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

[laughing dog]

A
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. ...

If you did, you would know your legal and biological evidence bears no relevance to the fact that if someone is strong enough to do the job, then that person is strong enough to meet all the demands of the job because that is what the condition "strong enough to do the job" means. It does not mean that anyone is strong enough to do the job or, that on average, a woman is strong enough to do the job.

To my knowledge, no one is disputing legal or biological facts. Nor is anyone claiming that there is some minimum ratio of male to female warehouse employees based on legal and biological facts. However, there are people making claims about Tesco warehouse jobs without any actual facts about those jobs.

 

[ronburgundy]

A
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. ...

If you did, you would know your legal and biological evidence bears no relevance to the fact that if someone is strong enough to do the job, then that person is strong enough to meet all the demands of the job because that is what the condition "strong enough to do the job" means. It does not mean that anyone is strong enough to do the job or, that on average, a woman is strong enough to do the job.

What has zero relevance to anything is talking about some abstract "if" conditional that means nothing without considering what determines when those "if" conditions are met. It is precisely the legal facts that tie risk to strength and biological facts that link strength to gender that inform when those conditions are likely to be met and that they will be met far more often by males than females. There is no way even you cannot grasp how that is relevant after 5 explications, so it can only be deliberate obfuscation.

To my knowledge, no one is disputing legal or biological facts. Nor is anyone claiming that there is some minimum ratio of male to female warehouse employees based on legal and biological facts.

I just gave you definitive knowledge that there are people disputing the legal and biological facts, which is why I raised evidence of those facts to begin with. So, now you've exposed denying knowledge of things you definitely do have knowledge of.
Until I see a micro-shred of intellectual integrity on your part, I'm done with you.

 

[laughing dog]

What has zero relevance to anything is talking about some abstract "if" conditional that means nothing without considering what determines when those "if" conditions are met....

What started this was your misconstruing what the statement about what "someone being strong enough to do the job" means. It was an easy error to make. But instead of having the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit it, you continued with arrogrance-driven straw men and ad homs.

The reality is your generalized facts and stupid assumptions are not relevant to the specific situation of Tesco or the lawsuit.

 

[Vork]

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?

The claim isn't that anyone was denied a job in the warehouse. It's that they should be paid the same-- there isn't a justification for having different pay for what is typically a male job, compared to what are substantially female jobs in a different part of the business. And of course, if a Tesco warehouse is like other warehouses, (likely you would think), then there arguably is a good reason for paying more for that kind of work, and it isn't some sort of indirect gender discrimination, but rather simply a harder job on the body.

 

[humbleman]

Feminists do not want equal pay for equal work, they want equal pay for lesser work. That's what the 73% claim is all about.
If the women wanted to make 11 pounds, they should have applied for the warehouse jobs, and have been willing to actually do the work. Taking the easier, lesser paid job, and then demanding money 26 years later is ridiculous.

Here in the US women fight for the same: "equality". However, they always have preferences over men.

Surveying a government agency's properties for a job to do, I heard the manager having a big discussion with two laborers about a third one, who was also in the office.

The three employees were laborers, two men and a woman.

She was about 5 foot 3 inches, and the men were both close to 6 foot tall.

The complaint: They always receive the hard work, like moving refrigerators from apartments, carrying heavy black bags with bulk trash, carrying heavy boxes with supplies... while the female laborer was just using a brown to clean stairs in buildings, pulling trash from office cans, cleaning windows, easy light duty tasks. They wanted "equality" because the three of them were receiving the same hourly rate payment.

The manager denied their claims.

Later I knew the union denied their claims.

They started to hold the work, they were transferred, new tall guys replaced them and the little woman continued doing light duty work receiving the same pay like the dudes doing heavy work.

I have no idea what the heck women always complaint about.

 

[Arctish]

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?

The claim isn't that anyone was denied a job in the warehouse. It's that they should be paid the same-- there isn't a justification for having different pay for what is typically a male job, compared to what are substantially female jobs in a different part of the business. And of course, if a Tesco warehouse is like other warehouses, (likely you would think), then there arguably is a good reason for paying more for that kind of work, and it isn't some sort of indirect gender discrimination, but rather simply a harder job on the body.

It might be harder on the body but it's not harder per se. The in-store jobs typically require multitasking and dealing with customers. If you've ever worked in retail you know which is harder, lifting a case of canned corn or dealing with the customer who wants you to give them a discount because corn was on sale last week.

