Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

CFC

I think that the lack of an update gives the answer to the query in this case. I have to say that this didn't look like a real go-er to me unless the company were running scared. As Pete says, some companies have a policy to just pay out rather than go to tribunal.

Not that there isn't discrimination in the workplace, there is plenty, but proving it is very difficult even when it does blatantly exist.

bendix

CFC wrote: »

I think that the lack of an update gives the answer to the query in this case. I have to say that this didn't look like a real go-er to me unless the company were running scared. As Pete says, some companies have a policy to just pay out rather than go to tribunal.

Not that there isn't discrimination in the workplace, there is plenty, but proving it is very difficult even when it does blatantly exist.

I'm pretty sure you're right, except for the part about the company paying out. Had that happened, hedger would have been on here celebrating.

hedger

bendix wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you're right, except for the part about the company paying out. Had that happened, hedger would have been on here celebrating.

the issue is ongoing and its not a matter of me celebrating anything. :mad:
My wife is in danger of losing her job due to one mans dislike of her for having the audacity to query her pay. yet again he was caught telling blatant lies at their meeting on monday (which thankfully HR have now put him right on) and he is making the selection criteria (and the people who will be assessing her) up as he goes along. she finds out on Monday if shes been made redundant but the vibes are def not good

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Yep.


Maybe they found out she spent all her time at work building a case instead of working???


:rotfl:


(joke)

try to make it a funny one next time. cheers :rolleyes:

bendix

hedger wrote: »

the issue is ongoing and its not a matter of me celebrating anything. :mad:
My wife is in danger of losing her job due to one mans dislike of her for having the audacity to query her pay. yet again he was caught telling blatant lies at their meeting on monday (which thankfully HR have now put him right on) and he is making the selection criteria (and the people who will be assessing her) up as he goes along. she finds out on Monday if shes been made redundant but the vibes are def not good

So now you're saying she's at risk of redundancy because she queried her pay? Well, we did warn you, that she had no case, didn't we?

Sorry to hear it anyway, but it's not entirely unexpected.

Pete111

From my recollection the redundancy issue was there from the very start so the recent meeting would have changed very little on that front.

It seems clear that even prior to Hedgers initial post the company wanted her out. Hence my 'nothing to lose' views re this one.

Hedger - is that correct in your view?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

the issue is ongoing and its not a matter of me celebrating anything. :mad:
My wife is in danger of losing her job due to one mans dislike of her for having the audacity to query her pay. yet again he was caught telling blatant lies at their meeting on monday (which thankfully HR have now put him right on) and he is making the selection criteria (and the people who will be assessing her) up as he goes along. she finds out on Monday if shes been made redundant but the vibes are def not good

What do you expect?

Thanks exactly what would of happened in 95% of cases..

Pete111

1984 is right. For better or for worse Management/HR usually decide beforehand and adjust the criteria accordingly. You probably already are, but I would prepare yourself for the worst Hedger.

bendix

In which case, I don't really understand why we've had eight pages of discussion of whether she should be paid the same salary as the guy who started after her.

It's all a bit academic really.

hedger

Pete111 wrote: »

From my recollection the redundancy issue was there from the very start so the recent meeting would have changed very little on that front.

It seems clear that even prior to Hedgers initial post the company wanted her out. Hence my 'nothing to lose' views re this one.

Hedger - is that correct in your view?

totally correct Pete. People on here are putting 2 and 2 together and gettin 9. the pay has been an underlying issue stretching back months since she queried it and is now bein used as a way of gettin rid of my wife. she has yet to put her equal pay letter in (that can be done anytime) and atm is only querying the redundancy selection criteria and who will be carrying it out - she is not running about like some mad woman causing trouble as some seem to think on here! she is asking appropriate questions that affect her future and is gettin nowhere. the director has been caught telling lie after lie (to HRs concern who found out yday) and creating the situation where he can get rid of her - it is hard to explain on here how he is but trust me that is a fact