verylittlehelps.com

Very Little Helps => All departments => Topic started by: Duracell on 09-02-18, 04:37PM

Title: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell on 09-02-18, 04:37PM
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?

Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Tape measure on 09-02-18, 05:42PM
Duracell, what position at Tesco do you hold please?  If you do not mind my asking.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Welshie on 09-02-18, 06:34PM
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 ???
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell on 09-02-18, 11:48PM
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.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Tape measure on 10-02-18, 01:16AM
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.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell on 10-02-18, 01:20AM
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.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Welshie on 10-02-18, 04:31AM
@Duracell
If you not talking of benefits that come with length of service  what statutory entitlements are you referring to ?
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: redcar renegade on 10-02-18, 10:14AM
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
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: cityboy on 10-02-18, 10:40AM
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.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell on 10-02-18, 01:59PM
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.



Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Welshie 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 !
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell 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.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Loki 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.    ???
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell 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!

Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell 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.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Loki on 10-02-18, 03:14PM
Discriminative discrimination Pmsl

I just cant take anything seriously anymore. The entire system is a debacle
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell 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.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Retrokid on 11-02-18, 10:23AM
Best bit of sense I have read on this issue.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-tesco-equal-pay-claim-sets-a-dangerous-precedent/
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Wearethehearts 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 ??
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Retrokid 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.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 11:29AM
At magor i think there's 3 different contracts ,so were all on different hourly pay.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 11:30AM
im on 9.025
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: cityboy 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.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 11:38AM
good luck to all store staff,youll need a vote on a pay rise then every year.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Welshie 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 ??
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 01:36PM
i have no doubt the jnc reps will be arguing with duracell about this years pay award.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: cityboy on 11-02-18, 02:15PM
Trigger, your right wing views are noted, but not appreciated by me personally. Back to someone I can empathise with, Welshie, you are still doing the job asked of you, so what's the problem. You do your work, and go home at end of shift, like we all do, you and I both have contributed to Tesco's profits. Don't worry about your value to the company as we should all be appreciated with the same monetary value, i.e., same pay for hours worked to make Tesco profitable and pay our wage .
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 03:30PM
Trigger, your right wing views are noted, but not appreciated by me personally. Back to someone I can empathise with, Welshie, you are still doing the job asked of you, so what's the problem. You do your work, and go home at end of shift, like we all do, you and I both have contributed to Tesco's profits. Don't worry about your value to the company as we should all be appreciated with the same monetary value, i.e., same pay for hours worked to make Tesco profitable and pay our wage .

its called democracy we can all agree to disagree unlike the E.U..cityboy im not a company man unlike yourself,great bunch of boys i work with.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 03:48PM
and girls. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: londoner83 on 11-02-18, 05:20PM
And transgender......
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: grim up north on 11-02-18, 05:25PM
im on 9.025

We've got a bloke in our DC who works in Magor, but is thinking of moving to our place for personal reasons so is trying things out. He will be on the new contract if he does, earning around £17/18,000 per year. Last year at Magor he earned £42,000. Granted, he worked 6 days a week and his leisure weeks. I don't begrudge him it, good luck to him.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 05:40PM
im on 42 by the end of the finacial year,,and thats loads of over time.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: grim up north on 11-02-18, 05:46PM
Like I say, we do the same job, but you get more money. This is due to old contracts, bonuses, previous union agreements. I don't begrudge you a penny.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 05:55PM
were the last salmon book site along with southampton and hinckley.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 05:58PM
chepstow were the last blue book site,there in avonmouth now on new contracts.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: trigger on 11-02-18, 06:02PM
duracell knows more than me on this.i hope the magor reps give him and his cronies a hard time this year,
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Loki on 11-02-18, 08:55PM
Best bit of sense I have read on this issue.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-tesco-equal-pay-claim-sets-a-dangerous-precedent/

 :thumbup:
It certainly is, which many on here have already expressed similar points.
Why?
Common sense.  8-)
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: OpShunned on 11-02-18, 09:18PM
Best bit of sense I have read on this issue.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-tesco-equal-pay-claim-sets-a-dangerous-precedent/

 :thumbup:
It certainly is, which many on here have already expressed similar points.
Why?
Common sense.  8-)
===================================================

Lo@'best bit of sense'..The clown begins his article with this : :D

I have decided that my work is of equal value to that of Claudia Schiffer and that therefore in future I should be paid the same as her. Why not? Okay, we don’t quite do the same thing, but we both get up in the morning, go out and do what we do as best we can. Yet she is paid more than I am, which is indefensible.

