Gillingham Forum - Tesco backdated pay issue - n/g
Vital Football

Latest Gillingham FC News

Gillingham Football Club News

Vital Football on FacebookVital Football on TwitterVital Football via RSS Feed
Not logged in.
( Login | register | forgotten password )
Current Poll (see more polls)
No poll
Suggested By:
True75%
False!25%
Vital Football Comment
Vital Members League Table
RankNamePoints
1.Wayne.Kerr118
2.madrid_gill114
3.jokerman100
4.LancsGordoRoad82
5.LSB280
6.Razorpound70
7.Baghdad_Rob67
8.Buddha65
9.nibbles63
10.chris who62
Write for Vital Football
Breaking League News
Jump to forum:
Pages (3):
1
2 3
Tesco backdated pay issue - n/g
07 February 2018 11:19 Post ID: #77276
Place on the board
500100100100
I have tuned out of the other thread about feminism/misogyny but would be interested in peoples opinions about this news story this morning.

We now have employees claiming that it is unfair that store staff are being paid less than warehouse staff and they are demanding a backdated settlement that would cost Tesco a fortune. As a test case, the result will obviously have knock on effects not only for supermarkets but also all retail stores that have such a disparity.

Although most Tesco store staff are women and warehouse staff are men, that is not exclusive and I was in fact served by a lad only last week at the check out.

My thoughts are that nowadays when you apply for these jobs there is a generic job description and a salary range. You decide whether to apply and whether to accept the offer. Why should these be a comparison with another part of the organisation?

I am not saying that the warehouse jobs are any harder or easier than a store job but I would have thought the employer would pitch the salary range at a figure that would attract the number of staff with the necessary skills they need. I would therefore suspect that it may be more difficult to obtain the latter.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 11:30 Post ID: #77279 - in reply to #77276
Statue outside the ground
1000500100100100
The obvious answer is that this is a load of bollocks. I’ll keep an open mind but I’ve not yet heard an argument in favour of it.

Would be absolute chaos if it was to be successful - the new PPI.

‘Were you mis-sold a job when you could have earned more in a different job?’.

I think the fairest thing would be if all the warehouse workers gave Tesco half their salaries back from the last 20 years.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 11:31 Post ID: #77280 - in reply to #77276
Statue outside the ground
2000100
I also heard this, this morning and my initial reaction was that they are not comparing like with like.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 11:35 Post ID: #77281 - in reply to #77276
First-team novice
10010010025
I had a summer job as a shop fitter at Debenhams in Chatham in 2005 when it was being refitted from the old Allders to Chatham. Me and a mate had to lug heavy stuff around the place, go up ladders to fit displays etc, and generally work to move the departments around.

Mostly women then worked on the departments themselves, doing the finer points of the job by actually laying them out etc. So doing the finishing off rather than any heavy lifting.

My and my mate were paid around a quid an hour more than the others. Which was interesting because we didn't actually ask for it, and it was given to us by our boss who was a woman.

This topic came up with some of the other girls, some of which were also doing summer jobs and the like from uni, and they were upset, but when we said that the extra was for all the heavy lifting and going up ladders etc, they understood and thought fair enough.

Be interesting if any guys on this board have actually worked on the floor or the warehouse in tesco to see whether there's anything more fundamentally wrong going on.

Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 11:37 Post ID: #77282 - in reply to #77276
Place on the board
50010010010025
Your line of reasoning is fine within itself but the issue in question is a little different. The law is concerned with jobs of equal value and that value is not expressed as some general idea of hardship, scarcity, or whatever. It has to do with value to the organisation. I don't pretend to have any legal knowledge but that's my imperfect understanding. This case will now be heard and decided upon and any settlement will apply to all affected parties. That means that any males employed instore would benefit if the case is won.

To take a wider look what we are talking about is taking another look at how we classify and value work. We have had our current arrangements for so long that it is difficult to reimagine them. ThreeSixes spoke about mens and womens jobs and indicated that the former were generally of higher value. He talked about breadwinners and finding a mate. It's that basic outlook we are trying to change and to leave behind a world in which jobs are gendered and then female jobs deemed worthy of less remuneration. It is not an easy process and you are right that many men are in predominantly female jobs and so suffer discrimination. The care profession hardly bears thinking about. We don't want to pay for it now when we pay "womens'" wages.

The market in labour reflects expectations as well as value and those expectations are changing, womens' mainly but plenty of men too.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 11:37 Post ID: #77283 - in reply to #77276
Playing for the Youth Team
10025
I dont think it should be back dated, but yes they should be on the same pay. Both roles are equally important to running the company.
I belive the Asda checkout staff took something similar to court last year.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 11:51 Post ID: #77287 - in reply to #77282
Club captain
500
jogills - 7/2/2018 11:37


To take a wider look what we are talking about is taking another look at how we classify and value work. We have had our current arrangements for so long that it is difficult to reimagine them. ThreeSixes spoke about mens and womens jobs and indicated that the former were generally of higher value. He talked about breadwinners and finding a mate. It's that basic outlook we are trying to change and to leave behind a world in which jobs are gendered and then female jobs deemed worthy of less remuneration..


