Equal pay -supermarkets

Dean000000

Don’t believe in equal pay.

If one person can paint 2 rooms in a day, and another can paint 3 (to the same standard) they are not deserving of equal pay.

Likewise this analogy to either: people served in a day, boxes stacked, or quality or service given....

Male or female. Regardless.

Comms69

Im confused how Gender came into this at all?


Nevermind that the pay gap, oft reported, is nothing of the sort. (yes there are no doubt sexists who will pay men more, or women less - whichever way you look at it)


This seems to be entirely different roles. - obviously the crux of the case; so i'll await the judgment. But I fail to see how gender is playing a part.

System

Carrot007 wrote: »

No they will reduce the wage of the higher paid workers as has happened time and time again.


People do not learn.

Wait and see!

Andy_L

Comms69 wrote: »

Im confused how Gender came into this at all?

Depot staff are being paid more than store staff.
Depot staff are predominantly male & store staff female.

IF the jobs are of equivalent weight then that is illegal pay discrimination

If there wasn't a gender imbalance between depot & store then it would still be pay discrimination but not illegal discrimination

Dean000000

Totally different skill sets.

Should me CEO be paid the same too?

One role requires one skill set, and the other another set.

Can’t see how it’s comparable?

Andy_L

Dean000000 wrote: »

If one person can paint 2 rooms in a day, and another can paint 3 (to the same standard) they are not deserving of equal pay.

but this case is more an issue of paying a woman who can paint 2 rooms in a day less than than a man who can wallpaper 2 rooms in a day

Is that pay difference because of gender (illegal) or because wallpaper hanging is trickier than painting (perfectly fine)?

Dean000000

Andy. Perfectly put!

batg

Andy_L wrote: »

Depot staff are being paid more than store staff.
Depot staff are predominantly male & store staff female.

IF the jobs are of equivalent weight then that is illegal pay discrimination

If there wasn't a gender imbalance between depot & store then it would still be pay discrimination but not illegal discrimination

gist of it all is they say the depot staff take stuff off a shelf and put it in a lorry and the store staff take it off the lorry and put it on the shelf so it's the same job in reverse...Which is a bit stupid because the lorry driver drags the cages off the truck not the people who end up putting it on the shelf in the store.

There are men and women working in the depot and men and women working on the shop floor. Like someone pointed out earlier people are free to apply to work in the depot or in the store and it's not as if depot staff are exclusively men.

bugslet

I've delivered into supermarkets and seen the back of store operation and seen the front as I get my shopping. The back of store is harder IMO and trying to say it's the same is a bit daft. However, it's nowhere near hardcore groupage warehousing, so it's a doddle still.

Andy_L

bugslet wrote: »

I've delivered into supermarkets and seen the back of store operation and seen the front as I get my shopping. The back of store is harder IMO and trying to say it's the same is a bit daft.

this isn't about back vs front of store jobs though. Its about store vs distribution depot