That is pretty much the basis of the claim by 100 female Tesco shop floor workers who have launched an action against the supermarket claiming that they should be paid the same as men who work in the store’s warehouses. It is discrimination, they say, because their work is of ‘equal value’. It is estimated that, if successful, Tesco could face claims for up to six years’ of back pay for 200,000 workers – amounting to as much as £4bn.



Really??? Common sense.. do me  a favour eh!
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Loki on 11-02-18, 09:29PM
Yep. Common sense
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: optout on 12-02-18, 03:35AM
common, yes.

sense, no.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: optout on 12-02-18, 04:06AM
try here

http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/equal_pay_report_publication_.pdf (http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/equal_pay_report_publication_.pdf)

which includes such gems as;

"the same muscular effort is in general heavier for women than for men and therefore valuing physical effort could be a form of indirect discrimination."


As for age related discrimination, well, maybe that's next. Who knows?

unfortunately it wont be decided by an apparently male-centric (in its views) union, but then when a union that is predominately made up of female members and led by a male and the apparent disconnect that that must entail, maybe that is an area for future improvement.

I find it strange (I don't really) that a union that is led by a male ensures that the best pay and conditions (in general) are enjoyed by males.





Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: alf on 12-02-18, 05:18AM
https://www.change.org/p/usdaw-give-tesco-staff-back-our-right-to-be-consulted-balloted-on-pay-conditions (https://www.change.org/p/usdaw-give-tesco-staff-back-our-right-to-be-consulted-balloted-on-pay-conditions)

You create a petition in regards to wanting stores to have ballots on pay and conditions.

When distribution use their ability to ballot in order to negotiate pay, you claim  male conspiracy.

Absolutely outstanding.

Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: optout on 12-02-18, 05:54AM
I see no inconsistency in the reality of the situation, it is after all a male led leadership that has maintained this different status quo in negotiating ability between a predominately female workforce of shop workers, and the predominately male based distribution workers who seem to be the main beneficiaries of 'union bargaining'.


as for the 'absolutely outstanding' comment, that I assume is meant to imply an impossible contradiction, but does not succeed.


what can I say?.......thanks? :thumbup:
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: optout on 12-02-18, 06:00AM
the real contradiction here is those DC workers who enjoy the fruits of their power to negotiate for better pay (at the expense of money that could have been used to better shop-workers conditions). And then have the gall to complain when shop-workers (who at present are enslaved by a male led partnership agreement) find, out of necessity, an alternative means of negotiation, THE LAW.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: alf on 12-02-18, 07:18AM
I see no inconsistency in the reality of the situation, it is after all a male led leadership that has maintained this different status quo in negotiating ability between a predominately female workforce of shop workers, and the predominately male based distribution workers who seem to be the main beneficiaries of 'union bargaining'.

That “predominately female workforce” are the ones who voted for the partnership in the first place, distribution have no blame in stores reduced “bargaining”.


as for the 'absolutely outstanding' comment, that I assume is meant to imply an impossible contradiction, but does not succeed.

Not impossible, but still laughable.

If anything it’s rather sad, distribution have the rights you want for store, so much so you created a petition, but you dismiss their negotiating power that they work for as sexism, in order to push your own bizarre narrative.

With bizarre being the key word, what exactly is the big pay off in this conspiracy theory?
If it’s money, how does the union benefit by favouring distribution when stores have far more members, and therefore subs/money.
If it’s simple sexism, well how does that work, number wise stores have far more male employees than distribution.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Loki on 12-02-18, 10:41AM
It amazes me that certain employees are using this claim as a means to justify their disgruntlement with those who work within DC’s. It is rather sad as well as cringing.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Tornado on 12-02-18, 12:08PM
I agree in equal pay or base salary for everyone. I agree that you should be paid based on levels you have been Trained, Achieved and Documented to proof your Knowledge and Experience to Execute your Job. I agree that  there are departments where there is harder physical work and where it is difficult to find people interested to work in that departments and for that  I believe that premium/percentage should be paid for every hour worked in that departments no matter who or age should be under this regulation. Why is Night Shift receiving more pay/hour ?  Why are there four activities in D-Grade as example " Costumer Assistant - Phone Shop or Costumer Services Assistant ..." and why are they not in C-Grade ? Are they not Tesco Employees ? Is it not an " Exploitation " paying the basic pay and having to work in different  departments ?
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Blackcat3 on 12-02-18, 01:09PM
Nights are paid a premium for unsociable hours their pay is still the same as general assistants
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: optout on 12-02-18, 03:43PM
@Loki

When is the next vote on the partnership-agreement due to take place, and will you be highlighting this to your members? Or will you be one of those reps that doesn't bother informing their members when the time comes because the status quo is easier to maintain?
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: alf on 12-02-18, 03:49PM
Maybe you should start a petition, oh wait...
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell on 12-02-18, 04:48PM
The top position for USDAW is a Male.

