Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What even is this? Do they literally just pay women less for doing the same job? How is that a thing??
Could have done better there, for sure.
It's not just asda/Walmart though - this is a test case for the entire retail sector. Plenty of large retail chains pay their warehouse staff more than shop staff. What these workers are arguing is that they do much of the same thing - unpacking, unloading, stacking. If anything they're probably doing even more demanding jobs cause they have to deal with customers, perform emotional labour and probably balance more priorities.
The answer, sadly, is to generate more publicity, isn't it?
At least half of the shop floor staff in my local ASDAS are male, and i know from experience that a good number of back-of-house ASDAS staff are female.
Tell the employment tribunal. this information could affect the outcome.
I'd say Walmart are pretty significant though: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers
Shop-floor staff, the majority of whom are women are paid less that warehouse staff, the majority of whom are men.
I would certainly argue that jobs that are often done by those who are not the main bread-winner in a household are underpaid and given that people that live with parents and male partners probably find themselves in that position proportionately more than adult men, then it would affect women more than men. Fair to say?
It's certainly seems like an interesting lawsuit thingy.
It's harder to lump sacks of spuds around all day than it is to point people towards the cake aisle. If they're saying women aren't allowed to the more physically-taxing tasks, or if they're paying men on the shop floor more than women doing the same job then yeah, have a bit of a whinge, but they're not (are they?, i've not read the article).
Not only in relation to other supermarkets, which wouldn't be hard, but generally. I used to work as a contractor for ASDA and visited most of their stores, they look after their workers fucking phenomenally well. They pay them more, they get good holidays, hours are flexible, they put lots of money into subsidising canteens, gyms, staff leisure time, etc, and they take on a lot of people other companies wouldn't - older people, long-term unemployed, people with leaning difficulties, etc. I've had plenty of jobs and i've honestly never met happier staff pretty much across the board.
doesn't mean that unwarranted inequality doesn't exist within either of those worlds.........similar to Asda.
Your last post is irrelevant, as the issue is inequality WITHIN Asda, not compared to that which is WITHOUT Asda.
just means i'm instantly inclined not to believe anything either of them say. sorry to the other one :(
Different jobs equals different pay. Hm, interesting...
and there was a female former Asda employer on and I'm sorry to say, she stitched . She just didn't get what she was being asked and kept saying "I just think we should get fair pay. I don't care what job you do, we all work and deserve the same pay." So the host took it to its logical conclusion and asked if cleaners should earn the same as CEOs and she said "yes, we all work hard and deserve the same money."
Asda handled it really well. They put out a statement saying "A firm of no win, no fee lawyers are hoping to challenge our award-winning reputation as an equal opportunities employer."
That's not to say there's no case to answer, just that the lady on the radio didn't get the campaign off to the best start.
drawing on the idea that law firms that attempt landmark cases for clients with no funds are dodgy crooks. Like would it be better if they'd asked loads of workers on minimum wage to come up with money in advance? Or if the case wasn't being heard at all?
it's a matter for an employment tribunal which will be decided based on law (including a body of precedent which suggests the claimants are in a strong position).
Passively discredited the opposition and promoted their own "award-winning reputation" at the same time. They've taken a negative connotation built entirely by ambulance chasers and seamlessly plugged it into this conversation.
Used to see this one female asda worker who must have been pulling about 60hrs a week. Some days she was really friendly,other times really rude. Turned out ASDA TWINS
cases as Birmingham city council.
Birminghams case was more clear cut in some ways........take the example of dinner staff (ladies) cw refuse disposal officers (dustmen)
people who collect bins are almost universally Men
people who cook and serve dinners are nearly universally women (there are more men in agency staff that are used as cover)
dustmen used to get quite a descent wage
dinner staff used to get a desultory wage
this amounts to discrimination, because the jobs are far more commesurate than you would think (due to simplistic, niave argument)...if you doubt this then I can elaborate.
In Asda's case the genders are more mixed in the roles, but it might still be a significant enough division to amount to indirect discrimination......this degree of division of gender within the roles should be measured by people with the full sets of figures, which I do not have.
sub firms. I was a shift leader of computer operations.
One of the printing tasks was printing off cheques/payslips.....the printers used to use continuous stationary with sprocket holes, sometimes the printers would be tetchy and would require monitoring to adjust stop if the sprocket holes failed to guide correctly.......an intensly boring job, soo you would just look at the numbers on the cheques/payslips rolling along........you start to spot patterns......you start to play a game, whereby you would try to predict the gender of the employee by the amount they were paid.......in the end you were able to predict entirely accurately when an employee was a woman (the only exception in the group of companies was our own (which was a limited computer company which did have some female programmers).....but the point was, that women occupied ALL of the other low paid roles, whether or not some of this could be justified by skill as irrelevant, as this was a very very large group of companies with a lot of employees, so not ALL of this inequality (or the degree of the equality) could be justified.
It was sexist to the detriment of women......such much overt inequalities may have been in the past but it doesn't mean that it doesn't still continue, albeit to a lesser and less provably/demonstrable way, doesn't mean it shouldn't be examined properly though.
obviously I didn't pay attention to their names, just their gender.
PS interestingly a similar bias shows itself with customers of 'exclusive banks'
when you handle large numbers of excessively high value cheques, then you can see a similar almost exclusively male bias (I am sure that this has now ceased to be as exclusive, as I am aware of there being some very prominent 'fund managers' being women, and fund managers get to deal in the very largest amounts of money)
doesn't think men/women should be paid the same for doing the same job. Excitingly, I get paid less than everyone at my level though (11 women/1 man), and get paid less than the a woman whos well below me in seniority in the same team :0
yeah that's another fucker about capitalism, them using pay differentials to 'dance on your hind legs to their tune'
"cmon boy, jump through this hoop if you wanna get paid a bit more"
Ahh the noble and magnificent muscled human make eh?
of course they deserve more pay than sedentary ever sitting down gossipy women (cashiers) eh?
and of course they deserve more than dirty slovenly untouchable toilet cleaners, after all someone has to be at the bottom in the shit eh?
(this is of course not what I think, just extrapolation of Pencils shitty argument.........cleaning other peoples toilets is NOT EASY to do as a job, it should not be paid a desultory wage just because no-one wants to do it as a job, this society still has a shitty attitude towards humans in many ways)