News:

Welcome to V.L.H

Main Menu
Welcome to verylittlehelps. Please login or sign up.

29-03-24, 10:22AM

Login with username, password and session length
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 38,129
  • Total Topics: 630
  • Online today: 471
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 3
Guests: 442
Total: 445

Equal Pay/Leigh Day /Tom Hewitt/

Started by OpShunned, 22-03-17, 05:49PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Duracell

Nevermind the porter, what about the canteen staff that cook and serve the Food to Patients? If we are to take the simplistic view and ignore all other credible reasoning, then very often if a surgeon doesn't operate the patient will inevitably die, The patient once the highly paid surgeon operates then needs to eat if long term patients don't eat because the food is not cooked or served they will die, so based on the simplistic reasoning and the same balance of potential probability, Death. Hospital Catering Staff are of equal value to surgeons so should be paid the same.

In all the discussion people ask for one good reason for the disparity, yet they have continually ignored it when it has been given, it is not an opinion of an individual it's FACT ABOUT HOW THINGS WORK. Rates are established set and reviewed based on industry and Market trends, retail and distribution are different industries driven by different trends, the business need for Retail is different to Distribution there are very different legal obligation and demands in both.
This Factual reasoning is not just practiced by T it is practiced by most large employers, they look to have a competitive package in each devision of the business relative to that particular industry, where they don't which is currently happening in two particular Distribution Locations they fail miserably to retain staff and the turnover of staff is very high.
Go to a fruit wholesaler and tell them apples and oranges are the same because the simplistic view is they are both a fruit so should be the same price. Or a Fishmonger because the Atlantic Salmon is dearer than Pollock they should be the same they are both fish.

The simplistic view misses so much relative information it would be quite laughable if it wasn't so Niaeve, the pay is relative to the industry type and market rates and demands of that sector of the Business that is fact, compare your pay to another company with the same devision you work in, Boots, Aldi, Lidl, Sainsbury's, Asda... How do they rates compare are they competitive?

Pay is not about the simplistic task, even if you could establish the value of any given task or group of tasks by breaking cost and need down to an individual level you still can't set the rates by that alone because if you dismiss the market rates and industry trends then you ultimately start to erode locational differences. Because the simplistic view that sees pushing a cage as pushing a cage doesn't care weather that cage is being pushed in London or Skegness, the simplistic view will remove all of the justified extras for the yeah buts, which is what market rates and industry standards take into account.

Such an erroneous claim would not only be the biggest unjust demand this company has ever seen it will also cause major problems for Employment in general. Who is paying for the 300 million for the accounting scandal and that was justified where do you think the cost of the claim will fall win or Lose.

The good reason for the disparity in rates in different markets and decisions with different demands, hear is just one consideration Retail has a SUNDAY opt out if they want people in they have to compensate for facilitating Sunday trading with overtime as it seems you could in theory all say no. Distribution have no choice.
So in the name of equal value and equality whilst we are simplisticly standing on the thin end of the wedge, Should the Sunday opt out be abolished along with Location Pay? Because that is what a simplistic view dismisses.

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.

Nomad

Alf, I don't disagree with you I was merely encouraging the physical/mental work value debate.  It is one of those things where one group will have the opposite opinion to the others, neither being right nor wrong, and neither winning the argument.

Can make interesting reading at times though.

My reply containing 'alone' was not intended as a reply to your post that it followed.
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

alf


Hammer10

What location pay thought it was abolished same as our premiums are being abolished .

Duracell

Quote from: Nomad on 25-07-18, 06:29PM
So many times one hears the phrase from physical workers, "I work harder than you so should get paid more".

Reasoning by that criteria alone means teachers and a few others should be paid peanuts.

It also means that a Labourer would likely be the highest paid on a building site, but we know this not to be the case, but the labourer for a bricklayer is also handling the bricks and the Mortar the same as the bricklayer yet paid less.
Without going on and on, my scenario above brings my mind to skills payments, are they still present in retail? Does a Baker get more, is there such a position as a Pharmacy Assistant if so are they paid more?
How many skills payments are there?
Is there any disparity between rates in a metro compared to extras or expresses?
Holding such a simplistic view as equal value inherently will erode skill based payments and any other disparity there is.

