• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Should the mostly women at Tesco be given arthritis with their £4 billion settlement?

Can you quit with the nonsense of attempting to rebut without considering context??
First, there is no context - the facts of the situation are unknown at this time because the particulars of the lawsuit are not yet public. Second, I simply asked a question.

Perhaps you should quit with the nonsense of attempting to rebut without actually reading the content of the post.
The issue was that men are more likely to be in the higher-paid distribution center jobs and women are more likely to be in the lower-paid retail jobs. They are claiming discrimination based on this. Thus they are arguing the numbers should be equal.
To my knowledge (and I could be wrong), no one has argued that the numbers should be equal. They are arguing there is no a priori reason to assume that men are automatically better suited for warehouse jobs than women. Equal numbers does not follow from that position.

Perhaps you should follow your advice and consider the actual context (i.e. content of the posts) instead of your assumptions when responding to posts.
 
Bigger hint: I worked on the receiving dock for a department store unloading trucks and handling freight, my sister worked in a distribution center warehouse as a picker, my mother-in-law worked for over 10 years in a stockroom bundling and shipping freight, and I know a gal who worked in a slaughterhouse hanging sides of beef on meat hooks. Higher paying jobs attract applicants of all genders. Plenty of women are fully capable of doing those jobs as well as the average guy, especially in this day and age of decent working conditions and safety standards.

If women are being offered lower paying positions and men are being offered better paying positions as a matter of course, then there's a problem.

I have done all of those jobs (except my meatworks job was mostly handling mutton, rather than 1/4 beef); and I have had female colleagues in all of them.

Even two decades ago, few warehouses in the UK or Australia required staff to lift more than 15kg without assistance (either mechanical or human). The meatworks was the exception, but while the loads were often very heavy - a ram carcass can be 70kg, although sheep are generally closer to 40kg - they don't need to be lifted; you carry them on your back, and as they hang from hooks, you only need to lift a couple of inches at the pickup and set down - your back stays straight throughout. Chilled carcasses are easy; Frozen ones are much harder (both figuratively and literally). On the other hand, frozen carcasses bleed on you much less, so the work is cleaner.

Regardless, the average woman is easily physically capable of any work that meets modern health and safety standards for lifting.

There are no regulations in the US on how much an employee can be required to lift, and 100 lbs in not uncommon. There are also no such weight limits in the UK. In fact, the only regulations relate managing variable levels of risk given the situation. The UK Health and Safety Executive explicitly states that the "risk" varies by "the individual carrying out the handling operation", with "strength" being the first factor they list. IOW, the law makes employers more liable the lesser the strength of the employee. Whether that person could perform the task at all (has the minimum required strength) is irrelevant. What matters is the amount of risk to them when doing it, which is directly tied to their level of strength. Since the average male has more lifting strength than the average woman, the risk assessment is higher and the employee more open to liability by having an average women do the job rather than an average man.

And 50-100 lbs is extremely common. In fact, a single box of printer paper weighs 50 lbs and you would be hard pressed to find an employer who doesn't expect his warehouse workers to carry a box of paper on their own.
While an average women could do that once, it still increases "risk" that employers are required to minimize. And being able to lift it once isn't really the issue. They may need to lift it 100 times in an hour which is required to either load or unload such boxes to/from a pallet. And then immediately move to other countless tasks requiring significant use of upper body strength for the remaining 7 hours of the work day. Then repeat this every day of the week.

I am fully aware of what used to be (and apparently still is in the USA) considered normal and reasonable as regards lifting, and I have the chronic spinal injuries to prove it.

Individuals (particularly young men) are completely unqualified to assess the risk of repetitive lifting of heavy weights at work.

In the developed world this is now understood and reasonable limits are recommended (albeit not always enforced). As usual, it is unwise to look at the USA for guidance on the wellbeing of employees, other than as an exemplar of what NOT to do.
 