 

[Vork]

I already mentioned someone used that argument-- and I don't personally accept it. Yes some customers can be difficult. But I just don't see that as the same as physically hard work.

I'm all for making it easy for these women (or guys in plenty of cases) to transfer over to the warehouse side at the higher pay rate.

 

[purple_kathryn]

I used to work in tesco as a shelf stacker

I was paid less that someone who worked on the tills as they were class as multi skilled and I wasn't. Warehouse work may require heavy lifting, working on a check out requires a different set of skills. The court will presumably looking at whether these jobs have same value.

This insistence that something involving heavy lifting is automatically worth more than a job that doesn't is weird because that's never been how it's worked. The heavy lifters would be earning more than the bosses.

Maybe that's something to fight for?

 

[coloradoatheist]

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?

The claim isn't that anyone was denied a job in the warehouse. It's that they should be paid the same-- there isn't a justification for having different pay for what is typically a male job, compared to what are substantially female jobs in a different part of the business. And of course, if a Tesco warehouse is like other warehouses, (likely you would think), then there arguably is a good reason for paying more for that kind of work, and it isn't some sort of indirect gender discrimination, but rather simply a harder job on the body.

It might be harder on the body but it's not harder per se. The in-store jobs typically require multitasking and dealing with customers. If you've ever worked in retail you know which is harder, lifting a case of canned corn or dealing with the customer who wants you to give them a discount because corn was on sale last week.

But the company needs to decide which adds more value. In some cases it might be the cashier, and some cases the warehouse and some the same. But they aren't the same job.

If the argument was solely comparing the jobs, the judge should dismiss the lawsuit, admonish the party for trying to tie up the court system on a frivolous law suit and move on.

 

[dismal]

But they aren't the same job.

I'm fascinated that single point does not shut down the argument, the case, the thread.

 

[Playball40]

Feminists do not want equal pay for equal work, they want equal pay for lesser work. That's what the 73% claim is all about.
If the women wanted to make 11 pounds, they should have applied for the warehouse jobs, and have been willing to actually do the work. Taking the easier, lesser paid job, and then demanding money 26 years later is ridiculous.

Really? You're a woman and know what women want?

I suppose it goes without saying that your statement is utter and complete bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

I would take physical over working with the asshole public any day of the year. Physically demanding does NOT necessarily make it more difficult or worthy of more $$$$. That's crap.

They are not doing the same joint destroying work that the mostly male employees in the other department are doing. I think that male disposability is something that is hardwired into humans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tesco-record-equal-pay-claim-4-billion_uk_5a7aae9fe4b0d0ef3c0aade9?ncid=APPLENEWS 00001

Yea, that judgement is a headscratcher. Working in a retail store is not equal to working in a distribution center. I've done both. Working in a distribution center is far more physical and demanding. It's hard to get people to want to do that kind of work, hence the higher wages. In the US, equal work is defined as equal skills, equal efforts, equal responsibility, with similar working conditions.

 

[bilby]

But they aren't the same job.

I'm fascinated that single point does not shut down the argument, the case, the thread.

Whoever would have thought that people on a discussion board might want to discuss things?

 

[Vork]

But they aren't the same job.

I'm fascinated that single point does not shut down the argument, the case, the thread.

I think we can hypothetically imagine cases where traditional female jobs were being paid at a lower rate than traditional male jobs, without any good reason for it.

So I wouldn't say the concept is completely misguided.

But where there is an *arguable* case that the traditional male job actually deserves higher pay... Well in the modern era courts aren't necessarily going to respect that.

 

[Vork]

I used to work in tesco as a shelf stacker

I was paid less that someone who worked on the tills as they were class as multi skilled and I wasn't. Warehouse work may require heavy lifting, working on a check out requires a different set of skills. The court will presumably looking at whether these jobs have same value.

This insistence that something involving heavy lifting is automatically worth more than a job that doesn't is weird because that's never been how it's worked. The heavy lifters would be earning more than the bosses.

Maybe that's something to fight for?

I would point out, that recently, supermarkets are partially moving over to getting the *customers* themselves to do the scanning and check out work.

So if an untrained customer can do it themselves, I doubt we are talking about particularly skilled work.

"There is an unexpected item in the packing area"... Annoying.