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

#580
Quote from: roughyedspud on 25-07-18, 03:51AM

DC staff pick stock,put it on a cage/dolly,take said cage/dolly to a area to be put on a wagon.

GA staff take the cage/dolly from a area after its been taken off a wagon,take the stock off the said cage/dolly and put it on the shelves...

Am I wrong?

Not wrong it just doesn't happen as simply as that, the expectation of how many times it happens is greater.
There is a diffinative set amount that has to be done if it isn't then the individual is heavily performances managed, this set amount is not a rough figure it is definitely set by % of standard time.
All staff have to do it when they are told to with no choice about multi skilling.
All staff are expected to work Sunday with no opt out.
All staff could have their hours changed with appropriate notice 12 weeks in my instance some may be different but most contracts facilitate a needs of the business rota change clause. The only exception is a formal flexible hours request which can only be done once a year.
When applying for a job the hours expected are fully dictated with no compromises.

Some may think the environment is not relevant to the task, and some see customer facing roles and customers as a risk, it has to be argued that working in an aisle with 6 other pickers picking on MHE trucks and 4 fork lifts doing putaways off the same bay to the same aisle is a greater risk, but hey at least they are all not walking they all have the luxery of ride on trucks, and haven't got to walk, they just got to get off the truck for every different product and then back on to move to the next expected to pick each case in the same amount of time as it takes the average person blow their nose or put a pallet away in the time takes the average person to clean their teeth, with pallets being put away or let down at heights of upto 45ft in the Air, with each new move or assignment automatically starting when the previous one is completed.

How do we establish the value whilst dismissing the skill and working environment, There is no coincidence in your contractual detail being described as "Terms and Conditions" they are an expectation that need an appropriate and realistic momentary gain, different T&Cs realise different monetary gains, Retail much like Distribution have differences in their own respective devisions of the company, how on earth is a comparison possible with two different devisions that both individually have disparity that has been established through decades of established accepted pay negations that have never ( to my knowledge) jointly or individually discussed the disparity between the two?


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

#581
Quote from: Hammer10 on 25-07-18, 09:41PM
What location pay thought it was abolished same as our premiums are being abolished .

Sunday premiums being abolished ... why is that? because some bright spark decided that in simple terms Sunday is now no different than Monday or any other day , when we all know it clearly is and always will be while certain bankhols exist and are not merely luie days.
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

Quote from: Hammer10 on 25-07-18, 09:41PM
What location pay thought it was abolished same as our premiums are being abolished .

There is a thread where someone gives examples of Distribution rates in varying DC,s the higher rates being because of locatio, so although not detailed as such disparity of rates is often down to Geographical Location.
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.

Mark calloway

What job do we do? I fill on nights.

rogersmart

Instead of jumping through hoops in an attempt to find similarities between the roles in stores and in DCs, it is more appropriate to do what Duracell is saying, and step back and look objectively at the roles.  It's principally a matter of scale and employer requirements rather than simply a pick list of individual actions that sound the same.  A good comparison would be between an individual driving a Transit van and another driving an HGV artic.  Hey, they both turn steering wheels and operate foot pedals, so the jobs must be the same, mustn't they?  Well, no.  And no sane person would expect a two-a-penny Transit van driver to be paid the same rate as an HGV driver.  Would they?

I'm employed in a medium sized store that is literally three minutes drive from where I live.  I can get to work by bus if I want, or even walk (that takes a whole 15 minutes!).   During my 45 mins. break, I can pop into town and visit the chemist or whatever.  The nearest DC is 10 miles from home, in the middle of nowhere on a vast industrial estate, and without a bus service, and there is literally nowhere to go to within the duration of a break.  My convenience is worth a lot to me, and no one could be expected to work in a remotely located DC unless it was worth their while and unless they were being paid at a rate comparaable with the other distribution warehouses in the surrounding area. 

Wake up and smell the coffee, guys.  You're being led up the garden path by those promoting a No Win No Fee approach, that if nothing else is giving them one heck of a lot of totally free advertising.  It may be a "free bet" as I've seen it described on here, but having your expectations raised with little real chance of success is not doing you any favours at all.