There are no regulations in the US on how much an employee can be required to lift, and 100 lbs in not uncommon. There are also no such weight limits in the UK. In fact, the only regulations relate managing variable levels of risk given the situation. The UK Health and Safety Executive explicitly states that the "risk" varies by "the individual carrying out the handling operation", with "strength" being the first factor they list. IOW, the law makes employers more liable the lesser the strength of the employee. Whether that person could perform the task at all (has the minimum required strength) is irrelevant. What matters is the amount of risk to them when doing it, which is directly tied to their level of strength. Since the average male has more lifting strength than the average woman, the risk assessment is higher and the employee more open to liability by having an average women do the job rather than an average man.

And 50-100 lbs is extremely common. In fact, a single box of printer paper weighs 50 lbs and you would be hard pressed to find an employer who doesn't expect his warehouse workers to carry a box of paper on their own.
While an average women could do that once, it still increases "risk" that employers are required to minimize. And being able to lift it once isn't really the issue. They may need to lift it 100 times in an hour which is required to either load or unload such boxes to/from a pallet. And then immediately move to other countless tasks requiring significant use of upper body strength for the remaining 7 hours of the work day. Then repeat this every day of the week.

I am fully aware of what used to be (and apparently still is in the USA) considered normal and reasonable as regards lifting, and I have the chronic spinal injuries to prove it.

Individuals (particularly young men) are completely unqualified to assess the risk of repetitive lifting of heavy weights at work.

In the developed world this is now understood and reasonable limits are recommended (albeit not always enforced). As usual, it is unwise to look at the USA for guidance on the wellbeing of employees, other than as an exemplar of what NOT to do.

The link I provided was for the UK, which clearly says that there are no general limits (not even recommended ones) because they rationally understand that the limits are highly dependent on the strength of the person. That means that the limits will be significantly lower on average for females, which means that employers open themselves up to greater risk on average with female employees unless they ask less of females and thus get less work done.

There is no remotely valid medical basis on which to make any general weight limit recommendations because there are too many variables beyond weight, such as the dimensions of the object, how far and high it's being carried, how many repetitions, etc.. The only constant is that people with more strength will be at less risk under almost all circumstances.
 
Regardless, the average woman is easily physically capable of any work that meets modern health and safety standards for lifting.

Quoted for truth. That the average man is stongER than the average woman is irrelevant for every situation in which she is strong ENOUGH.

I was denied a warehouse job when I was younger. “We don’t hire women for that job.” They didn’t ask how big I was, or how many cases of motor oil I could stack in a day and had been for the last year. Just - “you are woman, no dice.”

I don’t have any faith in their rguments (or those here) that say some average should dictate hires.
 
Regardless, the average woman is easily physically capable of any work that meets modern health and safety standards for lifting.

Quoted for truth. That the average man is stongER than the average woman is irrelevant for every situation in which she is strong ENOUGH.

.

Completely false, as the information I already provided shows (not to mention basic common sense). The issue is not simply what a person can lift with maximal exertion one time, but rather how much risk is involved with not just a given lift but repeated lifting, often hundreds of times per day. The only safety standards that exist (and the only ones that could be scientifically/medically justified) are those which state that there is no particular weight limit but rather what is "safe" or puts the employee "at risk" depends directly upon the variable strength of the employee. This means that the safety limits are much higher for the average male than female, given that the average males has twice the upper body strength and 50% more lower body strength than the average female.

Given the massive range of strength among people, an employer can (and in any rational world should be able to) hire a person to engage in repeated lifting that is safe for a subset of the population, while not safe for others and not even possible for some. The basic facts of biology mean that the "safe" subset will be mostly male and the other subsets will be mostly female.

And even when the type of lifting falls within a possible "safe" range for everyone, that determination is so subjective that employers can still be vulnerable to liability, and that potential for liability is directly tied to the strength of the person, and thus is a higher risk with female employees on average.
 
Regardless, the average woman is easily physically capable of any work that meets modern health and safety standards for lifting.

Quoted for truth. That the average man is stongER than the average woman is irrelevant for every situation in which she is strong ENOUGH.

.

