Equal Pay/Leigh Day /Tom Hewitt/

[Sugar bum]

I use to work on stock control, it was bloody hard work , I left last year , would I still get a pay out if it goes ahead ?

[Rigger]

People counting money already 

The world has gone mad.

[dogslave]

This will not succeed I am afraid.  Do not get me wrong I would love Tosco to loose as I hate this bag of s***e company as much as the next man/woman.  But it is not the same work is it.  Again I would love Tosco to loose but again they will not.  Look at depots paying different rates for same job because people started at different times.

[Nomad]

"Look at depots paying different rates for same job because people started at different times." indeed they do and that is so wrong also (unless the longer term employee has obtained a recognised enhanced skill set).

All disparity in wages is utilised by companies to implement divide and conquer tactics, and some employees by their action or inaction assist them in those tactics.

[blutopia]

I can see this going down like a lead balloon. As someone has said, any barrister worth their salt will likely rip it apart. It's sexist for one.

You have women working alongside men in distribution on the same hourly rate. You have women working alongside men in stores, again on the same hourly rate. How in anyone's world can you award just the women working at stores back pay, what about all the men on the lower rated compared to the men at distribution?

If they can prove the jobs are the same then surely everyone should be due some sort of back pay.

As you say, men and women are paid the same in their respective parts of the business, so it's not a simple issue of sex discrimination.  The argument is about whether work in stores is of equal value to work in DCs, but that ALONE is not an issue within the remit of a court.

Several posters here have been saying that store colleagues wouldn't hack working in DCs and, in my opinion, that IS an area worth investigating.  While, of course, there are a lot of women who are stronger and tougher than a lot of men, can there be any argument that, overall, men tend to be stronger than women?  If so, if the job in DCs requires physical attributes that disproportionately favour men, that could be open to a legal challenge.  Linking that to pay, it could be argued that women are disproportionately prevented from working in a higher paid part of the business due to the physical demands designed into the job role.

Taking these issues further, how many women work in BWS replenishment in the larger stores?  Having worked in several stores over the years, I've NEVER seen it.  Arguably, men are being discriminated against by being required to work in a physically harder role than women for the same rate of pay.

[Duracell]

Why could DC staff in lower paid dc's not make a claim then ?

What Claim would they make? What would be the foundation for the claim?
They can't be on board with the current one because the criteria for this claim would not be met.
Basically you need to be a woman in retail to be a claimant. I don't see a claim from a male in retail being possible comparing to females in Distribution being paid a higher rate because that would then undermine the claim for women in retail, as it would show that pay rates are established and set based on divisional differences and industry standards rather than the protected characteristic of gender, without that, there is no claim.

"Look at depots paying different rates for same job because people started at different times." indeed they do and that is so wrong also (unless the longer term employee has obtained a recognised enhanced skill set).

All disparity in wages is utilised by companies to implement divide and conquer tactics, and some employees by their action or inaction assist them in those tactics.

All disparity?
Ironical some of the claimants don't share your view. As the daily mail quotes show.
They were disgruntled to lose double time for Sunday's, wanted to retain it even though others didn't get it in their own division of the company. Yet the disparity across different divisions is a problem.
Where their negotiating group had the ability to standardise and set about addressing disparity, they objected, yet they want a broader comparison and standardisation accross a greater group , which is virtually impossible for any one negotiating group to achieve let alone the many different negotiating groups that actually exist.

No union can realistically be involved in such a claim as to do so undermine their own involvement in past pay negs and reviews.
Retail current rates are established and agreed through a recognised procedural process that unions and staff are part of yet They are being challenged as part of a broader principle. The claimants challenging disparity are bound and part of a process that set and establishes the rates in the first place.

To disagree to ANY disparity at all in pay, conditions and entitlement is a very dangerous and undermining stance to have for employee terms in general.

It means everyone should have the same holiday entitlement, sick entitlement etc etc.

Anyone that thinks that employee relations and negotiating with the company is tough now, think how bad will it become and how easy will it be for the company to erode decades of enhanced entitlement if a wider one sized glove fits all mentality is given to them.