Mark calloway

You make good points there. I'm in two minds about it. While I think those in distribution deserve a higher rate of pay,I'm still tempted to sign the form to claim. I not sure about the "sexist" claim of the lawsuit. Dare I say that most women don't want to work in distribution etc. Also at our store the ladies never work produce,juice or work the back door. By today's logic that's sexism

adamlad

This is the final email from Leigh day regarding the Age discrimination claim and it contains some detail regarding the current claim

Dear xxxx

Your Claim against Tesco for Loss of Premium (and Night) Pay & Age Discrimination

The time has come to formally close the files in respect of the above matter.

We investigated the detail of 2016 Pay Review, in particular the removal of Premium Pay for older employees. Our aim was twofold, 1) to show that the Partnership Agreement between Usdaw and Tesco would not lawfully permit an overall downward variation of pay and 2) that the loss of Premium Pay was discriminatory on the grounds of age.

Unfortunately and despite our best efforts the Tribunal found in favour of Tesco this time.

The Tribunal did find that the loss of pay was discriminatory on the grounds of age, but and importantly, they found that Tesco had legitimate aims in reducing pay in this way and that the route taken by them, ie the removal of Premium Pay, was a proportionate measure to take to secure that aim; meaning that Tesco could justify the discrimination. I know that this was a bitter blow to many of you, who have felt that your loyalty was sacrificed to make up for poor decision making at Board level.

Is there anything else I can do?

As many of you know we have started a second claim in respect of Equal Pay. We say that the work done in stores by hourly paid staff is of equal value to the work done by hourly paid staff in distribution centres and that it should be paid the same rate. We estimate that the average difference in pay between stores and distribution is around £2 per hour, not including the more advantageous Premium Pay.

We know that some Distribution Centres still pay their hourly paid staff Premium Pay (double pay) and we will be looking to recover that difference too.  We see joining the Equal Pay claim as the most viable route left to challenging Tesco on the removal of Premium Pay as well as ensuring that you are paid in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.

If you have joined the Equal Pay claim

Your details have been transferred to that file. It is only the loss of Premium Pay in Stores litigation which is being closed.

If you wish to join the Equal Pay claim please get in touch on 0800 689 0570 or via email at tescoequalpay@leighday.co.uk

I will arrange to close and archive your file. We will hold your papers and corresponding electronic file in archival storage for a period of 6 years. During this time you can ask us to send you documents from the file without charge.  At the end of that period the file will be destroyed in accordance with usual practice.

I hope you have been satisfied with the work we have done on your case. I hope that despite losing you feel proud of yourself for taking a stand. It is not always easy. I know that investigating or pursuing a claim can be a difficult process. We hope in addition to providing you with the best possible legal advice we have made the process as easy for you as we can.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if I can ever be of any assistance to you in any way in the future.

Best wishes

adamlad

Latest update from Leigh Day to the staff involved in the current claim:

Dear xxxx

Tesco's defence to equal pay now received

We have now received and considered the defence from Tesco in respect of the equal pay claims that we are bringing for Store workers.

As we expected Tesco has denied having an equal pay problem.

Tesco has brought Usdaw's involvement in all pay negotiations into the spotlight by arguing that Usdaw negotiates pay in relation to the Stores and Distribution Centres separately and while this is true, it does not provide Tesco with a defence. It remains our view, supported by evidence, that Tesco is ultimately responsible for all pay decisions and that they have to power to resolve the issue, should they wish to do so. If Tesco wanted to equalise pay between Stores and Distribution Centres they could do so right now.   

What Tesco's defence does highlight is that Usdaw has some serious questions to answer about its role in the pay inequality. We will be taking steps to obtain information from Usdaw as well as Tesco around those pay negotiations.

Tesco also says that Store workers cannot compare themselves to Distribution Centre workers as different employment contractual terms apply to each. We remain satisfied that the appeal court decisions about comparisons in equal pay cases do allow Tesco Store workers to compare against Distribution Centres workers. 

Tesco go on to say, that even if you can lawfully compare your roles (and we say you can), that the work you do is not of 'equal value' to that undertaken in Distribution Centres. This is the heart of case and we are not surprised to see Tesco say as much. We fundamentally disagree with Tesco on this point. As we have said before, it is the Tribunal, assisted by Independent Experts, who ultimately decide whether the work is of 'equal value'. It is not up to Tesco to decide.