Completely false, as the information I already provided shows (not to mention basic common sense). The issue is not simply what a person can lift with maximal exertion one time, but rather how much risk is involved with not just a given lift but repeated lifting, often hundreds of times per day...
If someone is strong enough to do the job, that means she or he can handle the demand of the job which includes repeated lifting. Hence your reply is based on a false premise.
 
If someone is strong enough to do the job, that means she or he can handle the demand of the job which includes repeated lifting. Hence your reply is based on a false premise.

But if more men fit that description, more men will be hired for the job. Therefore it is not sexist to see warehouse jobs being dominated by men. Neither is it sexist to pay these jobs more because they require heavy lifting, unlike cashiers.
 
I think that having shorter hours for the same daily pay makes sense for people who are actually doing physically demanding jobs is sensible. Joint wear and tear will become an issue even for very muscularly strong people.
 
If someone is strong enough to do the job, that means she or he can handle the demand of the job which includes repeated lifting. Hence your reply is based on a false premise.

But if more men fit that description, more men will be hired for the job. Therefore it is not sexist to see warehouse jobs being dominated by men. Neither is it sexist to pay these jobs more because they require heavy lifting, unlike cashiers.
The pay of a job ought to depend on the interaction of the demand for the skills and the supply of the skills. There is nothing inherent in the ability to lift heavy items that requires more pay in a job. In a free market for labor, the higher pay for the warehouse jobs would not necessarily depend on the ability to lift heavier items - it depends on the demand for and supply of labor. In a free market, it is possible that the wages for heavy lifting jobs would be lower than wages for a cashier. Hence your argument as presented is sexist.
 
If someone is strong enough to do the job, that means she or he can handle the demand of the job which includes repeated lifting. Hence your reply is based on a false premise.

But if more men fit that description, more men will be hired for the job. Therefore it is not sexist to see warehouse jobs being dominated by men. Neither is it sexist to pay these jobs more because they require heavy lifting, unlike cashiers.
The pay of a job ought to depend on the interaction of the demand for the skills and the supply of the skills. There is nothing inherent in the ability to lift heavy items that requires more pay in a job. In a free market for labor, the higher pay for the warehouse jobs would not necessarily depend on the ability to lift heavier items - it depends on the demand for and supply of labor. In a free market, it is possible that the wages for heavy lifting jobs would be lower than wages for a cashier. Hence your argument as presented is sexist.



So can we get over the idea that a corporation only cares about the bottom line then? Shouldn't the company hire everybody at the 8 pounds an hour to lift boxes in the backroom or 8 pounds an hour to be a cashier?

We'll have to wait to see what they argue. Did the company allow women to be in the warehouse and why or why not?
 
The pay of a job ought to depend on the interaction of the demand for the skills and the supply of the skills.
True. Literally nobody claimed otherwise.
However, pretty much anybody can work as a cashier. The supply of people who can lift things repeatedly is smaller.
There is nothing inherent in the ability to lift heavy items that requires more pay in a job.
Actually there is. Fewer people are willing to and/or capable of doing the job.
In a free market for labor, the higher pay for the warehouse jobs would not necessarily depend on the ability to lift heavier items - it depends on the demand for and supply of labor. In a free market, it is possible that the wages for heavy lifting jobs would be lower than wages for a cashier.
If more people detested working as cashier and more capable people applied for warehouse jobs then you would be right. But that is not what is actually happening, hence higher pay for warehouse workers.
Note that this lawsuits seeks to override free labour market and impose equal pay for jobs with different supply and demand for labour.
You are arguing against your own position and you do not even realize it!

Hence your argument as presented is sexist.
No, it is not. It acknowledges realities that you ignore in name of feminist sexism.
 
Regardless, the average woman is easily physically capable of any work that meets modern health and safety standards for lifting.

Quoted for truth. That the average man is stongER than the average woman is irrelevant for every situation in which she is strong ENOUGH.

I was denied a warehouse job when I was younger. “We don’t hire women for that job.” They didn’t ask how big I was, or how many cases of motor oil I could stack in a day and had been for the last year. Just - “you are woman, no dice.”