I can see this going down like a lead balloon. As someone has said, any barrister worth their salt will likely rip it apart. It's sexist for one.

You have women working alongside men in distribution on the same hourly rate. You have women working alongside men in stores, again on the same hourly rate. How in anyone's world can you award just the women working at stores back pay, what about all the men on the lower rated compared to the men at distribution?

If they can prove the jobs are the same then surely everyone should be due some sort of back pay.

As you say, men and women are paid the same in their respective parts of the business, so it's not a simple issue of sex discrimination.  The argument is about whether work in stores is of equal value to work in DCs, but that ALONE is not an issue within the remit of a court.

Several posters here have been saying that store colleagues wouldn't hack working in DCs and, in my opinion, that IS an area worth investigating.  While, of course, there are a lot of women who are stronger and tougher than a lot of men, can there be any argument that, overall, men tend to be stronger than women?  If so, if the job in DCs requires physical attributes that disproportionately favour men, that could be open to a legal challenge.  Linking that to pay, it could be argued that women are disproportionately prevented from working in a higher paid part of the business due to the physical demands designed into the job role.

Taking these issues further, how many women work in BWS replenishment in the larger stores?  Having worked in several stores over the years, I've NEVER seen it.  Arguably, men are being discriminated against by being required to work in a physically harder role than women for the same rate of pay.

Who is going to decide that as fact, the court won't surely,  as they are then inherently gender bias and guilty of discrimination themselves.

But to get to that point they would have established that warehouse work is more physically demanding, they establish the role is physically harder than a retail role, which makes it harder to retain staff in that area that role then is more appreciated and of Greater value and attracts more, enhanced higher rates to retain and attract the right skill set for a given role is and always has been a perefectly acceptable Mentality across all industries and Professions. Ironically that is Particulary evident at executive and legal professional levels that will be deciding and arguing the rights wrongs pros and cons of this case. I'm confident that the barrister representing the claimants would have no problem and probably does accept higher pay than other colleagues for Leigh Day to keep and retain his skill set.

[BarryZola]

"Anyone that thinks that employee relations and negotiating with the company is tough now, think how bad will it become and how easy will it be for the company to erode decades of enhanced entitlement if a wider one sized glove fits all mentality is given to them."

Maybe the glove would be a bit softer if they know they're going to be scrutinized when they make crappy decisions which affect staff negatively. Or we can just stick with the union who slowly but surely allow the powers that be erode our pay and benefits.

[Tape measure]

Why could DC staff in lower paid dc's not make a claim then ?

What Claim would they make? What would be the foundation for the claim?
They can't be on board with the current one because the criteria for this claim would not be met.
Basically you need to be a woman in retail to be a claimant. I don't see a claim from a male in retail being possible comparing to females in Distribution being paid a higher rate because that would then undermine the claim for women in retail, as it would show that pay rates are established and set based on divisional differences and industry standards rather than the protected characteristic of gender, without that, there is no claim.

"Look at depots paying different rates for same job because people started at different times." indeed they do and that is so wrong also (unless the longer term employee has obtained a recognised enhanced skill set).

All disparity in wages is utilised by companies to implement divide and conquer tactics, and some employees by their action or inaction assist them in those tactics.

All disparity?
Ironical some of the claimants don't share your view. As the daily mail quotes show.
They were disgruntled to lose double time for Sunday's, wanted to retain it even though others didn't get it in their own division of the company. Yet the disparity across different divisions is a problem.
Where their negotiating group had the ability to standardise and set about addressing disparity, they objected, yet they want a broader comparison and standardisation accross a greater group , which is virtually impossible for any one negotiating group to achieve let alone the many different negotiating groups that actually exist.

No union can realistically be involved in such a claim as to do so undermine their own involvement in past pay negs and reviews.
Retail current rates are established and agreed through a recognised procedural process that unions and staff are part of yet They are being challenged as part of a broader principle. The claimants challenging disparity are bound and part of a process that set and establishes the rates in the first place.