They also say that they have to pay Distribution Centre workers more in order to attract people to apply for that type of work. And as a final defence, they argue that lower wages in Stores keeps them more competitive in the supermarket industry. This is an interesting point by Tesco bearing in mind our research shows that Aldi and Lidl pay Store workers and Distribution Centre workers the same and they compete very well. 

Settlement
Rather than settling claims, which is common in group claims of this nature, Tesco's lawyers have indicated to us that they are waiting for changes to the law to prevent employees from claiming as much as 6 years of back pay (5 years in Scotland) in an equal pay claim. The principle of Equal Pay in this country has been driven by the European Union and we think this is wishful thinking on their part whilst European Union law continues to apply. With Brexit increasingly closer, there is always a possibility that future governments might seek to reduce the amount of back pay that those with an equal pay claim can ask for, but this will not affect any claims that are brought before then. So your claims for a maximum of 6 years (5 years in Scotland) worth of back pay are safe.

In all, there is nothing of any concern in the defence raised by Tesco and it was exactly what we expected.


Yours sincerely

sensible_woman

LOL so despite USDAW backing Tescos on every decision on pay to screw us GAs over they are now laying the blame for this one at USDAW's feet.  You couldn't make it up!

forrestgimp

#589
Quote from: Duracell on 25-07-18, 09:32PM
Lots of text, post number 575 if you want to read it in its entirety

Much of that has nothing to do with the claim that working for the same company we as its employees are doing much the same job as each other or rather mirror images of the same job.

Your opening statement talks about kitchen porters and canteen staff and how their jobs are different....You fail to mention they do not work for Tesco either and it seems to have slid by you that they are not retail workers. Much as you hate to admit it you work in retail, thats what Tesco is a retailer so sorry to burst your self important little bubble you are no better than those of us who work on the front line.  You job is getting merchandise ready for your customers needs (thats us by the way) same way ours is. To facilitate that you place said merchandise onto a cage and send it along to us so we can take it off the cage and then place it onto shelves so our customers can get want they want.

I'm not seeing the difference yet?

I will concede that the lorry drivers are different to us and leave them out of it but you are not one of those are you?

You then talk about legal obligations? Are you trying to tell us that you get more because its mandated by law, I mean come on............

Oh and whats the analogy about apples and oranges for it doesnt really apply here.


You lob about the word simplistic like its a swear word and yet non of your arguments even now address the core issue, which is we believe that your job is worth the same as ours and we are paid less because of antiquated sexual bias where by shop assistants historical are jobs filled by women who were (and sometimes still are) paid less simply by virtue of being the wrong gender.  Now  you may say 'but gimpy you're a man'? I know I am a man but we are suffering because of the disparity as well.

This is a good one, You say
QuotePay is not about the simplistic task, even if you could establish the value of any given task or group of tasks by breaking cost and need down to an individual level you still can't set the rates by that alone because if you dismiss the market rates and industry trends then you ultimately start to erode locational differences. Because the simplistic view that sees pushing a cage as pushing a cage doesn't care weather that cage is being pushed in London or Skegness, the simplistic view will remove all of the justified extras for the yeah buts, which is what market rates and industry standards take into account.

So tell me location lets take that, Why does it matter to you when the DC is located other than you work there and probably would like a reasonable travel time to and from work, What is it about location that you think means you are worth more than me? As for market forces......blimey Tesco fix your rate the same as they do ours nothing to do with market forces thats why every DC seems to negotiate their own wage rise. If they cant get staff for whatever reason then they look at location pay, not something I agree with but thats another debate also location pay is not part of your hourly pay its a premium that can be removed at will.


QuoteSuch an erroneous claim would not only be the biggest unjust demand this company has ever seen it will also cause major problems for Employment in general. Who is paying for the 300 million for the accounting scandal and that was justified where do you think the cost of the claim will fall win or Lose.

Surely you are not suggesting we are to blame for the 300 million face accounting scandal? I mean what on earth has corrupt directors got to do with our jobs essentially being the same and therefore worth the same? Or are you saying we shouldnt get the verdict we all know is correct because it cost to much so we should just let you get away with earning more than us because..... well just because really.

I also notice you are talking about all other forms of employment, You really are a throwback I genuinely believe you think women should be paid less than men or why else would you worry about the ramifications to every other employer in the UK or were you talking worldwide.

Lastly to this little gem.....