I don’t have any faith in their rguments (or those here) that say some average should dictate hires.

How long ago was that? Because these days it should warrant a call to the labor department.
 
True. Literally nobody claimed otherwise.
However, pretty much anybody can work as a cashier. The supply of people who can lift things repeatedly is smaller.
You are making many unsubstantiated assumptions about the nature of the warehouse work for Tesco and the nature of the work for retail people for Tesco

If more people detested working as cashier and more capable people applied for warehouse jobs then you would be right. But that is not what is actually happening, hence higher pay for warehouse workers.
You have no idea what has actually happening, since the facts of the case have not been made public.
Note that this lawsuits seeks to override free labour market and impose equal pay for jobs with different supply and demand for labour.
You are arguing against your own position and you do not even realize it!
Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. It may very well be the case that the lawsuit presents evidence that there was no free market. We simply won't know until the lawsuit is actually filed.

No, it is not.
Your argument is based on your bigoted assumptions about the nature of various types of work at Tesco. It is literally based on the absence of actual evidence. Your assumptions may be accurate or they may be way off base.
It acknowledges realities that you ignore in name of feminist sexism.
Written like a desperate misogynist who cannot acknowledge his profound ignorance.
 
If it's harder more physical work, of course you can pay a bit more for it. I noticed one worker saying, "We have to deal with customers and they don't", but that hardly takes away from one job being more physically demanding. It's not like women are banned from doing those jobs anyway, so if they really want the extra pay is there some big demand from women to switch over to that side of the business? Because if there isn't, if they just want *the money* but not to actually do that kind of work...
 
Completely false, as the information I already provided shows (not to mention basic common sense). The issue is not simply what a person can lift with maximal exertion one time, but rather how much risk is involved with not just a given lift but repeated lifting, often hundreds of times per day...
If someone is strong enough to do the job, that means she or he can handle the demand of the job which includes repeated lifting. Hence your reply is based on a false premise.

Wrong. I explained in detail in multiple posts why my premises are based in law and clear scientific fact. It is in prior posts as well as the rest of my post you cut and didn't bother to process because it doesn't support your faith.
 
Completely false, as the information I already provided shows (not to mention basic common sense). The issue is not simply what a person can lift with maximal exertion one time, but rather how much risk is involved with not just a given lift but repeated lifting, often hundreds of times per day...
If someone is strong enough to do the job, that means she or he can handle the demand of the job which includes repeated lifting. Hence your reply is based on a false premise.

Wrong. I explained in detail in multiple posts why my premises are based in law and clear scientific fact. It is in prior posts as well as the rest of my post you cut and didn't bother to process because it doesn't support your faith.
The condition if someone is strong enough to do the job means that someone can handle the demands of the job whatever those demands are. Otherwise, that person is not strong enough to do the job. One would think that even someone with his head up his ass could understand that basic logic.

You seem intent on proving women on average are not strong enough to the job. Which is irrelevant to the issue since no one arguing that women on average are strong enough to do the job or that all women are strong enough to do the job. Moreover, since no one here has produced an iota of evidence about the actual nature of the warehouse jobs in Tesco which means that no one here (which includes you) knows what level of strength is actually needed to perform a warehouse job for Tesco.

\I have not taken a position on the merits of their case, because their case has yet to be made public. In fact, all that we know is that these women are permitted to file a lawsuit. We do not know if a lawsuit has been filed. It is possible their claims do have merit based on the specific facts of the matter. It is possible their claims have no merit. On the otherhand, you have produced word salad after word salad to support your faith.
 
Have any of the spokes people for this case said that the women wanted to be warehouse workers and were denied? Or have they just said that they should be paid the same?
 
Wrong. I explained in detail in multiple posts why my premises are based in law and clear scientific fact. It is in prior posts as well as the rest of my post you cut and didn't bother to process because it doesn't support your faith.

The condition if someone is strong enough to do the job means that someone can handle the demands of the job whatever those demands are.

And the scientific fact is that the average woman is not strong enough to do many lifting tasks that the average man can do, and those lifting tasks are common in warehouse and in no way prevented by any safety regulations.

