Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

hedger

woody01 wrote: »

And i suggest you ram your suggestion :rolleyes: ...it's a forum and i don't expect some chimp to tell me which threads i can or cannot post on.

I am sorry...but can you not see what a load of tripe your post is?
I do not discriminate.....i abide by employment law (which you obviously have no knowledge of).
I haven't mentioned race/sex/religion/age.....this thread has NOTHING to do with any of those so at least attempt to read (or get someone to help you).

It appears from your post you are Hedgers wife/boyfriend/guardian angel.

Jog on

you abide by employment law? :rotfl:

hedger

ChrisCobra wrote: »

Been following this thread since it started , some excellent examples of internet hardmen here :P

most def chris :rolleyes:

Zazen999

It is quite amusing how the big bad men have to shout their opinions across - and put things in bold and capitals because they just have to, don't they?

And then there's the insults :rolleyes: Like we haven't heard them all 1000 times before.

Anyway, good luck; I've totally understood where you were coming from since the start and nothing I have seen yet has changed my mind.

hundredk

woody01 wrote: »

I am sorry...but can you not see what a load of tripe your post is?
I do not discriminate.....i abide by employment law (which you obviously have no knowledge of).

As opposed to a post qualified by...

woody01 wrote: »

I used to take part in IT's as a shop steward and i can tell you 199% that you won't have a clue until the IT1's have been sent and received.

woody01 wrote: »

I haven't mentioned race/sex/religion/age.....this thread has NOTHING to do with any of those so at least attempt to read (or get someone to help you).

Ahem...except maybe the OP mentoned it at the top of the thread:rolleyes:

hedger wrote: »

i think its a cast iron case of equal pay and sexual discrimination.

And before this is dismissed as an opinion....

woody01 wrote: »

...it's a forum and i don't expect some chimp to tell me which threads i can or cannot post on.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Ahem...except maybe the OP mentoned it at the top of the thread

To be fair to Woody01 this case (as presented by Hedger) has absolutely nothing to do with discimination whatsoever. Its all about poor management & an employer shafting someone who is making the wrong noises at the wrong time because they fear legal action.

Zazen999

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

To be fair to Woody01 this case (as presented by Hedger) has absolutely nothing to do with discimination whatsoever. Its all about poor management & an employer shafting someone who is making the wrong noises at the wrong time because they fear legal action.

To be fair to Hedger.

The Director mistakenly let it be known that the female was earning less than the male and then sacked her when she tried to find out why.

There is legislation in place that says people must not be paid less if they are doing the same job just because they are a female.

This was kicked off by the Director making a mistake; not by the employee making wrong noises at wrong times....and the mistake shows the company to have been 'breaking the law'.

If the employer had issues with the employee before that point, they had not communicated it to her prior to her being given the information that she was being paid a significantly lower salary.

I don't think that shouting the employee's husband down every time he states what happened is going to make him stop getting justice for his wife; and calling him names just shows those up who do so; for not being able to argue and state their case in a professional and calm manner.

Rockporkchop

Zazen999 wrote: »

To be fair to Hedger.

The Director mistakenly let it be known that the female was earning less than the male and then sacked her when she tried to find out why.

There is legislation in place that says people must not be paid less if they are doing the same job just because they are a female.

That is if the OP's wife was being paid less just because she is female and I think not, as we are not living in the dark ages.

The salary a person is paid depends on so many factors at the actual time of employment - the urgency for the position to be filled, the current market conditions, the firm's salary budget, the quality of the applicants at the time and also the negotiating skills of the successful employee, just to name a few factors.

If I found out I was earning significantly less than my male colleague I would kick myself for selling myself too cheaply and start preparing my CV.
Actually, I am female and currently earn £16,000 more than my male colleague who sits beside me doing exactly the same job. He is three years older than me and he even had to cover my job when I went on maternity leave last year.

Where is the legislation to protect him?!

I do wish the OP's wife the very best of luck though.

Pete111

Morning all. Wow - lots of excitable posts on this once more. It's like the good old days a few months back

Hedger defending his wifes position to the hilt, myself and others giving him words of encouragement with his case. Woody getting really personal once more and instantly denigrating anyone who has the audacity to oppose his 'facts' whilst being backed up in more measured tones by 1984 and Bendix.....gives me warm feeling inside.

P

woody01

Zazen999 wrote: »

It is quite amusing how the big bad men have to shout their opinions across - and put things in bold and capitals because they just have to, don't they?

And then there's the insults :rolleyes: Like we haven't heard them all 1000 times before.

Anyway, good luck; I've totally understood where you were coming from since the start and nothing I have seen yet has changed my mind.

If you would care to look, i think you will find Hedger got stroppy/abusive first as i didn't agree with him. (and i still don't).

Anyway, good luck in the tribunal......i look forward to reading more facts about this.

Zazen999

Rockporkchop wrote: »

That is if the OP's wife was being paid less just because she is female and I think not, as we are not living in the dark ages.

I totally agree, and if they were able to justify this position with an explanation of why she was being paid significantly less, then that would have been acceptable. Along with a development plan to get her at that level, again would have gone in their favour.

I am sorry but I totally disagree with the living in the dark ages bit, many many women are being paid much less than their male colleagues. I find this happens particularly in 'traditionally male dominated roles'; having been all my working life in one particular [male dominated] industry, the practice is rife.