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

[Loren Pechtel]

You're assuming the working conditions in one are substantially better than the other. But even if that's the case and stores have to offer higher pay to staff their warehouses, the higher pay will attract job seekers of all genders. And anyway, we're talking about a largely unskilled workforce working for an hourly wage, not salaried employees.

There's no reason a woman can't pick goods off a warehouse shelf or a man can't place those same goods on a shelf in a grocery store.

We aren't assuming, we know the working conditions are better for the cashiers. More comfortable environment, far less lifting.

You are assuming that people will apply for the distribution center jobs in equal numbers. Hint: In the distribution center you're handling product in cases. The person placing goods on the shelf spends most of their time placing individual items, not cases. Reality: On average, men are stronger than women. Thus you would expect to see more men in the distribution center, more women as cashiers. It's a simple example of comparative advantage at work.

 

[Toni]

Well yeah, if you have to offer a higher wage to get trained meat cutters to agree to work for you then that's what you're going to do. But if you have plenty of applicants for basic entry-level jobs that require no special skills or training, then valid reasons for paying the men more than the women are going to be hard to come by.

You are assuming there are plenty of applicants.

Offer what you are offering cashiers for distribution warehouse work and you'll find the pool just about empty. Given the equal salary everyone would prefer to be a cashier.

Oh, that’s not true at all! I actually know a couple of people who work warehouse jobs. I don’t think you could pay them
enough to be a cashier and have to deal with the public and customers.

 

[bilby]

Well yeah, if you have to offer a higher wage to get trained meat cutters to agree to work for you then that's what you're going to do. But if you have plenty of applicants for basic entry-level jobs that require no special skills or training, then valid reasons for paying the men more than the women are going to be hard to come by.

You are assuming there are plenty of applicants.

Offer what you are offering cashiers for distribution warehouse work and you'll find the pool just about empty. Given the equal salary everyone would prefer to be a cashier.

Oh, that’s not true at all! I actually know a couple of people who work warehouse jobs. I don’t think you could pay them
enough to be a cashier and have to deal with the public and customers.

I worked in a grocery warehouse as a stock picker for a couple of years. It's hard work, but not more so than plenty of other jobs; and I wouldn't have preferred to work as a cashier if it had paid ten times as much, for exactly the reason you give. Heavy lifting, dirt, and tedium are all just part of the job. But don't ask me to smile while doing it; or to be polite to rude idiots.

 

[ronburgundy]

From the ASDA link:
"Leigh Day, which represents 7,000 mainly female workers from Asda’s stores, says they are now able to lodge claims that they are paid less than other employees for doing “women’s work”.

The female workers in Asda’s shops say they are paid less than the mostly male workers in its distribution warehouses, despite their jobs being of “equal value”."

It appears the issue hinges on how one determines value. Is it a function of how heavy a box an employee can lift? How many transactions an employee can complete in an hour? How many items pass through an employees hands on their way to the sales floor or to a paying customer? How much value an employee adds through their skills as a meat cutter or fishmonger or pharmacist tech or childcare provider at the in-store supervised play area? It's not an easy call.

Salary isn't based on value. It's really based on demand. For example, often times a science or math teacher will be paid more than a music teacher because there are fewer math teachers than music. In the discussed case, it's generally more difficult to get people to work in a warehouse than in an air conditioned retail store.

You're assuming the working conditions in one are substantially better than the other. But even if that's the case and stores have to offer higher pay to staff their warehouses, the higher pay will attract job seekers of all genders. And anyway, we're talking about a largely unskilled workforce working for an hourly wage, not salaried employees.

There's no reason a woman can't pick goods off a warehouse shelf or a man can't place those same goods on a shelf in a grocery store.

Warehouse work often requires lifting heavy boxes repeatedly all day, which women are most definitely less likely to be capable of, even though some women are and some men are not. Women are also much less likely to want to do such work than men. In addition, some warehouse jobs, like a lift driver, are skilled and require certification that men are far more likely to have.
It would be rather amazing if the number capable male applicants to the warehouse jobs were not 5-10 fold greater than the number of female applicants.

 

[bilby]

You're assuming the working conditions in one are substantially better than the other. But even if that's the case and stores have to offer higher pay to staff their warehouses, the higher pay will attract job seekers of all genders. And anyway, we're talking about a largely unskilled workforce working for an hourly wage, not salaried employees.

There's no reason a woman can't pick goods off a warehouse shelf or a man can't place those same goods on a shelf in a grocery store.

Warehouse work often requires lifting heavy boxes repeatedly all day, which women are most definitely less likely to be capable of, even though some women are and some men are not. Women are also much less likely to want to do such work than men. In addition, some warehouse jobs, like a lift driver, are skilled and require certification that men are far more likely to have.
It would be rather amazing if the number capable male applicants to the warehouse jobs were not 5-10 fold greater than the number of female applicants.

In my experience (as a certified forklift operator), women make better forklift drivers - they tend to cause less damage and to be generally more safety conscious than men.

The amount of stock damaged by forklift driver error is enormous, and injury and death are still worryingly common.

Fewer certifications amongst women are an effect of more men working in the field, not a cause of it.

 

[laughing dog]

We aren't assuming, we know the working conditions are better for the cashiers. More comfortable environment, far less lifting.

You are making assumptions about the working conditions and the type of work. You are assuming the environment is more comfortable for retail workers (which is a questionable assumption) and you are making assumptions about the frequency, type and weight of lifting. You have no idea what the conditions are in Tesco's warehouses or retail outlets or the actual work involved in question, You have no idea what the factual claims are in the lawsuit because they have not been made public.

But I must admire the courage it takes to not let that complete lack of actual knowledge deter you from opining about the situation.

 

[J842P]

But even if that's the case and stores have to offer higher pay to staff their warehouses, the higher pay will attract job seekers of all genders.

Well sure, but we have no reason to believe that the proportion of males and females will be equal. Indeed, if the job requires upper-body strength, we have many good reasons to believe that the proportion of males vs females able to do the work will be significantly skewed. Even within the group of women that *can* do the job, there might be reason to believe that the proportion of women willing to do the job could be lower. Indeed, most people in general who are able to do that job likely won't want to.

 

[Arctish]

You're assuming the working conditions in one are substantially better than the other. But even if that's the case and stores have to offer higher pay to staff their warehouses, the higher pay will attract job seekers of all genders. And anyway, we're talking about a largely unskilled workforce working for an hourly wage, not salaried employees.

There's no reason a woman can't pick goods off a warehouse shelf or a man can't place those same goods on a shelf in a grocery store.

We aren't assuming, we know the working conditions are better for the cashiers. More comfortable environment, far less lifting.

You are assuming that people will apply for the distribution center jobs in equal numbers. Hint: In the distribution center you're handling product in cases. The person placing goods on the shelf spends most of their time placing individual items, not cases. Reality: On average, men are stronger than women. Thus you would expect to see more men in the distribution center, more women as cashiers. It's a simple example of comparative advantage at work.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

But even if that's the case and stores have to offer higher pay to staff their warehouses, the higher pay will attract job seekers of all genders.

Well sure, but we have no reason to believe that the proportion of males and females will be equal. Indeed, if the job requires upper-body strength, we have many good reasons to believe that the proportion of males vs females able to do the work will be significantly skewed. Even within the group of women that *can* do the job, there might be reason to believe that the proportion of women willing to do the job could be lower. Indeed, most people in general who are able to do that job likely won't want to.

Can you point to where someone argued that proportion of males to females should be equal?

 

[bilby]

You're assuming the working conditions in one are substantially better than the other. But even if that's the case and stores have to offer higher pay to staff their warehouses, the higher pay will attract job seekers of all genders. And anyway, we're talking about a largely unskilled workforce working for an hourly wage, not salaried employees.

There's no reason a woman can't pick goods off a warehouse shelf or a man can't place those same goods on a shelf in a grocery store.

We aren't assuming, we know the working conditions are better for the cashiers. More comfortable environment, far less lifting.

You are assuming that people will apply for the distribution center jobs in equal numbers. Hint: In the distribution center you're handling product in cases. The person placing goods on the shelf spends most of their time placing individual items, not cases. Reality: On average, men are stronger than women. Thus you would expect to see more men in the distribution center, more women as cashiers. It's a simple example of comparative advantage at work.

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.

 

[Derec]

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.

But that's not what the lawsuit is about. They are not saying they sought distribution center jobs and were passed over because of their gender. They do not want to work in the distribution center. They want to work as cashiers, but still collect the pay of a distribution center worker.

 

[LordKiran]

Oh, that’s not true at all! I actually know a couple of people who work warehouse jobs. I don’t think you could pay them
enough to be a cashier and have to deal with the public and customers.

I worked in a grocery warehouse as a stock picker for a couple of years. It's hard work, but not more so than plenty of other jobs; and I wouldn't have preferred to work as a cashier if it had paid ten times as much, for exactly the reason you give. Heavy lifting, dirt, and tedium are all just part of the job. But don't ask me to smile while doing it; or to be polite to rude idiots.

One time when working as a cashier an elderly couple came up to the register, the man towered over me in size and weight. He asked for cigarettes, I told him he needed an ID and he was rather incredulous about it, being an elderly man who shouldn't have to prove his age to me (In the interest of fairness this is correct.) I explained to this man that even if my father came up to the line and wanted cigarettes I would be obligated by my job and employer to card him to, he then insisted that I must not have a father and doubled down after a rather surprised "Pardon?"

