3 ms·

1. Female/male emoloyees paid the same for equivalent role. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-66730165 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bir

• AmericanChopper 3y ago
  > It heard workers in roles such as teaching assistants and catering staff, had missed out on bonuses given to staff in jobs traditionally done by men, like refuse collectors and street cleaners. Did you read your link before posting your commentary about it?
  • OJFord 3y ago
    What problem do you think you're exposing? I said 'equivalent', not 'same', if that's what you mean.
    • AmericanChopper 3y ago
      Teaching assistants and refuse collectors are not “equivalent” roles by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
      • OJFord 3y ago
        Perhaps you would have preferred I said 'of equal value' (though probably someone else would have complained it was subjective) but that is what it means. https://www.acas.org.uk/equal-pay/equal-pay-law https://www.acas.org.uk/equal-pay/equal-pay-law I was only answering what 'equal pay means in this context', and I did so succinctly because I think they already knew just doubted themselves or would be familiar by another name with a hint, take it up with the employment tribunal if you don't like this particular equivalence.
        • AmericanChopper 3y ago
          I’d say it’s better to post what the law actually says. You’re right, people will complain because it quite clearly is subjective nonsense. But sticking with the facts makes for better discussion than trying to cover them up imo.
      • pjc50 3y ago
        That is the ruling, and they were "equivalent" because they were deemed to be the same "grade"; i.e. a grade 2 teaching assistant and grade 2 refuse collector are equivalent. https://www.anthonycollins.com/insights/news/landmark-ruling-equal-pay/ https://www.anthonycollins.com/insights/news/landmark-ruling... Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and others [2012] UKSC 47. https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/47.html https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC...
• shubb 3y ago
  Specifically, Birmingham had hired these jobs at the same pay grade, after formally assessing them to be equivalent. It then paid people hired under the same contract differently with special payments after garbage strikes. If they had hired under a more complex pay grade structure, they would have been fine. This is relevant to tech companies which may use fairly simple level structure.
  • hef19898 3y ago
    Most likely not fine, but a tad trickier to be found out. U say a tad, because job classifications and pay grades are straight forward to do, even in court. In the end, it wouod have been an additional step during litigation.
  • everybodyknows 3y ago
    > garbage strikes So, the garbage workers -- men -- used strikes to extort illegal, privileged pay raises for themselves?
    • OJFord 3y ago
      You could think of it like they're all doing exactly the same job, and then a union voted to strike, as a result of which only the unionised workers got a bonus, and were kept at the same grade. (Although I'm not really sure what my point is - that the council's lawyers should've (if they didn't) made that argument? - because unlike gender I don't think union membership is a protected characteristic per Equality Act 2010, obviously there are some different rules like you can't fire someone for being a member of a union, but paying someone less because they're not a member of a union seems probably fine? But anyway, as a public body the council has extra requirements for equality, not less, and the intention probably doesn't matter at all.)
    • shubb 3y ago
      Certainly hard to argue the higher wage was set by the market when it was set by strikes rather than the need to fill jobs.
    • mannykannot 3y ago