To disagree to ANY disparity at all in pay, conditions and entitlement is a very dangerous and undermining stance to have for employee terms in general.

It means everyone should have the same holiday entitlement, sick entitlement etc etc.

Anyone that thinks that employee relations and negotiating with the company is tough now, think how bad will it become and how easy will it be for the company to erode decades of enhanced entitlement if a wider one sized glove fits all mentality is given to them.

I can see this going down like a lead balloon. As someone has said, any barrister worth their salt will likely rip it apart. It's sexist for one.

You have women working alongside men in distribution on the same hourly rate. You have women working alongside men in stores, again on the same hourly rate. How in anyone's world can you award just the women working at stores back pay, what about all the men on the lower rated compared to the men at distribution?

If they can prove the jobs are the same then surely everyone should be due some sort of back pay.

As you say, men and women are paid the same in their respective parts of the business, so it's not a simple issue of sex discrimination.  The argument is about whether work in stores is of equal value to work in DCs, but that ALONE is not an issue within the remit of a court.

Several posters here have been saying that store colleagues wouldn't hack working in DCs and, in my opinion, that IS an area worth investigating.  While, of course, there are a lot of women who are stronger and tougher than a lot of men, can there be any argument that, overall, men tend to be stronger than women?  If so, if the job in DCs requires physical attributes that disproportionately favour men, that could be open to a legal challenge.  Linking that to pay, it could be argued that women are disproportionately prevented from working in a higher paid part of the business due to the physical demands designed into the job role.

Taking these issues further, how many women work in BWS replenishment in the larger stores?  Having worked in several stores over the years, I've NEVER seen it.  Arguably, men are being discriminated against by being required to work in a physically harder role than women for the same rate of pay.

Who is going to decide that as fact, the court won't surely,  as they are then inherently gender bias and guilty of discrimination themselves.

But to get to that point they would have established that warehouse work is more physically demanding, they establish the role is physically harder than a retail role, which makes it harder to retain staff in that area that role then is more appreciated and of Greater value and attracts more, enhanced higher rates to retain and attract the right skill set for a given role is and always has been a perefectly acceptable Mentality across all industries and Professions. Ironically that is Particulary evident at executive and legal professional levels that will be deciding and arguing the rights wrongs pros and cons of this case. I'm confident that the barrister representing the claimants would have no problem and probably does accept higher pay than other colleagues for Leigh Day to keep and retain his skill set.

Do you mind me asking what position you hold at Tesco please?

I would not take any quotes from a newspaper as a means to make a point of reference.
The law is complex and many hurdles involved. The law firm in question will collate much information and will try and make a case.

People need to stay positive and deal in facts and with those who are experienced in law as their point of reference.
There will always be those who will try to muddy the waters and create a sense of no hope.

Good luck.

[FatFraz]

No hope 

Look at Asda who have had the same claim lodged against them.

Asda are appealing because they know they've not got the cash

[OvaSees]

Duracell that's a brilliant post and very well reasoned!

I've said right from the start - this case is a gender discrimination case masquerading as unfair pay practices. It would have had some merit if it was cashiers arguing they should be earning as much as CSD (the old grade D) colleagues - very easily comparable jobs arguably equal in value yet a pay disparity exists. The problem is, if that was the case it would never see light of day because both of those populations are predominantly female.

Any of the 'claimants' in this case can already earn the same as any DC colleague - by working in a DC. That opportunity has never been denied to them.

Asda are appealing because they know they've not got the cash

Or perhaps because they believe the ruling is unjust and unfair, since pay parity will ultimately penalise their distribution colleagues who will have to sacrifice an element of their pay to fund increases for everyone else until that parity is achieved? At which point all their DC colleagues will simply jump on tills and earn the same for much less physical effort.

[BarryZola]

Duracell that's a brilliant post and very well reasoned!