At this point I took a breath and held it in, I resolved myself to be professional and just get through this without an incident. Then he threw his money at me rather than simply handing it in. Now I had reached my upper limit in what I was willing to tolerate. I was still trying to hold my tongue but it came out in another way instead when I threw his receipt right back at him. He looked about ready to leap over the register and strangle me, said something about 'young punks' before the wife finally wrangled him in. To this day I still smile about that. It was very cathartic to assert myself even in such a small way even if I shouldn't have.


That all said I will never work retail again if I can possibly help it. It doesn't pay nearly well enough for some of the bullshit you have to deal with.

 

[Arctish]

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.

But that's not what the lawsuit is about. They are not saying they sought distribution center jobs and were passed over because of their gender. They do not want to work in the distribution center. They want to work as cashiers, but still collect the pay of a distribution center worker.

Like I said earlier, we won't know the actual arguments or get to see the evidence until the lawsuit goes to trial, but it appears to be based on the value of the work being performed rather than the physical exertion required to perform it. Measuring the value of each job and comparing them fairly is going to be tricky.

Speaking personally, I think the position of in-store child care provider is enormously undervalued. I always shopped at a certain local store because my kid could go into the supervised play area and have fun while I was getting the groceries. I've met many other parents who did the same. One employee in particular was very good with children, so much so that I tried to time my shopping trips to coincide with her schedule. But how do you measure her contribution to the store's profitability? I'd say she had at least as much to do with customer loyalty as anyone else who worked there, and probably more than most. She had skill, but was not paid the same as a skilled worker in one of the other departments.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

But that's not what the lawsuit is about. They are not saying they sought distribution center jobs and were passed over because of their gender. They do not want to work in the distribution center. They want to work as cashiers, but still collect the pay of a distribution center worker.

Like I said earlier, we won't know the actual arguments or get to see the evidence until the lawsuit goes to trial, but it appears to be based on the value of the work being performed rather than the physical exertion required to perform it. Measuring the value of each job and comparing them fairly is going to be tricky.

Speaking personally, I think the position of in-store child care provider is enormously undervalued. I always shopped at a certain local store because my kid could go into the supervised play area and have fun while I was getting the groceries. I've met many other parents who did the same. One employee in particular was very good with children, so much so that I tried to time my shopping trips to coincide with her schedule. But how do you measure her contribution to the store's profitability? I'd say she had at least as much to do with customer loyalty as anyone else who worked there, and probably more than most. She had skill, but was not paid the same as a skilled worker in one of the other departments.

But pay isn't based on value. It's based on supply and demand. I do a lot of the hiring for my medical products company. We are near desperate for a very specialized mechanical engineer (materials flow). We'd hire an experienced one right now at $150,000 a year or more. They are very hard to find. However, they aren't the most valuable. Our most valuable workers are our new products guys, but we are flush with them now.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

But that's not what the lawsuit is about. They are not saying they sought distribution center jobs and were passed over because of their gender. They do not want to work in the distribution center. They want to work as cashiers, but still collect the pay of a distribution center worker.

Actually without knowing the specifics of the lawsuit, we don't know what the lawsuit is really about.

 

[Derec]

Actually without knowing the specifics of the lawsuit, we don't know what the lawsuit is really about.

The articles on it give a pretty good overview of what the lawsuit is about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're assuming the working conditions in one are substantially better than the other. But even if that's the case and stores have to offer higher pay to staff their warehouses, the higher pay will attract job seekers of all genders. And anyway, we're talking about a largely unskilled workforce working for an hourly wage, not salaried employees.

There's no reason a woman can't pick goods off a warehouse shelf or a man can't place those same goods on a shelf in a grocery store.

We aren't assuming, we know the working conditions are better for the cashiers. More comfortable environment, far less lifting.

You are assuming that people will apply for the distribution center jobs in equal numbers. Hint: In the distribution center you're handling product in cases. The person placing goods on the shelf spends most of their time placing individual items, not cases. Reality: On average, men are stronger than women. Thus you would expect to see more men in the distribution center, more women as cashiers. It's a simple example of comparative advantage at work.

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.

Some certainly are which is why such jobs aren't 100% male. On average, though, men are stronger than women. Furthermore, on average men are bigger than women and the ratio of the weight of the item to your body weight definitely matters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But even if that's the case and stores have to offer higher pay to staff their warehouses, the higher pay will attract job seekers of all genders.

Well sure, but we have no reason to believe that the proportion of males and females will be equal. Indeed, if the job requires upper-body strength, we have many good reasons to believe that the proportion of males vs females able to do the work will be significantly skewed. Even within the group of women that *can* do the job, there might be reason to believe that the proportion of women willing to do the job could be lower. Indeed, most people in general who are able to do that job likely won't want to.

Can you point to where someone argued that proportion of males to females should be equal?

Can you quit with the nonsense of attempting to rebut without considering context??

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

he then insisted that I must not have a father and doubled down after a rather surprised "Pardon?"

Of course not. You're a demon put there to torment him and demons do not normally reproduce sexually. Thus it should be obvious you don't have a father!