Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

hundredk

woody01 wrote: »

At last realisation....
I play the 'devils advocate' on purpose to show the other side of the coin.
this is NOT how i would treat my employees, but i have seen alot of the things here many times before.
Also, Pete/Zara, i have toned it down considerably for both of your benefits as it became quickly obvious that you are reasonable and intelligent people. So, in that case, deserving of respectful responses.

As for Never-In-Doubt.........he is all hot air and deserves nothing.
The idiot flexes some kind of E-Peen here and assumes people are interested.
All he manages to do is swear and make himself look more stupid (if that is at all possible.....he is also a special kind of keyboard warrior which is also highly amusing.
I would have my next ten years wages on it that he:
a). Lives with his mum/sister (though likely to be the same person)
b). Stands in front of the mirror in her clothes when she is out
c). Keeps his curtains closed all day (know what i mean)?
d). Has a girlfriend with staples through her middle

and with alll this 'nob' talk it makes me wonder what is on his mind all day....suspect don't you think?

The more he retorts...the more you know you get to him...this is why the swearing starts..........im happy to let him post 4-5 of his 'hissy-fit' nob posts and then respond with something his mind doesn't grasp) (which is amazingly easy....it's so amusing....c'mon N-I-D, can you get more pathetic....(of course he can)

I agree with Pete111 that playing devils advocate is very useful in terms of anticipating what may be presented by the ex employer. However, reading your posts it is not clear that this was your intention, otherwise why not mention it? As it is your the posts read like a hedger flaming rather than that of an intelligent and helpful poster.

As far as I can see with a quick look, Never-in-doubt has posted one post in this thread which challenges your posts so you must see the irony of your comments above. I suspect most posters will read what's in the thread they are on and make judgements on that rather than look at elsewhere for other irrelevant threads/posts.

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Like I said before.

You need to think of a figure that you would be happy to take off them.

Please quote & put that figure here >>> <<< for all to see.


Your wife, following your misguided advice & understanding of the law, made noises about unfair pay & sexual discrimination at the worst possible time in the worst possible manner.

They got rid of her & it was the best thing to do for everyone. Its just a matter of cash & you moving on & even before she was made redundant you were after a case. These are the repercussions of your actions, like it or lump it, this is what happens.

Prior to her redundancy you had no case.

i must have said this hundreds of times. she raised a pay query long long before any redundancies were taking place. After she was informed privately that she was on the list to go (with no assessment being done) she put in a grievance on how her pay query was handled. so you are entirely wrong that she brought this on herself

im not sure wat she wud accept tbh.

Welshwoofs

I've found the whole back and forth re equal pay rights on this thread interesting.

In fact I find the concept of people being paid the same wage for the same or similar work interesting as it's certainly something I've never experienced in my line of business. In my industry your pay is dictated by your experience, how marketable you're perceived to be in the industry and how well you negotiate your salary and benefits.

I'm female and I'm paid nearly £20k more a year than a man doing a very similar job in the company. The job I do, when advertised, clearly states that it is essential to have a relevent degree. I have no degree and he has an MA. He's also been in the industry roughly the same number of years as me (I have a year on him).

The reason I'm paid more is because my experience, although roughly equivalent in time, involved a far greater range of tasks and managing bigger departments for better known companies. I also reguarly get other companies trying to poach me (he doesn't) and my company know this and make it very attractive for me to stay with them as a result.

So it seems to to me that there is an element of perceived worth when it comes to an individual's renumeration. If a company think they have 'hot property' who can walk to a competitor easily, they'll tend to keep them sweeter than another employee.

Op - it'll be interesting to see where you get with this but if I were a betting woman (and I am), I'm not sure I'd be backing this bet!

hedger

is this the longest thread on the forum?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

is this the longest thread on the forum?

It will be if you keep updating.

I am definately coming back.

The settlement figure you wife would want would be very interesting to know.

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

It will be if you keep updating.

I am definately coming back.

The settlement figure you wife would want would be very interesting to know.

for her the money really isnt the issue, its the principle. she wants to expose the ex-director for what he is and she has succeeded so far. we have no idea (or experience) of what, if any, amount will be offered so no point naming an imaginary figure

Zazen999

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

The settlement figure you wife would want would be very interesting to know.

Why? What's it to you?

Are you just hoping to point and say 'HA! You didn't get what you wanted'?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Zazen999 wrote: »

Why? What's it to you?

Are you just hoping to point and say 'HA! You didn't get what you wanted'?

Idiot........

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

for her the money really isnt the issue, its the principle. she wants to expose the ex-director for what he is and she has succeeded so far. we have no idea (or experience) of what, if any, amount will be offered so no point naming an imaginary figure

Hedger.

You need to work one out.

Zazen999

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Idiot........

Indeed....my thoughts exactly.