I've said right from the start - this case is a gender discrimination case masquerading as unfair pay practices. It would have had some merit if it was cashiers arguing they should be earning as much as CSD (the old grade D) colleagues - very easily comparable jobs arguably equal in value yet a pay disparity exists. The problem is, if that was the case it would never see light of day because both of those populations are predominantly female.

Any of the 'claimants' in this case can already earn the same as any DC colleague - by working in a DC. That opportunity has never been denied to them.

Asda are appealing because they know they've not got the cash

Or perhaps because they believe the ruling is unjust and unfair, since pay parity will ultimately penalise their distribution colleagues who will have to sacrifice an element of their pay to fund increases for everyone else until that parity is achieved? At which point all their DC colleagues will simply jump on tills and earn the same for much less physical effort.

But they won't though will they? How many men do you know who want to be known as the guy who works as a checkout guy full-time?

Have you not realized that the world is going a bit crazy and people and organizations are winning legal cases that seemed bizarre 20-30 years ago? These guys/gals have taken a decent punt on this, will have formed a decent case, have some encouragement from the courts, and it may just happen with a bit of luck. However unjust you may think it is, doesn't matter too much.

[alf]

I don't like checkouts, but for £9-10 I'd happily sit on my arse all day having a wee gossip with Doris.

[Hammer10]

Another arguement is tesco very rarely employ people full time any more you are lucky if they give you 11 hours on flexi contracts ,can't see many wanting those limited amount of hours.

[fargone]

Who's gonna pay for it?

[blutopia]

...But to get to that point they would have established that warehouse work is more physically demanding, they establish the role is physically harder than a retail role, which makes it harder to retain staff in that area that role then is more appreciated and of Greater value and attracts more, enhanced higher rates to retain and attract the right skill set for a given role is and always has been a perefectly acceptable Mentality across all industries and Professions.

I don't disagree that this is a perfectly valid counter-claim.  What I don't know from a legal point of view, is whether that is sufficient justification for the difference in pay levels or is itself discriminatory because the physical demands may disproportionately deter women from the better paid job.  In all honesty, I could argue it both ways.

[flowerpower]

But night staff work a lot harder than day staff my other half works in a dc he sometimes shops late he said tbf he thinks it looks like pretty hard work filling at night

[fargone]

I bet that most of the heavy lifting in stores is done by men.

[flowerpower]

I work on pi on nights I see what's going on they are under pressure to get shop filled ready for the next day and do a good job until dot com come along and undo all their hard work

[flowerpower]

Fargone
Get a grip plenty of women work on same stock as the men

[Horrendous123]

it's absolutely f**king ridiculous. I don't like tesco and dislike the way they treat staff in general but that is not gender specific. so what's going to happen if these women win their claim and men are then underpaid doing the exact same job in the same store! there are loads of men who work on checkouts, so you are desclriminating against them by paying them less than the women. Yes, this may not be the premise for the original case but they will be opening up a massive can of worms which shouldn't need to be opened up with common ssense which this country seems to increasingly lack in situations like this

[lackofinterest]

But night staff work a lot harder than day staff my other half works in a dc he sometimes shops late he said tbf he thinks it looks like pretty hard work filling at night

a matter of personal opinion. go on days then for an easy life. after all the night allowance is a joke

[Welshie]

If we can't agree on here and between us we do most of the jobs in question , what hope does a bunch of legal eagles have when they generally sit in offices looking at reports and reference books? We'll probably still be speculating on this in 5yrs time !

[flowerpower]

I think people have had enough if you work nights and Sundays over the last few years all stressco has done is take money off people the worm was always going to turn at some point

[lackofinterest]

Fargone
Get a grip plenty of women work on same stock as the men

I've yet to see any woman in my store pull a pallet of beer or such like. in fact I've never seen any lift anything remotely heavy

[the rule book]

The jobs are disproportionate and are not equally paid. Being  on the same rate for different roles is unfair when people are only allocated certain roles on a regular basis.

65 year old Doris should be rotated to do tills one week, backdoor next week, produce the week after, pi the week after that and a bit of time on merch.


Unfortunately multiskil is anything but.