Equal Pay for Equal Work

[Mudball]

update... I think this has become more interesting and i had some wrong info. (always helps to go drinking after work).

Internal Promotee A is not white and is older than new hire B (white bloke) but B 'looks old'. B was poached from competition with lure of high $. However in the last 2 years that he has been around A has been outperforming B.. I confirmed they do exactly the same job in the team and have same targets. I know Sales guys are on comission, but I would be surprised if it is a commission-only company. They will have decent bases.

I wish their HR well... i can see this go to tribunal

 

[Mudball]

On a related note, and also thinking about the Boiler thread where the OP started with good relationship with his manager and then soured. I was thinking of what I would do if I was A. I am lucky to have a very good relationship with my Manager and we do go golfing together. I also know generally how much my peers get. There is always someone above and someone below the 'band'. ... But if I were A and ridiculously below the Band, then I wonder if I will go to ET. I would speak to my manager. He may or may not be able to help - since 'we are a global company and my hands are tied'. But it is not in my nature to sue the company and by proxy sue my manager. While i think it is not a personal attack, i would struggle to go back to work with anyone in the office after an ET. Also first instance of issues at my end, would be a P45.

I wonder what the Boiler OP finally did with his manager

 

[TheDiablo]

I am a sales director. Of the 11 salespeople that roll up into me, each and every one is on a different base salary. There is so much more that goes into base salary than what has been outlined so far. I would be amazed if anyone could take a successful case against their employer without very clear and obvious evidence that they are being discriminated against due to their characteristics.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

update... I think this has become more interesting and i had some wrong info. (always helps to go drinking after work).

Internal Promotee A is not white and is older than new hire B (white bloke) but B 'looks old'. B was poached from competition with lure of high $. However in the last 2 years that he has been around A has been outperforming B.. I confirmed they do exactly the same job in the team and have same targets. I know Sales guys are on comission, but I would be surprised if it is a commission-only company. They will have decent bases.

I wish their HR well... i can see this go to tribunal

I suspect at the end of the day, A needs to go their boss and ask for parity. If the boss says no then A will start looking for work elsewhere. It's as simple as that really.

It's up to the company to decide whether A is worth keeping or not. Based on what you have said, give that person a rise. To not give parity would seem pretty short sighted, based on the info given.

 

[Mudball]

I am a sales director. Of the 11 salespeople that roll up into me, each and every one is on a different base salary. There is so much more that goes into base salary than what has been outlined so far. I would be amazed if anyone could take a successful case against their employer without very clear and obvious evidence that they are being discriminated against due to their characteristics.

I have a very matrix organisation and we have no transparency in pay... It is sometimes funny when working on project, some of the folks who report to me or sometimes the people who I am about to hire - actually earn more than me. But that is the nature of the work I do.

I agree, difficult to make a judgement based on what i heard over a few beers... so moving onto more interesting thread.

 

[Voyager EMH]

If the company has a grievance procedure then it is necessary to go through all stages of that before applying to Employment Tribunal.
From the moment you start the grievance procedure you will be regarded as a nuisance.
If you go to ET then you will be treated as a threat and an enemy. This route is not for the faint-hearted.
Before you embark on either you must be prepared to leave their employ even if you "win".
I speak from personal experience.
"Part-time Workers Prevention Of Less Favourable Treatment Act".
I applied for ET and there was a 1-hour initial hearing where a date for a 3-day trial was set.
In the end they settled out of court with a termination of employment by mutual agreement. I signed a non-disclosure clause so I can not reveal the terms.
I represented myself throughout.
I was planning for retirement anyway, but I imagine it might have been tricky getting work in that line again.
Being supine was never in my character - if I know something "quite wrong" is going on I feel I must do something about it.
More often than not - that has worked against me career-wise.
I hate injustice.
There is a huge raft of employment regulations, but no enforcement agency.
There are hardly any penalties, if employers are in breach of regulations.
Rulings from ETs that favour the worker usually set out what the employer should have been paying the worker and no more.
By short-paying people, employers can get away with it for as long as they like.
They do not suffer when their wrong doing is found out, they merely pay the worker what was rightfully due.
While they get away with short paying they make real savings.
The worker's career might be forever blighted in one way or another after an ET - win or lose.