One would think that even someone with his head up his ass could understand that basic logic.

One would think that even you are capable of understanding how your "condition" has been proven by science to vary greatly between males and females.

You seem intent on proving women on average are not strong enough to the job.
I don't need to prove that, basic science has done that.

Which is irrelevant to the issue since no one arguing that women on average are strong enough to do the job or that all women are strong enough to do the job.

Wrong again. They absolutely are arguing that and that is precisely the claim I have clearly refuted. Bibly claimed that "the average woman is easily physically capable of any work that meets modern health and safety standards for lifting."

That means he is claiming that every single legal warehouse job in every country with "modern safety standards" is a job that average women can "easily perform" and thus every lifting task that the men do in every one of those jobs can be "easily" lifted by any average women. They "easily" emphasis he put on there also implies that most below average women could do all such lifting, even if with a bit less ease.

The idea that there are modern safety standards of lifting that apply equally to all workers is false. Rather employers are merely expected to use reasonable judgement about what is likely to be safe for a worker, given their strength and other factors.
Since the science clearly shows that men can safely lift much more than women (and more often), that means the law requires employers to ask average female employees not to do jobs that average male employees can do safely. Which in turn means they cannot hire average females to do jobs that they could hire average men to do.


Moreover, since no one here has produced an iota of evidence about the actual nature of the warehouse jobs in Tesco which means that no one here (which includes you) knows what level of strength is actually needed to perform a warehouse job for Tesco.

The discussion is way beyond Tesco. Bibly asserted that women can do any safe and legal warehouse job men can do. I just explained for the third time why this is false. And the discussion should go beyond Tesco, because rational discussions incorporate general facts that are logically relevant to specific situations. Bilby made an assertion about general regulations that would likely apply to Tesco, and I countered with actual evidence that bibly was incorrect and that the general regulations actually state that employers should make variable safety judgments based on the person's strength. That regulation makes it highly relevant that average females can safely lift much less weight (and fewer reps) than average males. All of this is relevant to bibly's comment, but also to Tesco. Tesco is a major supermarket chain that like all such chains has warehouses where workers spend much of their day lifting and moving objects, plenty of which require considerable exertion even for an average male. And no matter the weight of each fully unpacked unit, workers typically lift and move multiple smaller units at once. The person's strength directly determines how many units they can safely lift and thus how much it costs the employer to have the task completed (thus the value of that worker).

Even thought we do not know the specifics of the lawsuit, we do know that Tesco (like almost all warehouses) has both the right and responsibility to have male employees perform common warehouse tasks that the average female could not do safely with the same efficiency.

On the otherhand, you have produced word salad after word salad to support your faith.

The fact that my clear logic seems like "word salad" to you indicates that you should either check your meds or check your high school diploma for signs of forgery.
 
And the scientific fact is that the average woman is not strong enough to do many lifting tasks that the average man can do, and those lifting tasks are common in warehouse and in no way prevented by any safety regulations. ....
Apparently you are incapable of understanding that The condition if someone is strong enough to do the job means that someone can handle the demands of the job whatever those demands are. Otherwise, that person is not strong enough to do the job. Which means I was wrong when I wrote " One would think that even someone with his head up his ass could understand that basic logic."
 
And the scientific fact is that the average woman is not strong enough to do many lifting tasks that the average man can do, and those lifting tasks are common in warehouse and in no way prevented by any safety regulations. ....
Apparently you are incapable of understanding that The condition if someone is strong enough to do the job means that someone can handle the demands of the job whatever those demands are. Otherwise, that person is not strong enough to do the job. Which means I was wrong when I wrote " One would think that even someone with his head up his ass could understand that basic logic."

I understand it just fine, which is why I provided legal and biological evidence showing that males and females differ greatly in whether they are likely to meet those conditions. Which given the well known realities of many warehouse jobs, means that most warehouses would and should have notably more male than female employees, both in order to get the jobs done and to be in compliance with safety regulations.
 
Back
Top Bottom