it sexist is just wrong.

So...if the case succeeds, will the men who work in stores also get compo? If so, why? They're not women, so a ruling that it's sexist against women can't apply to them.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Serious question; if this legal challenge were to be successful, would men who work on the checkout/shopfloor be compensated also? I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't, but if they were then surely it busts the argument being made to justify the claim in the first place?

Edit: just noticed the post directly above, so yes I'm agreeing that this does seem to have created a bit of a paradox. If the women do get compensated and the men don't, that actually would be discrimination based on gender.

Also, if the men do get compensated as the jobs are deemed completely comparable regardless of sex, then surely Asda would have a case to claim money back from all warehouse staff and immediately drop their rate to match that of checkout staff as the warehouse staff have been overpaid?

 

[D.P.]

So why didn't they apply for it, if it's truly comparable and it paid better? It's more "didn't want the depot job" than "couldn't do the depot job".

If the jobs are comparable and were paid differently, a reasonable case could be made that's unfair. But calling it sexist is just wrong.

So...if the case succeeds, will the men who work in stores also get compo? If so, why? They're not women, so a ruling that it's sexist against women can't apply to them.

there may be many reasons why the women didn't apply for the other job. They might not be aware the pay was different and assumed it was going to be similar.

If the case succeeds, which I doubt, of course the men in the stores will get paid more. The complaint is that the store workers are not paid the same as the warehouse workers for similar work and value and since the store has more women then this is causing a gender pay gap that shoudln't exist.

The complaint is to that women in the sore are being paid less than men in the store. In that case the men woudln't expect a pay rise to compensate. It would also be an open and shut case. The reality is far mroe nuanced of course which is why this will be a long drawn out case that is not liekly to succeed.