Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

bendix

I'm sorry, but woody is correct. This is not a case of equal pay or sexual discrimination. There is only one person here suggesting she is being paid less than the other guy because she is a woman, and that is the OP. Unless you can categorically prove that the discrimination is SOLELY on the basis of her sex, you have no case.

Woody is spot on. She was employed at a certain rate - whatever she happened to negotiate with the company at that point in time. Noone forced her to accept that salary - she took it. A while later, this other guy came along and negotiated a better package for himself. There is nothing in law which says she has to be upgraded as a result of his better negotiation skills.

The other guy is obviously worth more to the company than the OP's wife - otherwise they would not pay him more. It's as simple as that.

bendix

hedger wrote: »

quite a good example imo - shows that equal work deserves equal pay. my wife can prove that she does equal work to her male colleague - the case above shows if the role is equal (or broadly) similar then companies must have a fair pay structure in place. there seems to be a lack of equal pay cases because most get settled before court or a case never gets brought because females are in the dark about male colleagues earnings (just like mine woulda been if her daft director hadnt spilt the beans).
shes an appointment 2moro with a leading employment law solicitor and the equality commission has been informed

It is NOT a good example. I dont see how you can't accept that. It is for a successor.

While companies may have pay ranges (largely set by the freemarket) for similar roles, there is no obligation to follow them even when yuo have the same people in the same roles. Different factors come into play (scarcity of people able to fill the role for example), the employer's urgency to fill the role, the bargaining power of both parties.

It is NOTHING about sexual equality. I have two people doing similar roles for me at the moment. Once is on 45,000. The other earns 36,000. They are both female, but the one earning more is wears glasses and the other doesnt? Am I discriminating on the basis of eyesight?

No . . I made a business decision based on a huge number of issues when negotiating these salaries and there is NOTHING in legislation or case law that says I (or your wife's employer) have done anything wrong.

hedger

bendix wrote: »

It is NOT a good example. I dont see how you can't accept that. It is for a successor.

While companies may have pay ranges (largely set by the freemarket) for similar roles, there is no obligation to follow them even when yuo have the same people in the same roles. Different factors come into play (scarcity of people able to fill the role for example), the employer's urgency to fill the role, the bargaining power of both parties.

It is NOTHING about sexual equality. I have two people doing similar roles for me at the moment. Once is on 45,000. The other earns 36,000. They are both female, but the one earning more is wears glasses and the other doesnt? Am I discriminating on the basis of eyesight?

No . . I made a business decision based on a huge number of issues when negotiating these salaries and there is NOTHING in legislation or case law that says I (or your wife's employer) have done anything wrong.

I was using the example to show what happens when a woman can PROVE she carried out the same work - if it was just a case of the male successor being a better negotiator then how did the woman win her case in the example I used?
I think you'll find Equal Pay legislation does exist and many people have won their case (or settled out of court) when they have proven they have been treated unfairly. of course the tricky bit is proving it so thats why she'll be meeting the solicitor 2moro with all the necessary facts. obviously we'll be guided by her and the Equality Comm

bendix

No, you won't have to prove that she carried out the same work. Different people doing the same job CAN be paid vastly different sums.

Instead, legally, the onus on you (as the plaintiff, remember) will be to prove that she is being treated differently / paid less because she is a woman.

It's as simple as that.

hedger

bendix wrote: »

No, you won't have to prove that she carried out the same work. Different people doing the same job CAN be paid vastly different sums.

Instead, legally, the onus on you (as the plaintiff, remember) will be to prove that she is being treated differently / paid less because she is a woman.

It's as simple as that.

I see you didnt answer me on how the woman in the successor example i used won her case...

from what I can tell its really as simple as this:

"Equal pay
The equal pay law is meant to help ensure that women and men
in the same employment are treated equally in pay and other terms

and conditions of employment. Under the Equal Pay Act (Northern

Ireland) 1970 (as amended) employees may claim equal pay with

colleagues of the opposite sex where they are in the same employment and are doing:
• work which is the same or broadly similar (known as "like work")
• work related as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme
• work which is different but which is of "equal value" in terms
of the demands of the jobs.
The Equal Pay Act includes terms of the contract of employment
such as:
• piece work
• overtime
• bonus payments
• holidays
• free accommodation
• pensions.

The law allows an employer to defend an equal pay case by showing
that the difference in pay between male and female employees is

genuinely due to some material factor other than the difference of sex."


As it says above the case will be if the company can show some material factor why there is a difference in the pay - we will argue that they cannot. what do you think is the material factor in this case?

Pete111

Well I can't speak for everyone but personally I'm very interested to read what the solicitor/equality commision says re all this. Obviously a lot of differing views here

Keep us informed Hedger.

Cheers

P

hedger

Pete111 wrote: »

Well I can't speak for everyone but personally I'm very interested to read what the solicitor/equality commision says re all this. Obviously a lot of differing views here

Keep us informed Hedger.

Cheers

P

will do pete

kateab

Yep, I'm interested too, hedger.

good luck with it all.

kateab

bendix

hedger wrote: »

As it says above the case will be if the company can show some material factor why there is a difference in the pay - we will argue that they cannot. what do you think is the material factor in this case?

I don't know, but I suspect there is one. Why on earth would a company decide to pay a man £6000 more, just because he is a man. Your wife was there first. Businesses act out of self-interest, and it was obviously in their interest to pay more to this guy - for reasons unbeknownst to anyone not privy to the negotiations - than to your wife.

It's called the freemarket. If your wife is genuinely worth the extra £6000, then it should be relatively easy for her to take her skills and sell them for the higher salary at another company, shouldn't it?

hedger

bendix wrote: »

I don't know, but I suspect there is one. Why on earth would a company decide to pay a man £6000 more, just because he is a man. Your wife was there first. Businesses act out of self-interest, and it was obviously in their interest to pay more to this guy - for reasons unbeknownst to anyone not privy to the negotiations - than to your wife.

It's called the freemarket. If your wife is genuinely worth the extra £6000, then it should be relatively easy for her to take her skills and sell them for the higher salary at another company, shouldn't it?
[/LEFT]

bendix are you on the wind-up?
in case you havent noticed there is a collapse of the UK economy of the like never witnessed before so its daft to suggest "taking her skills to another company for an extra £6000". In any case why should she? We believe she has been discriminated against over pay and also it will be used against her because she had the audacity to raise the issue. Its a bit strange you think that a company wudnt willingly pay a female less - it is happening on all over the UK (look at the average pay figure comparisons) and is the "old school" mind set which Im afraid isnt allowed anymore (hence the rising claims being processed).

Ive found a great site that gives you the step by step process of an equal pay complaint. I believe this proves what I have been saying on here. Im not saying we will take the case (we will act on wat our solicitor says) or if we do we act we will def win but what i am saying is there IS equal pay law and if you can prove the job is of equal value (which we believe we easily can) then it will be up to the employer to produce a genuine material factor

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l1010001.htm

What does the law require?

The Equal Pay Act requires a four stage approach:
• Selecting an appropriate comparator of the opposite sex - We can do that
• Proving that the comparator is employed to carry out equal work We can do that (job specs and duties exactly the same)
• Comparing the claimant’s and the comparator’s terms and conditions of employment - We can do that

• Assessing whether the employer can explain any discrepancy in pay (“the genuine material factor defence”) - can the employer prove this?