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...
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
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
Last edited: