* *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
15-10-18, 06:08PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
  • Total Members: 6027
  • Latest: Marie
Stats
  • Total Posts: 81053
  • Total Topics: 1707
  • Online Today: 119
  • Online Ever: 826
  • (23-02-15, 06:44PM)
Users Online

Author Topic: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.  (Read 9078 times)

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2794
With the Recent Claims in the Headlines. Claims based on Protected Characteristics.
Are there broader concerns?
What are those concerns?
Who Ultimately will lose out in the success of such Claims?

I ask because my belief is that legislation is being stretched to highlight and escalate and issue which is common place in employment that does not fit the criteria for the legislation.

The current claim foundation of Gender Bias, the claim in the headlines. Disparity that adversely affects or is more likely to affect a specific Gender group, in this case female shopworkers. If you believe there is a case and the claim is I have what do you think about....

An easier to prove claim that of a similar nature a current process that is supported by statute even though it is a blatant contradiction of current equality act legislation, yes you read correctly STATUTORY ENTITLEMENT Directly breaching Equality Act legislation because the statute catagorises based on AGE a Protected Characteristic, decisions, methods or calculations CANNOT be based on Age or Age Groups, yet STATUTORY ENTITLEMENT does exactly that Blatently.

Should Leigh Day get a Claim going on that too, it goes all the way to employers and parliament, would you support such a claim?

My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Tape measure

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Duracell, what position at Tesco do you hold please?  If you do not mind my asking.

Welshie

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 313
I am not aware of benefits in Tesco due to age . Length of service yes ! But if you're 21with 5yrs service you get extra holiday  and if you're 50 with 5yrs service you get the same extra holiday .
In fact is Tesco not one of very few companies that pays it's 16yr olds the same hourly rate as all other staff , I think they did away with the starter rate a few years ago but I could be wrong ???

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2794
Duracell, what position at Tesco do you hold please?  If you do not mind my asking.

Work level 1

And yourself?

Welshie I didn’t use the term benefit I used the term Statutory Entitlement which is significantly different.

Not many eager to see a claim on principle.
« Last Edit: 09-02-18, 11:53PM by Duracell »
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Tape measure

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Duracell, what position at Tesco do you hold please?  If you do not mind my asking.

Work level 1

And yourself?

Welshie I didn’t use the term benefit I used the term Statutory Entitlement which is significantly different.

Not many eager to see a claim on principle.



Work Level 1?  But aren't we all?!!

Thank you.

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2794
Tape Measure.. if you don’t mind me asking, why do you ask? What relevance  does my position with the company have to you or this thread or the other thread where you asked the same.
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Welshie

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 313
@Duracell
If you not talking of benefits that come with length of service  what statutory entitlements are you referring to ?

redcar renegade

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
All members of staff in my depot at work level 1 get same rate of pay. Duracell as you state people are stirring up a whirlwind that might come back and effect them.i pay in store & depot wete the same are store staff willing when quiet to go to depot and help out, i am willing to go to a warm store and interact with customers instead of a noisy freezing warehouse

cityboy

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
Duracell, I don't understand the second half of your opening statement. I think this case will be lost BECAUSE of sexism angle rather than the equality of job argument, but I reckon it could be won eventually. I also think we will all end up on a similar wage through government intervention, i.e., minimum wage, with Tesco counteracting by loss of premiums ( I doubt night premium will ever go up again in my working life at Tesco ), therefore reducing the reason any of us went on nights in the first place. If the government decide it is £10.ph by 2022, plus legally obliged pension, then that is what we will get, and the percentage of people on the minimum wage will grow.     Anyway, what are you meaning by statutory entitlements?..... you've got me there.

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2794
The second part of my opening post is about a hypothetical claim that would be similar in principle because it’s about direct discrimination based on age which is a protected characteristic.

I really worry now that the no win no fee brigade are challenging employment relations it’s a wave culture like a Tsumami that leaves distruction behind it.

Where will it end?
What’s next Redundancy Payments?


Taken from Gov web site

3. Redundancy pay
You’ll normally be entitled to statutory redundancy pay if you’re an employee and you’ve been working for your current employer for 2 years or more.
You’ll get:
* half a week’s pay for each full year you were under 22
* one week’s pay for each full year you were 22 or older, but under 41
* one and half week’s pay for each full year you were 41 or older
Length of service is capped at 20 years.
If you were made redundant on or after 6 April 2017, your weekly pay is capped at £489 and the maximum statutory redundancy pay you can get is £14,670. If you were made redundant before 6 April 2017, these amounts will be lower

Blatant age discrimination.

A 28 year old
A 45 year old
A 55 year old

All with 10 years service in the same job get different Redundancy payments beacause of age at time of employment.



« Last Edit: 10-02-18, 02:05PM by Duracell »
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Welshie

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 313
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #10 on: 10-02-18, 02:09PM »
It works on the theory that the older you are the less employable you are which is quite ageist.  A wiser employer may think the older you are the more experience you bring to a job but that would obviously depend on the job !

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #11 on: 10-02-18, 02:19PM »
I know the reasoning.
But it's just an example of rife hypocrisy to a principle that is supposed to be protected.

I wonder how many would support Leigh Day taking that claim on.
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Loki

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 3704
  • Justice is the sanction of established injustice
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #12 on: 10-02-18, 02:30PM »
I gotta say, Duracell has raised something that’s been on the back of my mind in light of all this... only Duracell has highlighted an actual valid point of discrimination contained within legislation itself.

Like I said in a previous post, the world is becoming more insane by the day, especially when the likes of Leigh Day Solicitors choose not to take on something far more obvious. I wonder why that is.    ???
Life is a monstrous demented gag. Madness is the emergency exit.
I will not reply to unsolicited PM's.

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #13 on: 10-02-18, 02:53PM »
Far more obvious case !!
I can’t help but wonder why either, I have mentioned for years, Nomad may remember me discussing it before, when the Equality Act is discussed and claims of discrimination are made and the term “ A Simple Case” is used, I see no simpler more blatant case yet it not questioned and WIDELY accepted.

All the staff being laid of in the last 2 years, some that started with the company at 18 going out with less money than someone older with the same service or even less service because of Age!

No body in a rush with that more straightforward blatant claim though!

My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #14 on: 10-02-18, 03:06PM »
I guess that those workers that support the current claim, that may fall in the upper bands of the Redundancy legislation, who are wishing for an exit package, now have a morale dilemma.

Like I have said before, the problem with a Simplistic Principled mentality, it’s heavily flawed if it’s not consistent.
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Loki

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 3704
  • Justice is the sanction of established injustice
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #15 on: 10-02-18, 03:14PM »
Discriminative discrimination Pmsl

I just cant take anything seriously anymore. The entire system is a debacle
Life is a monstrous demented gag. Madness is the emergency exit.
I will not reply to unsolicited PM's.

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #16 on: 10-02-18, 04:52PM »
It's always been my opinion that discrimination claims should be about "intent to cause" disadvantage to a protected characteristic.

Which makes things like the Redundancy Payments more debatable, as

It works on the theory that the older you are the less employable you are which is quite ageist.  A wiser employer may think the older you are the more experience you bring to a job but that would obviously depend on the job !

The objective is to enhance payment for older staff rather than cause disadvantage for younger staff. Yet even then as Welshie suggests the reason for doing so is a bit derogatory and ageist.

It's never a "Simple Case of" but is a good way there with the intent to disadvantage.

Which is why ASDA's case is a slightly different to others. And why others cases may not go as far.

As you have said we can only wait and see.
« Last Edit: 10-02-18, 04:54PM by Duracell »
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Retrokid

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
 

Wearethehearts

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 152
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #18 on: 11-02-18, 11:07AM »
Duracell, I don't understand the second half of your opening statement. I think this case will be lost BECAUSE of sexism angle rather than the equality of job argument, but I reckon it could be won eventually. I also think we will all end up on a similar wage through government intervention, i.e., minimum wage, with Tesco counteracting by loss of premiums ( I doubt night premium will ever go up again in my working life at Tesco ), therefore reducing the reason any of us went on nights in the first place. If the government decide it is £10.ph by 2022, plus legally obliged pension, then that is what we will get, and the percentage of people on the minimum wage will grow.     Anyway, what are you meaning by statutory entitlements?..... you've got me there.

I agree with you, tesco will use the counter claim men in stores are also paid less than men in distribution, so it was not done due to sexual discriminationBUT are the lawyers hoping for this admittance in court, lose this claim but have admittance there is a disparancy in similar work grade jobs , in readiness for a much larger group case involving all store staff !! or am I just to sinister towards money grabbing lawyers and companies ??

Retrokid

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #19 on: 11-02-18, 11:16AM »
First off i think the money on the claim is grossly exaggerated. It states workers in DCs are paid up to £11-50 an hour. Some DCs may be that high, but not all. The DC i work in get paid £8-96 an hour.  That's actually not far off store staff.
 

trigger

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1665
  • yr aving it!!!
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #20 on: 11-02-18, 11:29AM »
At magor i think there's 3 different contracts ,so were all on different hourly pay.
BRING ON THE WELSH HA HA HA.GRAND SLAM 2008.
VOTE UKIP.

trigger

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1665
  • yr aving it!!!
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #21 on: 11-02-18, 11:30AM »
im on 9.025
BRING ON THE WELSH HA HA HA.GRAND SLAM 2008.
VOTE UKIP.

cityboy

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #22 on: 11-02-18, 11:33AM »
Worst bit of sense I have read on this issue. I need you to put goods to sell on a lorry, you need me to empty the lorry, fill and present the goods to the customer, so that we can realise the cash value. We both also need to service the customer, with checkouts and customer services, and product availability. There are people who I work with who do less physically demanding jobs than I do, but still do roles that Tesco need to keep the money coming in. Why is the physicality of our roles in Tesco an issue? I would rather work on my department ( heavy lifting ) than say health and beauty, ( too fiddly ), but do I deserve more pay per hour because I lift more weight than my colleagues on the health and beauty department? I don't think so, so the physicality of the job in distribution means nothing to me. I am sure we both go home aching at the end of shift and are both un-skilled labourers, so in my opinion, worth the same pay.

trigger

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1665
  • yr aving it!!!
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #23 on: 11-02-18, 11:38AM »
good luck to all store staff,youll need a vote on a pay rise then every year.
BRING ON THE WELSH HA HA HA.GRAND SLAM 2008.
VOTE UKIP.

Welshie

  • VLH Supporter
  • Know All
  • ******
  • Posts: 313
Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
« Reply #24 on: 11-02-18, 12:37PM »
Can I add a slightly different aspect to this ? My job , which I was moved to due to rhrp , is totally pointless . I feel it brings no value to the company , in fact the profit made during my shift if any probably does not cover my wages . I cannot leave my post so cannot help anywhere else regardless of how busy they are and worse people who are busy have to leave what they are doing to cover my breaks .
Do I then deserve a pay cut ??