Why are there no dinner men or bin ladies?
Latest gender pay gap BS could cost Tesco 4 Billion
- Thread starter simon12
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
Its debated at the beginning of question time last night if anyone's interested
JFB
Landlord.
- Joined
- May 3, 2016
- Messages
- 934
- Reaction score
- 452
Good stuff
Turned up at work today and the MD was waiting to greet me, with the news that I'd got a 5% pay rise. Neat!
Nice one! Despite my whingeing about the b******s robbing us at every opportunity I got an unexpected letter with a 4% basic pay rise the other day.
Bet management got 10%!!!!:mad1:
BeerCat
Landlord.
- Joined
- May 6, 2015
- Messages
- 5,292
- Reaction score
- 1,694
I am not disagreeing with you. What i was saying was some of these charities are set up as a way of paying themselves a high wage. I think a lot of people are unaware of how much of their contributions go towards administration.
I am sure you are right in respect of some charities out there, based on the fact that it seems there are charities for every conceivable good cause and so there must be a few who are not set up as ethically as they should be given that they are mostly funded by public donations and tax payers money. However charities should be run as a business and that means attracting good people to run the business and that in turn means paying the going rate. I came across this article this morning which sort of bears that out.
https://www.theguardian.com/volunta.../14/guide-to-setting-charity-salaries-and-pay
The bottom line is if you don't feel comfortable with the way a charity is run then don't support it. I have two charities I regularly support and thats it, the others don't get look in, and I just walk straight past the tin rattlers with my conscience intact.
I'm pretty sure that a village idiot could have run Carillion better for the workers and taxpayers than the people who trousered millions by robbing their Company Pension Fund to boost imaginary profits to hand dividends to their shareholders and to pay themselves huge pay rises and massive bonuses.
Please let's stop defending the charlatans, cheats and outright thieves that are running these companies for their own benefit; and let's stop pretending that they are rarities 'cos they are not.
Also, I'm sick to death of the people of this country blaming "the worker" for every economic problem that we have and throwing their hands up in the air with horror whenever a worker asks for a fair wage for a fair day's work.
With regard to equal pay for men and women a lot of people seem to be forgetting that the economy has changed over the last fifty years! My Mum just didn't need to work because my Dad earned enough to provide for himself and his family.
In my generation, things got a bit tighter, women discovered that they were often required to work just to support their families and the Equal Pay Act was introduced in 1970. (*)
Nowadays, it is essential that many women work as the sole supporter of their family so:
- Why shouldn't women have parity with men working in the same job?
- Why should we allow companies to frig around with definitions to justify the non-parity of the wages they pay? (**)
Notes:
(*)
As a BTW, Barbara Castle, the Labour MP who fought to introduce the "Equal Pay Act" in 1970 became an MP back in 1945 when the Labour Party came to power and immediately increased the annual salary of MPs from £600 to £1,000.
The move was in response to the fact that almost all of the new Labour intake had to rely on their MP's wages in order to survive.
The move was met with derision from the Tories. They all had private incomes and regarded their salary as MPs as a bonus; but, as not one of them refused their increase in pay, we can only assume that even back then they were greedy buggers!
(**)
Does anyone on the Forum know of a case where a woman gets paid more than a man for the same job?
If not then I think the ladies case is proved to be correct.
Please read this ...
https://tidesofhistory.wordpress.co...stle-bounced-the-labour-party-into-equal-pay/
It's not exactly a new subject!
Last edited:
I can agree to getting equally paid for the SAME job. But...warehouse work isn't the same job as till work like its not the same as digging holes in the road or coal mining .. Are not wages per job governed by what is accepted the going rate in that sector?
How about paying people on merit instead of what sex they happen to be? Cos most women would find themselves down the food bank come payday, that's why.
:tinhat:
How do I get the smilies to appear in aline instead of a stack....?
How do I get the smilies to appear in aline instead of a stack....?
Last edited:
My wife used to work in a factory in an assembly department it was fiddly work (assembly work using very small components) 95% of the workforce were female and men that tried didn't stay long they found out the store men/women were on a higher wage and after a lengthy battle the company agreed with the union that they should be brought up to the store men/woman's wage this was not about men v women it was about how the company valued the employees doing the assembly work, given the choice i know which job i would take even if the wage was the same. (it wouldnt be the assembly job)
In 14 years I've NEVER seen a woman ( except the cleaner ) on our work's shopfloor. But to be fair, it's not for soft-headed, vosene-using guys either.
I used to work in a machine shop in the shipyard at Barrow in Furness many years ago, when i started there were hardly any women on the machines but as the years rolled on more joined by the time the cold war ended and the majority of us were made redundant they probably made up less than 5% of the machinists and were still resented by a lot of the older blokes as they used to say they got all the easy jobs from the foremen.
A few observations:
If your in a job thats already quickly becoming automated it not the best time to start pay disputes.