Yet both the N.O’s for USDAW that negotiate or review pay are Women ironicly enough.

The paypot is rarely increased in wage negotiations so the robbing peter to pay Paul scenario is nonsense, very often the method in which the pot is split or the addition is funded seals the deal.

Distribution for example voted for total lower turnaround bonus, sacrificed some but had some put on the rate.

Retail funded an overall better increase by scarificing higher premiums for a minority.

The only real difference is Distribution had a Democratic choice, Retail didn’t.

The peter and Paul scenario simply isn’t there.

What actually is the point is the company are driving down rates and working conditions for all work level 1’s because decision makers are wasting money by the millions each month.

The Work level 2’s and 3’s are far more reluctant to challenge any procedural c**k up for fear of being managed out the business in the next Restructure.

It’s soul distroying to see hard working dedicated staff being managed out of the business that are a clear asset that don’t want to go. Redundancy or Worse the kick in the nads that is TUPE.
It’s disgusting that they don’t look to recognise the money wasting that is rife in planning and stop it by holding the people accountable for it that don’t seem to care about it, yet they are dumping good skilled staff that do their best and even excel in the name of being more efficient.

Retail and Distribution are not robbing each other they are both being robbed by above and within by those that are s*** at their job.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: optout on 12-02-18, 05:17PM
@Alf

the usual suspects :thumbup:
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell on 12-02-18, 05:53PM
im on 9.025

We've got a bloke in our DC who works in Magor, but is thinking of moving to our place for personal reasons so is trying things out. He will be on the new contract if he does, earning around £17/18,000 per year. Last year at Magor he earned £42,000. Granted, he worked 6 days a week and his leisure weeks. I don't begrudge him it, good luck to him.

So basicly he worked 45 hours every week minimum, (may have done stop on too!) and had no holidays.
Everyday he over achieved and had extra financial gain per hour for doing so.

I certainly don't begrudge him it either.
I'd expect that kind of money to virtually live in work too.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Tornado on 12-02-18, 06:33PM
Nights are paid a premium for unsociable hours their pay is still the same as general assistants
I totally agree with you and let me tell you night shift it is hardwork I know, what I am saying is as you said their pay still the same and the extra they receive it is to compensate differences but hardworking exist also on day shift, is it not true ? Then, why does not the same policy apply to the day shift workers ? Tesco play with its employees and why ? Because unfortunately the work laws most of them they exist to protect the money not the workers. Just an opinion.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Loki on 12-02-18, 07:46PM
@Loki

When is the next vote on the partnership-agreement due to take place, and will you be highlighting this to your members? Or will you be one of those reps that doesn't bother informing their members when the time comes because the status quo is easier to maintain?

My view of the Partnership Agreement is well known within the workplace etc as well as on here my friend.The members I represent are kept up to date with everything I have to hand and more. My view regarding the topic being discussed is a separate issue and I find it such a shame that others feel the need to use this claim as a means to attack those that work within DC’s.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: optout on 12-02-18, 09:06PM
as I have said before, I am only 'attacking' those in DCs and without DCs who are attacking those in stores who are making a perfectly reasonable approach to a legal body to scrutinize a legal issue. If it is so pathetic, why not just wait for it all to fail and have a good laugh.

As it stands at present there are some legal experts who are taking an educated risk of their time and money to support colleagues. They only win if the claim wins. So, who to believe, a few anonymous people on the internet with nothing but hot air to offer, or some legal experts who are putting their time and money where their mouths are?

I also find it strange that some who are criticizing are people who have taken redundancy (their legal right) and then rejoined tesco later, being very proud of this acheivement (again their legal right), their reasoning for criticizing the claim being that a winning claim for parity would take money out of the business unnecessarily and have a detrimental affect on others within  the business.

AND those who I am quite sure have supported the above in claiming their redundancy payments (their legal right) and yet try discourage and humiliate in a cringe worthy manner (with claims of judgement being clouded by the money)  the attempts of many under their protection to seek legal redress (and hence payment) for a 'possible' legal anomaly of a discriminatory nature.