If there is discrimination with regard to a protected characteristic, then "injury to feelings" compensation might be payable according to the Vento Guidelines. This can be substantial.

The whole system of Employment Regulations and Employment Tribunals is not fit for purpose in my opinion.
What we need is an "Ofemploy" agency that workers can contact anonymously and penalties imposed for negligent employers with regard to breaches of employment law.
It is not an easy thing to take your employer to court while continuing to be employed by them. (Understatement of the year)
A system of employment law that so greatly favours the wealthier and more powerful side does not sit well with me.
It is not the law that favours either way - it is the system of operating that law that is flawed.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Always think it is wrong that a hard working 17 year old gets £5 an hour less than a lazy 21 year old.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Always think it is wrong that a hard working 17 year old gets £5 an hour less than a lazy 21 year old.

Ultimately that is down to the boss. If they want to keep the hard working 17yr old, there is nothing to stop them paying more than minimum wage. The minimum wage is the starting point, it doesn't have to stop there.

 

[Voyager EMH]

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Ultimately that is down to the boss. If they want to keep the hard working 17yr old, there is nothing to stop them paying more than minimum wage. The minimum wage is the starting point, it doesn't have to stop there.

But then all the other lazy 17 year olds must get the same rate.
Rinse and repeat.

 

[Swango1980]

Always think it is wrong that a hard working 17 year old gets £5 an hour less than a lazy 21 year old.

At least the 17yr old has another 4 years of youth to live on the 21 Yr old. And, by end of it, they can have an increased salary and be a bit lazier. Not all bad news

 

[williamalex1]

Should all football players be paid the same.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But then all the other lazy 17 year olds must get the same rate.
Rinse and repeat.

Why? If someone is a hard worker, pay them more. If they just do the basics, that is reflected in their pay. You can pay different wages based on quality of work, you just can't make that decision based on other factors, gender, race etc.

 

[SocketRocket]

Should all football players be paid the same.

Yes, minimum wage.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Why? If someone is a hard worker, pay them more. If they just do the basics, that is reflected in their pay. You can pay different wages based on quality of work, you just can't make that decision based on other factors, gender, race etc.

I was talking in general.........I do not think that many employers pay more than the legal requirement for the majority of low payed jobs.

 

[GreiginFife]

Odd one I discussed today. My mate works in engineering, they have 4 apprentices in their 2nd years. Three male, one female. All are paid the same.

The female has raised an inequality complaint (this is their discrimination policy), this is about being asked to do the same work as the males. In this case, it was being asked to lift and seat a pipe cap head.

Not one person in their HR teams knows what to do.

 

[Voyager EMH]

If she can perform the task to the best of her ability, with no greater risk to herself and suffer no detriment in respect of being physically weaker - then there is no case for the employer to answer.
Not surprising that HR team knows not what to do.
They are usually very clear on what employment regulations they are attempting to circumvent on behalf of the employer. In this case - unlikely that any exist.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Odd one I discussed today. My mate works in engineering, they have 4 apprentices in their 2nd years. Three male, one female. All are paid the same.

The female has raised an inequality complaint (this is their discrimination policy), this is about being asked to do the same work as the males. In this case, it was being asked to lift and seat a pipe cap head.

Not one person in their HR teams knows what to do.

Tell her to go and read the handbook and legislation again. Then ask what is discriminatory about being asked to do the same tasks? A bit like a dodgy rule situation in golf, ask her to show the ruling in the book. She is talking nonsense.

Why are HR in a muddle?

 

[chellie]

Tell her to go and read the handbook and legislation again. Then ask what is discriminatory about being asked to do the same tasks? A bit like a dodgy rule situation in golf, ask her to show the ruling in the book. She is talking nonsense.

Why are HR in a muddle?

This. Also, surely it shouldn't be being discussed by anyone outside of work.

 

[GreiginFife]

Tell her to go and read the handbook and legislation again. Then ask what is discriminatory about being asked to do the same tasks? A bit like a dodgy rule situation in golf, ask her to show the ruling in the book. She is talking nonsense.

Why are HR in a muddle?

Their HR don’t want to upset anyone on grounds of equality by all accounts.

We know it’s daft, we can see the idiocy in this. They don’t and sadly their “handbook” doesn’t cover heavy lifting tasks by gender. It’s almost like it’s assumed that people will understand the common sense approach.