Tesco's main attraction to customers has always been price and would likely be bankrupt if they paid there staff well and charged more as a result.
If your in a job thats already quickly becoming automated it not the best time to start pay disputes.
Tesco's main attraction to customers has always been price and would likely be bankrupt if they paid there staff well and charged more as a result.
Yea, right. The old "we can't pay you any more" argument used since Adam pointed out the cost of an apple to Eve!
Here's a great example of the "Trickle Down Economics" which is advocated by the rich:
Trickle Down Economics
Trickle Down Economic
Trickle Down Economi
Trickle Down Econom
Trickle Down Econo
Trickle Down Econ
Trickle Down Eco
Trickle Down Ec
Trickle Down E
Trickle Down
Trickle Dow
Trickle Do
Trickle D
Trickle
Trickl
Trick
Like many of these claims to keep the poor in their place, it falls into the "Jam tomorrow!" category (i.e. we don't have to share anything today) and it's probably one of many reasons that the eight richest people on Earth now have as much money as the poorest 50% of the population! Oh, BTW, please don't try and tell me that the richest people on earth all "worked for their wealth and paid their taxes"!
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50
I am not actually sure that CEOs jobs are particularly more skilled than anyone else. They have a whole companies worth of skilled (and unskilled) labour to utilise. They are there to manage everyone, take the flack if things go wrong and to receive the praise when things go right. Thats not a criticism of them, its just how businesses work.
I am also not sure how now a days you quantify what jobs are more skilled than others and therefore how to you decide that someone on the tills is less skilled than someone working in the warehouse? I have met some very clever people working on tills, I have also met people working in warehouses that couldn't organise a brew day in a brewery...
Could anyone do my job? probably! Although I like to think I am good at it!
I am also not sure how now a days you quantify what jobs are more skilled than others and therefore how to you decide that someone on the tills is less skilled than someone working in the warehouse? I have met some very clever people working on tills, I have also met people working in warehouses that couldn't organise a brew day in a brewery...
Could anyone do my job? probably! Although I like to think I am good at it!
In this Tesco case I don't think its so much how skilled the job is more how demanding and comfortable it is, my best guess is Tesco pay the warehouse staff more because they can't find anyone who will do the job for £8 while they can find plenty of people who will work the checkouts for that money. Dutto I don't see where I or anyone else even mentioned trickle down economics or what the richest and poorest people on the planet have to do with this at all, but since you mentioned it. Tesco checkout workers earn more that the total monetary worth of the average of those poorest half in 2 shifts and if they work 24 or less hours a week pay no income tax we need to address this imbalance.
My comment was in response to your take on the Tesco problem as expressed above. The alternative to charging more for their products is for Tesco upper management to take pay cuts and shareholders to take reduced dividends. They wont do this of course, instead they will use a variety of reasons to justify their wealth and Trickle Down Economics is one of them.
I don't quite understand the second comment. If you are pointing out that people pay no income tax if they are working "24 hours or less a week" I assume that this is because their earnings are insufficient to qualify for income tax. In which case I agree entirely that they are obviously being paid much too little and that their situation should be addressed as a priority.
However, I wonder if this bit of the law was introduced for the benefit of more fortunate souls. Imagine if I was employed on a salary of £30,000 as a Director on the Boards of six different companies. With Board Meetings scheduled for once every fortnight I would be able to put in a full eight hour day for each company, claim that I was working for "24 hours or less a week" and pick up my £180,000 tax free.
That seems fair, especially if we are "All in this together!"
Coming back to the exam question, isn't this a case of finding out:
1) Do men and women both get paid the same for working on the checkout?
2) Do men and women both get paid the same for working in the warehouse?
3) Are the number of jobs given to men/women in proportion to the number of applications to those jobs?
4) Are there any states or implied restrictions in men/women being able to apply for those jobs if they otherwise wanted to do them?
Whether checkout staff get paid the same as warehouse staff is irrelevant because they are different jobs.
I can only imagine there are more checkout jobs than warehouse jobs available. I think it would be interesting to also discover whether a woman is more likely to be hired onto the checkouts than a man, therefore leaving men discriminated against. That was very much the case when I worked in a supermarket many moons ago - very, very few men working on checkouts.
1) Do men and women both get paid the same for working on the checkout?
2) Do men and women both get paid the same for working in the warehouse?
3) Are the number of jobs given to men/women in proportion to the number of applications to those jobs?
4) Are there any states or implied restrictions in men/women being able to apply for those jobs if they otherwise wanted to do them?
Whether checkout staff get paid the same as warehouse staff is irrelevant because they are different jobs.
I can only imagine there are more checkout jobs than warehouse jobs available. I think it would be interesting to also discover whether a woman is more likely to be hired onto the checkouts than a man, therefore leaving men discriminated against. That was very much the case when I worked in a supermarket many moons ago - very, very few men working on checkouts.