I am beginning to wonder if some have been 'gotten at' by the powers that be, and I am also beginning to wonder if I should put my tin-foil thinking cap on. But then with the large amounts at stake for the company I wouldn't put it past them 'nobbling' a few people in a position of trust, to help with the company cause. As I have said before 'the usual suspects', there seems to be a pattern. :thumbup:
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: mrblobby on 13-02-18, 03:22AM
There will always be a legal expert willing to proceed with any claim - they generally operate like a 'gambling' business, the losses offset by the gains. They know full well at best they may get a settlement of some sort before it proceeds to a costly and drawn out court case. Unfortunately there are countless 'made up' claims or people who claim for things based on the fact they can, rather than the fact they have suffered in any wayv
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: mrblobby on 13-02-18, 03:26AM
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.    ???
I would say that there would probably be no claim, because any company is clearly following legal guidelines set out in law. But it is still down to the company to prove there is no case to answer.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Chojac2412 on 13-02-18, 10:04AM
as I have said before, I am only 'attacking' those in DCs and without DCs who are attacking those in stores who are making a perfectly reasonable approach to a legal body to scrutinize a legal issue. If it is so pathetic, why not just wait for it all to fail and have a good laugh.

As it stands at present there are some legal experts who are taking an educated risk of their time and money to support colleagues. They only win if the claim wins. So, who to believe, a few anonymous people on the internet with nothing but hot air to offer, or some legal experts who are putting their time and money where their mouths are?

I also find it strange that some who are criticizing are people who have taken redundancy (their legal right) and then rejoined tesco later, being very proud of this acheivement (again their legal right), their reasoning for criticizing the claim being that a winning claim for parity would take money out of the business unnecessarily and have a detrimental affect on others within  the business.

AND those who I am quite sure have supported the above in claiming their redundancy payments (their legal right) and yet try discourage and humiliate in a cringe worthy manner (with claims of judgement being clouded by the money)  the attempts of many under their protection to seek legal redress (and hence payment) for a 'possible' legal anomaly of a discriminatory nature.

I am beginning to wonder if some have been 'gotten at' by the powers that be, and I am also beginning to wonder if I should put my tin-foil thinking cap on. But then with the large amounts at stake for the company I wouldn't put it past them 'nobbling' a few people in a position of trust, to help with the company cause. As I have said before 'the usual suspects', there seems to be a pattern. :thumbup:

Agree
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Tornado on 14-02-18, 02:02AM
as I have said before, I am only 'attacking' those in DCs and without DCs who are attacking those in stores who are making a perfectly reasonable approach to a legal body to scrutinize a legal issue. If it is so pathetic, why not just wait for it all to fail and have a good laugh.

As it stands at present there are some legal experts who are taking an educated risk of their time and money to support colleagues. They only win if the claim wins. So, who to believe, a few anonymous people on the internet with nothing but hot air to offer, or some legal experts who are putting their time and money where their mouths are?

I also find it strange that some who are criticizing are people who have taken redundancy (their legal right) and then rejoined tesco later, being very proud of this acheivement (again their legal right), their reasoning for criticizing the claim being that a winning claim for parity would take money out of the business unnecessarily and have a detrimental affect on others within  the business.

AND those who I am quite sure have supported the above in claiming their redundancy payments (their legal right) and yet try discourage and humiliate in a cringe worthy manner (with claims of judgement being clouded by the money)  the attempts of many under their protection to seek legal redress (and hence payment) for a 'possible' legal anomaly of a discriminatory nature.

I am beginning to wonder if some have been 'gotten at' by the powers that be, and I am also beginning to wonder if I should put my tin-foil thinking cap on. But then with the large amounts at stake for the company I wouldn't put it past them 'nobbling' a few people in a position of trust, to help with the company cause. As I have said before 'the usual suspects', there seems to be a pattern. :thumbup:
  ;)  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Duracell on 14-02-18, 04:05PM
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.    ???
I would say that there would probably be no claim, because any company is clearly following legal guidelines set out in law. But it is still down to the company to prove there is no case to answer.

That depends who the defendants are. Also let’s not forget the company additional amounts to the statutory ones when they don’t have to that are not required under statute that the government have no control over.

So I’m terms of total package given or more to the point not given. The company do offer a level of complicity in deciding the additional parts of the package.
Title: Re: Claims of Disparity Based on Protected Characteristics.
Post by: Rigger on 17-02-18, 07:26PM
@optout, wow you really are bitter about DC staff but let me tell you, you're barking up the wrong tree & are also seriously misguided in the vast majority of what you rant about.