Challenging pay comparing against colleague

jacques_chirac

Southend1 wrote: »

I'm very sorry that you have chosen to take offence at my support for gender equality. In order to avoid any further bad feeling I suggest you refrain from reading my posts on this thread or block my username.

On the other hand you could choose to recognise that there are a number of different viewpoints being expressed here by various people with the intention of having a sensible discussion and either join in or choose not to.

Southend1 wrote: »

The evidence does not support the view you have formed based on your personal experience. For a start, there is still a gender pay gap and this is wider in non unionised workplaces/industries. Also, on average, union members are paid around 16% more than non union members in the UK.

Please stop putting words into my mouth. I did not suggest that anyone NEEDS to be part of a group to be empowered, I simply said that I personally find it can be empowering to be part of a group.

Your fight for 'gender equality' comes across as quite the opposite. It comes across that you see women as incapable of thinking/ acting for themselves. If this is not what you intend to put across, then given the number of people who are reading your posts in this way, perhaps it is you that needs to rethink?

You have a habit of trying to put people down because they do not agree with you, I have seen you do it to AP007 countless times. It really does not show you in a good light, and quite possibly accounts for why people read your posts as being demeaning.

Southend1

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Your fight for 'gender equality' comes across as quite the opposite. It comes across that you see women as incapable of thinking/ acting for themselves. If this is not what you intend to put across, then given the number of people who are reading your posts in this way, perhaps it is you that needs to rethink?

You have a habit of trying to put people down because they do not agree with you, I have seen you do it to AP007 countless times. It really does not show you in a good light, and quite possibly accounts for why people read your posts as being demeaning.

I'm sorry you choose to read such intentions into my posts. I am perfectly happy with my views on gender equality and the way I put them across. If you are not, I recommend you ignore my posts or place my username on block.

I can assure you that I am not trying to "put people down". This is merely the interpretation of my intentions you have placed on something I have written and says more about you than me.

AP007 and I do disagree on a number of issues, however this is a discussion forum and it would be incredibly boring if we all held the same views.

If AP007 or any other user takes issue with anything I have written here, I think it would be more appropriate for them to either take it up with me themselves, ignore my posts, or block my username.

I am happy to continue discussing the issues raised in this thread with you if you wish, however I would prefer if you asked me what my intentions were when making any particular comment rather than assuming something which is untrue.

SueC_2

Missme wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like it if all of the benefits unions have negotiated for staff were to apply only to union members?

Apparently that is actually the way it operates:

Southend1 wrote: »

Also, on average, union members are paid around 16% more than non union members in the UK.

Southend1

SueC wrote: »

Apparently that is actually the way it operates:

Sue you misunderstand. For example unions have negotiated much improved health and safety legislation over the last 100 years or so, with a particularly notable improvement in the 1970s. This legislation obviously applies to all of us, not just union members.

With regard to pay the point is that where unions are able to engage in collective bargaining employees are normally paid more

SueC_2

Southend1 wrote: »

In order to avoid any further bad feeling I suggest you refrain from reading my posts on this thread or block my username.

Southend1 wrote: »

I'm sorry you choose to read such intentions into my posts. I am perfectly happy with my views on gender equality and the way I put them across. If you are not, I recommend you ignore my posts or place my username on block.

You seem to be the one who has a problem with opposing views. That's two of us you've told to shut up and go away if we don't like what you're saying.

It's attitudes like that that got women where they are today.

Southend1

SueC wrote: »

You seem to be the one who has a problem with opposing views. That's two of us you've told to shut up and go away if we don't like what you're saying.

It's attitudes like that that got women where they are today.

I'm quite happy to read and discuss a wide range of views on this topic. I also like to add my own contribution to the discussion.

Clearly I haven't told anyone to shut up or go away. What I actually said is that if you don't like reading my opinion, please refrain from doing so, it is your choice. You have every right to disagree with me and I respect your right to do so.

ILW

Southend1 wrote: »

Sue you misunderstand. For example unions have negotiated much improved health and safety legislation over the last 100 years or so, with a particularly notable improvement in the 1970s. This legislation obviously applies to all of us, not just union members.

With regard to pay the point is that where unions are able to engage in collective bargaining employees are normally paid more

Is that always the case, or could it be that the less productive are paid more whilst the more productive are having their pay held back due to collective agreements?

SueC_2

Southend1 wrote: »

Also, on average, union members are paid around 16% more than non union members in the UK.

Southend1 wrote: »

Sue you misunderstand.

With regard to pay the point is that where unions are able to engage in collective bargaining employees are normally paid more

No, I didn't misunderstand. I read what you had written. You have now chosen to change what you have written.

Southend1

ILW wrote: »

Is that always the case, or could it be that the less productive are paid more whilst the more productive are having their pay held back due to collective agreements?

It's a possibility that could occur where job evaluation, performance reviews etc are not implemented correctly. Do you know if there is any evidence to support that view?

AP007

Southend1 wrote: »

Sue you misunderstand. For example unions have negotiated much improved health and safety legislation over the last 100 years or so, with a particularly notable improvement in the 1970s. This legislation obviously applies to all of us, not just union members.

With regard to pay the point is that where unions are able to engage in collective bargaining employees are normally paid more

You are confusing the changes in employment law and the workplace with salaries which for the last time I will say no union can have any baring for the individual when they work in a company with only 20 staff.