QuoteThe good reason for the disparity in rates in different markets and decisions with different demands, hear is just one consideration Retail has a SUNDAY opt out if they want people in they have to compensate for facilitating Sunday trading with overtime as it seems you could in theory all say no. Distribution have no choice.
So in the name of equal value and equality whilst we are simplisticly standing on the thin end of the wedge, Should the Sunday opt out be abolished along with Location Pay? Because that is what a simplistic view dismisses.

Now you are saying we should not get equal pay because some people who decided supermarkets can open on a sunday so long as they allow workers to opt out but they didnt include Dcs in that and if they want people to work a sunday they have to pay overtime......So you dont get an overtime rate then? No neither do we its flat time now for overtime has been for years they call what they give a premium which is 25% of your hourly rate extra and no doubt that will go next year in the so called pay review.. Whats your overtime rates or would you rather not say......

Edit: Forgot to mention the extra premium is only for a sunday we get nothing extra for working overtime on any other day of the week, can you say the same?

You seem to be quite put out about the sunday thing so here is a bit of advice, Do something about it, stop moaning and get in touch with your mates and start making noises you know like is happening with the equal pay or do you expect Tesco to suddenly sit down and say ' Tarquin old bean lets give those jolly nice chaps at the DCs the right to opt out of sunday working, we were forced into it for the shop workers  but we will just hand it to the DC workers on a plate because they cant be bothered to do anything other than chunter under their breath at the unfainess of it all'





sensible_woman

Surely - if distributors don't do their job the customers don't get the goods. If GAs don't put it on the shelf the customers don't get the goods. I'd say that is of equal value. Simplistic enough?

forrestgimp

person A puts box on cage, cage is transported to different location and person B takes box off cage and places on shelf.

Same job mirrored....

Unless you work in a DC then it isnt because I suspect they have very high opinions of themselves and do not want to be lumped in with us in shops.

OvaSees

Quote from: forrestgimp on 26-07-18, 08:43PMwe are paid less because of antiquated sexual bias where by shop assistants historical are jobs filled by women who were (and sometimes still are) paid less simply by virtue of being the wrong gender.
I totally agree with everything you said - and I support the case of equal pay for jobs of euqal value - but this bit is just plain wrong. There is no 'antiquated sexual bias', historical or otherwise, between recruitment policies in distribution and stores - there have always been women working in distribution and men working in stores. The gender ratios varying between those functions is not evidence of any bias or discrimination, it merely demonstrates that men and women have made different choices in their work function or location. The HR/Personnel function in both distribution and stores has always and continues to be dominated by females, in a company that employs more females than males and in which the most senior HR/Personnel roles - which define and determine those recruitment policies - have always been held by females. A company cannot discriminate, that requires a person to enact - but the HR policies and procedures have been written by women, and agreed by Unions including USDAW whose National Officers are both women. All this in a country in which discrimination based on gender is illegal and has had a female Prime Minister running it for half my life. There has never been a cry of bias or discrimination over the fact that we have never had a male HR Director and that role attracts a lot more money than any picker or shelf filler. If women wanted to flood distribution (or any area of the company for that matter) to earn more money there's nothing stopping them.

If on the other hand you are implying some kind of institutionalised discriminatory mechanism against women in this company's distribution employment practices, then you also have to justify two things - (i) why that same bias doesn't simultaneously exist in it's HR function - that's run by women, and (ii) if women are cheaper to employ than men, then given this company's obsession with cost cutting why hasn't it just stopped recruiting men and filled every single job with these lower paid women?

If you are paying people for their work, instead of just paying them what they think they're worth (which is what the case is about), then clearly these people wouldn't be working in a store if distribution thinks their work is worth more than what stores are paying - they'd go and work in distribution. But they choose not to.

Duracell

Quote from: forrestgimp on 26-07-18, 08:53PM
person A puts box on cage, cage is transported to different location and person B takes box off cage and places on shelf.

Same job mirrored....

Unless you work in a DC then it isn't because I suspect they have very high opinions of themselves and do not want to be lumped in with us in shops.

Like I said a very Simplistic view.

You seem a bit naive as to how rates are established and why they have to be competitive to attract and retain skilled staff.

