Was there something preventing all these women applying for warehouse jobs? Also, what about the men working on the shop floor - have they been discriminated against too?
Classic post that one Conan - your "How do we put a value on "work"? The more people are paid the less they same to do." Your post doesn't make sense, and then you slag poor old Rosco off for having to guess wtf you meant! And give Redstar a red star for interpretation. No apology or explanation either. Can I be your friend?
I don't need a career move, thank you - I'm not staring at the Rosco described arseholes with the same jealousy as you. But you seem to think you may find an alternative career in psycho analysis. Good for you. You are quite hopeless at the moment, and you need to brush up on your people skills, but who knows where it may lead you?
Now that might constitute unwarranted personal abuse, and worse. If you genuinely believe that I am mentally retarded, do you think it is fair to describe me as such on a public forum? Tell me - the truth can often hurt.
Never said you were mentally retarded. Plenty of people are very intelligent but not a full shilling.
If the women win their case any men who have been underpaid will receive recompense. Men can also take equal pay claims forward. https://www.employmentbuddy.com/HR-Blogs/Details/Men-win-equal-pay-claim
I don’t understand this at all. Men & women doing the same job are paid the same, but some of the women think they should be paid more because some different men get paid more for doing a different job!?
It’s pretty straightforward you can evaluate certain jobs within the same organisation as being of ‘equal value’. For example my Mam got compensation from the council her pay comparator was bin men. The jobs required a simulate level of qualification and had similar aspects but were paid differently. The majority of bin men were male those doing a job seen to be of equal value were women. Hence the discrimination. Again men can take an equal pay claim. It’s not a one way street.
But you cant just say that different jobs have the exact same value to the company regardless of what a stupid rule says. they are different jobs requiring different abilities. If one is more physically demanding than the other then of course it should be paid differently. If we are paying people exactly the same because their job is of the same importance to a company then let's be honest EVERYONE should be paid the same because without them the company couldnt function. If it could then why are they employed? Can Tesco operate without any shelf stackers? No. The company would not be able to open its doors as the shelves would be empty. By the logic of importance that must be as highly paid as the store manager as there are no two ways about it it IS as important to the business. In fact could Tesco operate its stores without checkout operators? No they wouldn't legally be allowed to sell a lot of products for a start. Could Tesco open its stores without the checkout supervisor existing? Yes. Logically then the operators are more important, needed and therefore higher value to the company than their supervisor is so they should be paid more. In reality different jobs pay different wages and anybody saying that operating a checkout is directly comparable to the hard slog of pickup and packing in a busy warehouse is either utterly clueless or has an agenda. And I've done both those jobs.
Great post. Agree with every word. I'm all for equal pay for the same job, but making ******** rules because you feel hard done by is ridiculous.
Just a note on the ridiculous generalisation on ceo's doing nothing. My ex wife was made CEO of a company that had run into serious trouble before she joined. She worked her ass off for two years. By the end she was so stressed that she could barely function. Every waking minute was spent worrying about the job. In the end she saved the company and the 300 plus jobs of the workforce. The cost....it totally shattered her and she had a breakdown. She kept it together until she'd saved all those livelihoods though. The higher you go the less you do my arse.
Sorry you are wrong. The law says differently. You just don’t understand/want to understand the concept of equal value. It’s not easy proving an equal pay case or straightforward it takes years and you have to show that the areas of comparability outweigh the areas of difference. It’s nothing to do with value to a company or importance of a specific role. You are arguing against the finest most expensive corporate lawyers in the business. If you win you have proven beyond any doubt that the jobs you have linked are of equal value. Going back to my Mam do you think being a home help and being a refuse collector are the same job or of equal value. Any court will tell you they are of equal value none will tell you they are the same.