Equal pay -supermarkets

System

John_G_Jones wrote: »

Pay what, though? These cases are never actually about equal pay for equal work, companies pretty much all do that anyway. What they tend to be about is that someone has decreed that working on the checkouts is equivalent to doing the midnight to four a.m. shift cleaning out the mincing machines and so decided that the pay should be equal.

The work, of course, is never equal.

It’s like when it is claimed that working on the bin lorries is “equivalent” to being a dinner lady or that scrubbing out septic tanks is equivalent to polishing the floor in a school.

It's not that simple of a case. If it was it would not never have got this far.

It's down to the companies to ensure that they have enough difference between the job roles to justify the pay gaps and there is some grey area on this matter that needs to resolved by a 4th party which is a judge.

System

stator wrote: »

Can't believe the claim has got this far. It's a complete scam by money chasing solicitors.

Yes because the industrial tribunal was bought and paid for by those solicitors and those same solicitors have also paid off the appeal judges so they can keep the money rolling in for the long term.

Dean000000

Kizzy2018 wrote: »

Sooner it was in my account that a company’s

yeah I agree - screw them! - what have they ever done for you!


My suggestion is to raise it with your store manager at the earliest opportunity - and get in before anyone else (before the money runs out)


Best of luck op!

System

Dean000000 wrote: »

yeah I agree - screw them! - what have they ever done for you!


My suggestion is to raise it with your store manager at the earliest opportunity - and get in before anyone else (before the money runs out)


Best of luck op!

Well i hope they don't do it too early as nothing has been set in law and could take years. They will look a complete numpty going to store manger the now :rotfl:

RPWJ

There might be a few quid in it for store staff but i can imagine the bosses would rather reduce the distribution centre wages.
i reckon the average checkout operator wouldn't last very long in the physically demanding role and their case rate would never be up to scratch.

System

RPWJ wrote: »

There might be a few quid in it for store staff but i can imagine the bosses would rather reduce the distribution centre wages.
i reckon the average checkout operator wouldn't last very long in the physically demanding role and their case rate would never be up to scratch.

again over simplification.

I work for Tesco and they pay the same rate of pay for someone on the checkout as they do with someone filling the shelfs. That indicates to me that Tesco rate both jobs of equal value which to me makes sense as we are overall contributing to the profits of tesco.

Now I think the argument with this case is without the warehouse you could not get the stock to the shop to sell so profits go down. Also if you don't have the people filling the shelfs or checkout operators processing the transaction then profits will go down. So jobs in someways are of equal value. Remember Tesco already think that checkout staff and people filling the shelf are of equal value.

You can easily pay people more for key differences in role. Like for nightshift you can pay a premium extra. Or if you need to operate a forklift with a license then you could pay someone extra.

RPWJ

john22 wrote: »

again over simplification.

I work for Tesco and they pay the same rate of pay for someone on the checkout as they do with someone filling the shelfs. That indicates to me that Tesco rate both jobs of equal value which to me makes sense as we are overall contributing to the profits of tesco.

Now I think the argument with this case is without the warehouse you could not get the stock to the shop to sell so profits go down. Also if you don't have the people filling the shelfs or checkout operators processing the transaction then profits will go down. So jobs in someways are of equal value. Remember Tesco already think that checkout staff and people filling the shelf are of equal value.

You can easily pay people more for key differences in role. Like for nightshift you can pay a premium extra. Or if you need to operator a forklift with a license then you could pay someone extra.

I'm not talking about the staff filling shelves in store, most of whom wouldn't last very long in a distribution centre either.

System

RPWJ wrote: »

I'm not talking about the staff filling shelves in store, most of whom wouldn't last very long in a distribution centre either.

Then the job roles and job measurements will reflect that. That's why it's going through the courts because there is some dispute on how clear those different roles are. I'm assuming if the job roles and skills required were of vast differences then it would not have got this far along due process.

stator

john22 wrote: »

again over simplification.

I work for Tesco and they pay the same rate of pay for someone on the checkout as they do with someone filling the shelfs. That indicates to me that Tesco rate both jobs of equal value which to me makes sense as we are overall contributing to the profits of tesco.

Now I think the argument with this case is without the warehouse you could not get the stock to the shop to sell so profits go down. Also if you don't have the people filling the shelfs or checkout operators processing the transaction then profits will go down. So jobs in someways are of equal value. Remember Tesco already think that checkout staff and people filling the shelf are of equal value.

You can easily pay people more for key differences in role. Like for nightshift you can pay a premium extra. Or if you need to operate a forklift with a license then you could pay someone extra.

Your completely wrong. We don't live in the USSR.
It's not about how much you contribute to the company profits.


For a company like Tesco it's about how much you have to pay your staff to keep them and provide a decent level of service.


There are more people willing to work in a nice comfy retail environment than a old industrial warehouse.

I would much rather take a job on the shop floor than work in a warehouse.

So it's no surprise that they have to pay people more to work in the warehouse.

System

stator wrote: »

Your completely wrong. We don't live in the USSR.
It's not about how much you contribute to the company profits.


For a company like Tesco it's about how much you have to pay your staff to keep them and provide a decent level of service.


There are more people willing to work in a nice comfy retail environment than a old industrial warehouse.

I would much rather take a job on the shop floor than work in a warehouse.

So it's no surprise that they have to pay people more to work in the warehouse.

Yes way to stretch to the USSR lol

This is about clear defined job roles and the value that those jobs bring within one organisation. If it’s simply about comfort then I assume this was used as an argument at Acas and the industrial tribunal and it was agreed on. Which of course it wasn’t unless both those organisations are full of pesky Russians.

There is a grey area in employment law which needs to go through all the different levels and finally decided by the courts which is a very democratic thing.