I suppose the question is then, if there is a hurricane and power cables fall down, will there be women in cranes at 2 am in the morning in a howling gale putting them back. Will there be women going home with their fingers black, because they've spent all night laying tarmac. Will there be women who go home smelling of shit as they've just spent a 12 hour shift at a waste recycling site moving household waste. And will there be women spending the rest of their life in a wheelchair, because they've been shot in a firefight in a war zone.

Women can do all those jobs if they want, they generally don't want to (and neither do I). I'm sure I didn't say that female jobs are worthy of less remuneration, it's just a fact that jobs that women are happier doing, will pay less than "nastier" jobs (e.g. working in a slaughterhouse).

Tescos should merge the jobs, and make men and women do the same roles - everyone will be happy then.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 11:54 Post ID: #77288 - in reply to #77281
Club captain
500
MedwayModernist - 7/2/2018 11:35


This topic came up with some of the other girls, some of which were also doing summer jobs and the like from uni, and they were upset, but when we said that the extra was for all the heavy lifting and going up ladders etc, they understood and thought fair enough.



Why is it fair enough that you were running the risk of injury going up ladders and doing heavy lifting, and they weren't?
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 11:59 Post ID: #77289 - in reply to #77288
First-team novice
10010010025
ThreeSixes - 7/2/2018 11:54

MedwayModernist - 7/2/2018 11:35


This topic came up with some of the other girls, some of which were also doing summer jobs and the like from uni, and they were upset, but when we said that the extra was for all the heavy lifting and going up ladders etc, they understood and thought fair enough.



Why is it fair enough that you were running the risk of injury going up ladders and doing heavy lifting, and they weren't?


We were getting paid more than them...
Like post
Like this post
1
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 12:38 Post ID: #77294 - in reply to #77276
Statue outside the ground
200025
What Bluenose and others are not getting is that the argument turns on equivalent skills not, as blokes go on about, comparative strengths. As for 3x6, he's living in a time warp; do you think he saw the programmes about Crossrail?
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 12:44 Post ID: #77295 - in reply to #77294
Club captain
500
Wayne.Kerr - 7/2/2018 12:38

What Bluenose and others are not getting is that the argument turns on equivalent skills not, as blokes go on about, comparative strengths. As for 3x6, he's living in a time warp; do you think he saw the programmes about Crossrail?


Don't be abusive, just explain how I'm wrong (or don't)
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 12:46 Post ID: #77296 - in reply to #77276
In the stands
252525
Taken from The Guardian:

"A law firm has launched legal action on behalf of nearly 100 shop assistants who say they earn as much as £3 an hour less than male warehouse workers in similar roles. "

The fact they have different job titles should torpedo the claim. The fact that they admit the roles are similar rather than identical will also torpedo the claim.

It isn't actually a sex discrimination case and all Tesco has to demonstrate is that a male shop assistant gets paid the same rate as a female shop assistant and a female warehouse worker gets the same as a male one. From my own experience of working in Tescos many a decade ago, I would not be surprised if the female shop assistants get paid more on average than the male shop assistants. People who are trained to work on the tills tend to get paid more and there is a clear bias towards female cashiers than men.

The main question I'd want to ask the women behind this is "if the shop assistant role and the warehouse role are similar roles then why don't you apply for a warehouse role?".




Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 14:01 Post ID: #77307 - in reply to #77276
Statue outside the ground
1000500100100100
They could argue that the warehouse role wasn’t female friendly. If they can then prove the jobs are of equal value they could then argue that they are being discriminated against.

I don’t like that argument personally.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 14:15 Post ID: #77310 - in reply to #77307
Club captain
500
nibbles - 7/2/2018 14:01

They could argue that the warehouse role wasn’t female friendly.


What, because it is cold? This is (presumably) every Tescos warehouse in every store.

We both know why the roles pay different rates, it's because they are different jobs (that just happen do be done, mainly, by different sexes). I'm sure the courts will agree, this just seems like a law firm chancing their arm on the back of all the "me too" scandals.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 14:23 Post ID: #77313 - in reply to #77276
Statue outside the ground
1000500100100100
I don’t think this has anything to do with the ‘me too’ scandals.
I do think you more than anyone show yourself up to be pretty mysoginistic.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 14:50 Post ID: #77317 - in reply to #77276
Statue outside the ground
200025
3x6: you're as are others in this thread because the comparison is skills required for the job not dirty, heavy duty, out in the wind and rain or anything else. Most are barking the wrong tree; it's not about female-friendly but similar skill sets. I come from a background in high-end engineering and project management and, despite the macho image of the industry, was way ahead of the game in terms of equality, which is why I made reference to Crossrail.

Edited by Wayne.Kerr 7/2/2018 15:03
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
07 February 2018 15:03 Post ID: #77319 - in reply to #77276
Club captain
500
WayneKerr, I don't really follow, are you saying that a checkout role and a warehouse role are a similar skill set, and therefore deserve similar pay? As per others, I haven't practical knowledge of both roles, but I've gone to supermarkets enough, and I definitely know what the cashier role entails. I don't imagine the warehouse role is the same.

As others have said as well, if the skill sets are the same, why are more women not doing the role that pays more? Is this sexism, have they not been given the opportunities, or do they just prefer the flexibility and the human interaction role on the tills? I suppose we'll find out who is right if / when the court makes their decision.

Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Pages (3):
1
2 3
Jump to forum:
Gillingham Fixtures  >>