Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

hedger

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

Tbh you sound paranoid and really need to get a grip.

There is no sex discrimination. Yes your wife is paid less but that is all to do with the fact she hasnt negotiated a good deal. not because she is female.

Your wife should have approached her pay at appropiate points i.e annual appraisals and so on.

She will not win a sex discrimination case.

Who mentioned a sexual discrimination case? we are talking about an Equal Pay case. for your information I am neither paranoid and do not need to get a grip of anything so dont be so condenscending. I know the full situation of what is happening, unlike you.

seeing as you know-it-all can you please advise how anyone has ever won an equal pay case if all an employer needs to say is "the male negotiated a better deal". bearing in mind the Equal Pay legislation and landmark cases such as....


Enderby and Others v Frenchay Health Authority and Others

Issue: Is it sufficient justification that the difference in pay has resulted from separate collective bargaining processes which, when taken separately, do not discriminate on grounds of sex?
The fact that the different pay rates were arrived at by separate collective bargaining processes which in themselves have no discriminatory effect, is not sufficient objective justification for the difference in pay.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

Its a completely different situation and wouldnt be much use in your case unless your wife has been put on the wrong scale.

Secondly you did. your post title is sexual discrimination/equal pay and your basis is that your wife is sexually discriminated against

Again you have no case

hedger

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

Its a completely different situation and wouldnt be much use in your case unless your wife has been put on the wrong scale.

Secondly you did. your post title is sexual discrimination/equal pay and your basis is that your wife is sexually discriminated against

Again you have no case

that is your opinion. what is your background that makes you such an expert?

Pete111

woody01 wrote: »

Sorry.I also work for a large global company and you are definitely wrong.

There are so many different variables its unbelievable. No two employees have an IDENTICAL record so its near on impossible to enforce any existing legislation.

It doesnt matter if the OPs wife and the other fella are doing the same job. The fact he negotiated a higher salary, and also the probability that he is far more experienced, probably means he is entitled to more money.

Maybe that is why you 'used to work', and i 'currently' work

OH MY GOD!!! WOODY01 TELLS ME I'VE BEEN FIRED!! HOW WILL I PAY THE MORTGAGE?! I'M DOOMED!!!

Oh no wait. I've just been promoted, given a bigger team and a substantial pay increase. Phew.

:cool:

Lots of (increasingly vehemant) debate on this. Only one way to find out for sure in relation to this case and that is to wait and see.

hedger

Pete111 wrote: »

OH MY GOD!!! WOODY01 TELLS ME I'VE BEEN FIRED!! HOW WILL I PAY THE MORTGAGE?! I'M DOOMED!!!

Oh no wait. I've just been promoted, given a bigger team and a substantial pay increase. Phew.

:cool:

Lots of (increasingly vehemant) debate on this. Only one way to find out for sure in relation to this case and that is to wait and see.

agree with ya there Pete!
a polite letter has now been drafted by my wife (with solicitors assistance) asking the company to officially explain the pay difference. when/if they reply we will take further advice.

hedger

Equality Commission contacted my wife this afternoon and said "the company most certainly has questions to answer". they agreed with what we are doing in sending a letter asking them to clarify a few points

Spirit_2

woody01 wrote: »

If you knew ANYTHING at all about NEBOSH or other H&S qualifiactions, you would realise there are different levels of qualification and expertise.

The reason i do not accept the OP/his wife do not have a case is that i know about H&S qualifications whereas you (and the OP) clearly do not.

The issue is about equal pay not about H&S qualifications alone. Your responses are getting increasingly rude to other well informed posters and the OP. The OP has come here for advice on what will be a tricky issue. If these balanced and helpful answers are not to your liking perhaps you could start a discussion about health & safety qualifications on the discussion time board.

To the OP, there is a lot of wise guidance on here - stick with it.

Spirit

hedger

Spirit wrote: »

The issue is about equal pay not about H&S qualifications alone. Your responses are getting increasingly rude to other well informed posters and the OP. The OP has come here for advice on what will be a tricky issue. If these balanced and helpful answers are not to your liking perhaps you could start a discussion about health & safety qualifications on the discussion time board.

To the OP, there is a lot of wise guidance on here - stick with it.

Spirit

thanks spirit - i agree with ya some of these people are gettin a bit rude for no reason. the know-it-alls have failed to answer the simple question i keep posing - if they way round equal pay law by an employer is to simply state "the male negotiated a better deal" then how has any equal pay case ever been won by a female?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Spirit wrote: »

The issue is about equal pay not about H&S qualifications alone. Your responses are getting increasingly rude to other well informed posters and the OP. The OP has come here for advice on what will be a tricky issue. If these balanced and helpful answers are not to your liking perhaps you could start a discussion about health & safety qualifications on the discussion time board.

To the OP, there is a lot of wise guidance on here - stick with it.

Spirit

No one is being rude & if you read the thread properly you will see the OP has his own motives.

Disagreement is mostly a good thing & just because someone is blunt it should not directly be interpreted as rude.

The OP asked for advice & that is what he is getting, from all angles.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

thanks spirit - i agree with ya some of these people are gettin a bit rude for no reason. the know-it-alls have failed to answer the simple question i keep posing - if they way round equal pay law by an employer is to simply state "the male negotiated a better deal" then how has any equal pay case ever been won by a female?

Hedger.

1: Refer to above post

2: He has VERY valid points on both market forces & qualifications

As for what the employer does you can pretty much bet they will take legal advice & if you do win you will not win the way you think.

As for your quote "then how has any equal pay case ever been won by a female?" I refer you back to my 2nd or 3rd post about an attempt to bring in new by Harriet Harman. People rarely win this arguement thats why the new law is being railroaded.


I look forward to reading more.