Your earlier response missed all of the points that makes the roles so different, can't debate the differences whilst all the time asking what they are, to then totally dream up my attitude, I am far from sexiest. I welcome seeing any Gender in any job and openly encourage it where I work, but we all know the claim isn't really about Gender that's just the engine they hooked up to get the Gravy train moving cause without it, the equal value debate goes nowhere.

Your mentality that because we all work for T we are all somehow retailers shows yours your naivety, Priceless.


PS

OT
X1.5 Monday-Sat
X2 Sun

No not a driver... to monotonous for me. Although I'd give dot com a go if I'm Honest, I loved doing multi drop when I was younger, so who knows when they come at me for the perks above anything is possible.



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.

OvaSees

^ absolutely. The case is about unfair pay practices, a principle I'm sure we all support, it just initially masqueraded as a gender case in order to get heard and see the light of day.

Duracell

#595
I am unable to post in the Equal value to the company thread.
I'd like to get one thing clear, I am all for any relative comparisons but comparisons are not just about given tasks being similar, other aspects come into consideration, environment, workload, geographical locations, contractual expectations and obligations.
I feel because of the Sterotype being attached to the claim a lot of the genuine reasoning from both perspectives may get lost and not debated because the Claim is ultimately about Gender Discrimination, my view is although there is scope from what has been discussed to compare roles to assertian Equal Value, which will be a mamouth task if done correctly any findings may get lost in a claim who's prime focus will be about gender discrimination. Even after a finding of equal value, the claim is reliant on a finding that the disparity on the whole is because of Gender.
The understanding that in the past some cases of gender discrimination claims have been successful because "Historically" certain Work is done by females and other work is done by males so either being paid less is a deliberate action to discriminate is in the modern world  wearing a bit thin and a relatively (to the times we live in) weak argument or stance to take.

Hystoriclly in the past catering and cleaning have seen prodominatly by women in those role, yet some of us see as many males in the roles as females and sometimes more so the "Historical" comparison although valid in the past are not apt for present day.
Where I work in catering and cleaning roles there are similar gender based numbers which lean towards Males being higher.
I currently see in T greater Numbers of Males Doing GA roles than before so, the "Historical" stance is not a true reflection of the times, Yes Historically Males went to work in industry and Manual Work and women went to Work in the services industry retail catering and cleaning services, but that is not the Norm anymore.
Industry has suffered drastically over the years which had seen young males going into the roles that were historically filled by females.

No doubt some of you think I live in my own little world ( i'll Get that in before someone else does), but where I am and the places I visit see males and females working side by side, the Historically gender dominated areas of employment are just not there anymore.

So the Historical balance of probability is weak, the intent to deprive an equal wage is even weaker, the nature of the claim will ultimately address those points and those points will have to be shown to be in practice now for the claim to be successful, even if a comparison falls firmly or loosely in the claims favour the claim relies on the "Historical" to also be current and the intent to deprive equality being shown.

I feel the "equal value" debate whether credible or not will get lost in the foundation of the claim, I feel that such a foundation in its own reasoning in this day and age clings to a behaviour and mentality and is dragging into an age where it has no place.

A discriminative Reasoning trying to Prove discrimination, 2 wrongs does not equal Right.
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

I think that most people agree this is not a sex discrimination case , even those that have signed up and although I do think that the jobs are of equal value to the company ,vi don't believe the case will be won .

grim up north

If the case is thrown out, there could always be a claim of racial discrimination, as my DC is staffed by around 80% Eastern European workers. Probably a higher percentage than at store, so why should foreigners get more pay......?? Leigh Day could always try that avenue.....

fatboy

Clutching at straws springs to mind

forrestgimp

Quote from: Duracell on 26-07-18, 11:14PM
Quote from: forrestgimp on 26-07-18, 08:53PM
person A puts box on cage, cage is transported to different location and person B takes box off cage and places on shelf.

Same job mirrored....

Unless you work in a DC then it isn't because I suspect they have very high opinions of themselves and do not want to be lumped in with us in shops.

Like I said a very Simplistic view.

You seem a bit naive as to how rates are established and why they have to be competitive to attract and retain skilled staff.



PS

OT
X1.5 Monday-Sat
X2 Sun

No not a driver... to monotonous for me. Although I'd give dot com a go if I'm Honest, I loved doing multi drop when I was younger, so who knows when they come at me for the perks above anything is possible.

Skilled job? name the skills that make you worth more than me?

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk