Vittoria per la parità retributiva per le donne al Consiglio comunale di Birmingham
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/equal-pay-victory-women-birmingham-32671564
di insomnimax_99
Vittoria per la parità retributiva per le donne al Consiglio comunale di Birmingham
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/equal-pay-victory-women-birmingham-32671564
di insomnimax_99
19 commenti
I agree with it. But I’m worried about how this will impact the already broke council?
Honestly I’m all for equal pay for equal value – but I’d be curious to know how said value is defined. I know I sound naïve but “teaching assistants, catering staff and care workers” sounds like roles you’d expect more females to be in – so was it a case that males in the exact same roles were paid more? Or are we working with some arbitrary description of value that compares these roles to something completely unrelated?
“The employees will be compensated for wages they missed out on as a result of being underpaid for many years, when compared to male colleagues doing work of equal value, the union said.”
So the court defines the values of the work, and not the parties involved in the agreement to work? What a load of nonsense – didn’t this bankrupt Birmingham council? This isn’t a male/female thing, even though it’s spun that way.
People on the supermarket checkouts (predominately female) were paid more than those stacking shelves (predominately male). Does that mean shelf stackers should sue the supermarket for equal pay?
Given anyone could apply for any job, and some chose the lower paying role, why is that the fault of the employer?
The courts should have zero jurisdiction over this sort of case.
This ruling feels like a case of equal pay for different jobs with vastly different risks. Cleaning an office or caring for someone is not comparable to refuse collection or grave digging, which carry serious physical and biological hazards. While it may correct historic gender pay disparities, it essentially enforces equality of outcome rather than opportunity, ignoring the sacrifices some roles demand. History shows that systems trying to pay everyone the same regardless of effort or danger, like in communist regimes, backfire, reducing incentives for people to take on risky or demanding work that society depends on.
Surely the question here is, why is this only happening to Birmingham City council? All councils have pay grades and the like, yet, only Birmingham city council are the only ones who have seemed to have fallen foul of the rules. Why?
Doris who is cleaning a few bins in the office will be paid the same as Darren who works in the incinerator. Isn’t that what they’ve won here?
Its already illegal to pay men and women differently for the same job
“The employees will be compensated for wages they missed out on as a result of being underpaid for many years, when compared to male colleagues doing work of equal value, the union said.
The payments relate to equal pay claims involving women in roles across council services, schools, and Birmingham Children’s Trust.”
What is work of equal value? is it the same job?
Considering the Council are bankrupt, how will this be paid out or will it be innocent tax payers footing the bill
I’m just glad that the money will never be spent on the youth or investing in our future, me.
Travesty, same as the supermarket that had the issue with 3am warehouse stacking and 3pm checkout worker being paid the same.
Dressed up as gender pay inequality when that’s a bastardisation of what’s going on.
All this does is make it so no one wants to do the harder work because you aren’t paid for it.
Why be a bin man or work in the warehouse at Asda when you can just take the easier role and get paid the same
Now you’ll have an excess of people applying for the easy roles and a reduction in people applying for the harder ones.
That’s all this equality will achieve.
The solution here of for central Gov to abolish all pay bandings, or just change the law to stop this bullshit
Recently I am seeing more and more anti working class rhetoric across social media, two main threads are:
1)The serfs should be happy with what they have.
2)Men and Women aren’t equal in work so why should they be paid the same.
Both of which I have seen in this thread, I have also seen a lot of talk that workers shouldn’t have half the rights they do, is this the Reform effect of divide and conquer sinking in or has it always been there?
A rediculous state of affairs that has bankrupted a council. A binman is not the equivalent of a dinner lady or whatever. Fair enough if women on the bins were getting less but they weren’t as far as I can see.
Where’s the compensation for decades of women being allowed to retire early
It sounds like the case was won on a technicality, but with any deeper analysis, clearly ludicrous. The government should absolutely be stepping in here to protect the city council from getting taken to the cleaners despite there being no equal pay issue, except on paper.
People need to understand the actual issue here.
This is not about comparing jobs, this is about banding.
Let’s say you have band X and the pay in that band is £20 – 25k per year.
Everybody in that band should be paid between those amounts regardless of what job they are doing.
Birmingham Council was not doing this so it is on them.
Stop getting hung up on job roles, it is irrelevant.
Just to note, Birmingham Council could have easily avoided this by doing what every the vast majority of other companies who use banding does and have specialist banding sub sections.
For example you have Band X and then Band X1, X2, X3.
X1 would be any role that requires specialised training.
X2 wound for roles that are for unsocial hours
X3 would be Team Leads, Management Roles.
(These are just quick and dirty examples)
So people who fall under those sub sections will receive more money than those who are just under the general band.
This is mental. Pay is not determined by value. It’s determined by the market.
Instead of letting pay balance the market it will come down to cronyism. Want an easier job for the same money? No problem, as long as you know the right person.
I don’t really understand what’s going on here. It seems utterly ridiculous.
The people who benefited from this were overpaid. The people who didn’t benefit from this were not underpaid.
Let’s take a massive government department as an example. If a women were able to prove that ONE man of the same grade was being unfairly being paid more than her, would that then entitle every single woman of that department to have their pay increased for the period the one male was overpaid?
This is what seems to have gone on here.
The women were absolutely not underpaid, they were paid what they agreed to. There could be an argument that the bin man were overpaid however.
People are missing that this is quite seperate from the Next or Tesco cases, and the reasoning is different.
In this case, Birmingham City Council decided that they regarded various jobs as (and I’m simplifying) Band A, Band B or Band C. Within each band, everyone gets the same pay.
They decided that (and again, in illustrating here, not quoting) that binmen, office staff, and canteen staff were all deserving of Band A pay. For our example, we’ll say that binmen are nearly all men, office staff are an even mix and canteen staff are nearly all women.
They then proceed to repeatedly bonuses to male-heavy jobs and not pay them to female-heavy jobs, over multiple years. This happened at multiple different bands. During this, the council maintained that all jobs in the same band were worth the same pay, by keeping them in the same band. If they actually felt that, say, binmen deserved more pay than office staff or canteen staff, they could have moved their band. But they didn’t – which is in large part where they’ve come undone.
By placing and keeping roles in the same band, the the council signaled that they thought the roles were equal and deserved the same pay. This means they *can’t* claim the bonuses – especially the consistent, multi-year pattern of bonuses – were paid due to roles receiving them because the roles should have been paid more than those that did not receive them.
So a different explanation for the pattern of bonus payments, and omission, is needed. Given that it very strongly followed along lines in favour of male-heavy roles and against female-heavy roles, it seems it was discriminatory.