Tesco cerca di presentare ricorso in decisione in “Equal Pay” da £ 4 miliardi di £ in vista dell’audizione finale
Tesco seeks to appeal decision in ‘equal pay’ £4bn lawsuit ahead of final hearing
di insomnimax_99
Tesco cerca di presentare ricorso in decisione in “Equal Pay” da £ 4 miliardi di £ in vista dell’audizione finale
Tesco seeks to appeal decision in ‘equal pay’ £4bn lawsuit ahead of final hearing
di insomnimax_99
9 commenti
As someone who worked at the click and collect and genuinely moved a metric ton of shopping during my shift, in the rain or baking sun I don’t think that is an equal job to the people who stand at the self service and approve alcohol, and remove tags in the air conditioned shop
Am I misunderstanding something?
The article seems to say that NEXT lost an equal pay case, when it was found to be paying one group of employees more than another due to market forces.
But surely that can’t be right? Is the court saying that, even if market forces dictate otherwise, jobs of “similar value” must be paid the same?
Doesn’t that short circuit half of the economy?
Hell, doesn’t that handicap unions? For example, if only the warehouse workers of a company go on strike for better pay, can a company now just say that they can’t meet that demand due to equal pay liabilities?
Wait a minute – is that what’s happening in Birmingham right now? Can Birmingham Council actually concede to the Bin Men’s demands without opening themselves up to more equal pay claims?
People that work at football clubs should put in an unequal pay claim against the players.
I’m yet to see one of these stories that makes any kind of sense.
Job X pays X, job Y pays Y.
As long as both genders in each location are paid the same, there’s no argument.
> This comes after fashion retailer Next lost a landmark equal pay claim last year over similar allegations of unequal pay. The Tribunal found that the two groups of employees were doing work of equal value, but Next had been paying the warehouse staff higher rates based on market forces.
I’m quite excited to hear that companies have a legal responsibility to pay me according to the value of my work rather than according to market forces, and I have complete optimism that this rule won’t be quietly squashed if it draws too close to it’s natural conclusion.
The government needs to legislate against this nonsense immediately and eject the solicitors firm responsible into the sun.
Equal pay should be a thing if everything is equal for the role. Such as person A and person B has the exact same experience in the job, same qualifications for that job, equal working hours (yes UK is hourly rate so wouldn’t apply in 99.999% of cases).
If person A has got all the qualifications but 1 years experience and person B has same qualifications but 2 years experience, then person B should be on more money. That is logical and what you as a company are paying for is experience in the role.
Each role deserves it’s own pay. So if you work on the shop floor in retail then you get £X and if you work in the warehouse then you get £Y. The work load is different and as long as the people in those roles are paid equally no matter what sex they are, then there is no problem.
Darren working on Currys floor selling TVs shouldn’t be expecting the same pay as Sandra who is loading heavy equipment in the warehouse. The roles require different skills so the pay might be different. If Curry’s value both jobs at £15ph then so be it.
You are just a number, no buisness want to pay you, if they can get rid or pay you less they will.
“Tesco also applied to introduce expert evidence from economists to support its claim that market forces influenced pay rates, but the ET rejected that request.”
As an economist this makes me so sad, nobody is arguing that those who do the same job should be paid differently. But this is different jobs that lawyers and civil servants have decided are the same. This is a huge overstep imo and will not help the growth of our economy as businesses will have one eye looking over their back.