 

[dismal]

But they aren't the same job.

I'm fascinated that single point does not shut down the argument, the case, the thread.

I think we can hypothetically imagine cases where traditional female jobs were being paid at a lower rate than traditional male jobs, without any good reason for it.

So I wouldn't say the concept is completely misguided.

But where there is an *arguable* case that the traditional male job actually deserves higher pay... Well in the modern era courts aren't necessarily going to respect that.

Sorry, I can't imagine that.

The wages for jobs are set based on market forces. There are 1000s of entities out there hiring workers. 100s competing for warehouse workers. They all want to hire the number of warehouse workers they need for the lowest possible cost. There are millions of people out there competing for jobs. The warehouse owners have to offer enough to get people to come work for them. The warehouse workers can demand only so much they don't price themselves out of a job. If people will take less to work as a cashier than in a warehouse, cashiers will make lower wages.

There is not some Council of Men deciding what jobs pay.

 

[laughing dog]

I used to work in tesco as a shelf stacker

I was paid less that someone who worked on the tills as they were class as multi skilled and I wasn't. Warehouse work may require heavy lifting, working on a check out requires a different set of skills. The court will presumably looking at whether these jobs have same value.

This insistence that something involving heavy lifting is automatically worth more than a job that doesn't is weird because that's never been how it's worked. The heavy lifters would be earning more than the bosses.

Maybe that's something to fight for?

I would point out, that recently, supermarkets are partially moving over to getting the *customers* themselves to do the scanning and check out work.

So if an untrained customer can do it themselves, I doubt we are talking about particularly skilled work.

Where I live, many stores have the customers locate their item and haul it to the checkout. If an untrained customer can do it themselves, then clearly warehouse work is no different than retail clerking work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I used to work in tesco as a shelf stacker

I was paid less that someone who worked on the tills as they were class as multi skilled and I wasn't. Warehouse work may require heavy lifting, working on a check out requires a different set of skills. The court will presumably looking at whether these jobs have same value.

This insistence that something involving heavy lifting is automatically worth more than a job that doesn't is weird because that's never been how it's worked. The heavy lifters would be earning more than the bosses.

Maybe that's something to fight for?

The problem is with the whole notion that the value of a job can be accurately measured.

Companies pay what they need to to get employees!

 

[Malintent]

In the company I work for, where we have dozens of gigantic warehouses all over the world, including the EU, that I have personally visited and audited, one of the requirements for "pickers" (those on the floor actually moving things around) is that they can lift up to 50 pounds of dead weight over their heads all day. That is a job requirement. Even that being the case, there was a surprisingly (to me) large number of female workers there. My wife goes to the gym all the time, and does weight training too (I tell her to please not build muscle, and she says she is just "toning" - whatever).. no way she could lift 50 pounds over her head more than one or twice without hurting herself. Women simply have different distribution of muscle mass than men do. I haven't been to the gym in ages, and haven't performed manual labor outside my backyard since I was young. I can still lift 50 pounds over my head all day long. She runs a treadmill regularly... I only pedal anything when I am biking. When she and I bike together, I am WAY faster and can go WAY longer. It is pure muscle mass.. .and it is not equally balanced.

All that said, the claim in that case is that they are receiving unequal pay for what they are calling "equal value" work.

"value" is subjective. What "equal work" is has a definition. "Value" does not.

If people were paid by "value", then School Teachers would be paid $200,000 per year starting salary and go up to $1,000,000 per year for the most experienced. Doctors would be paid what Car Mechanics are paid... $50 per hour + materials.... give or take.

But like others have said, people are paid based on demand for the service and the supply of the service... that is economics 101.

 

[Vork]

I used to work in tesco as a shelf stacker

I was paid less that someone who worked on the tills as they were class as multi skilled and I wasn't. Warehouse work may require heavy lifting, working on a check out requires a different set of skills. The court will presumably looking at whether these jobs have same value.

This insistence that something involving heavy lifting is automatically worth more than a job that doesn't is weird because that's never been how it's worked. The heavy lifters would be earning more than the bosses.

Maybe that's something to fight for?

I would point out, that recently, supermarkets are partially moving over to getting the *customers* themselves to do the scanning and check out work.

So if an untrained customer can do it themselves, I doubt we are talking about particularly skilled work.

Where I live, many stores have the customers locate their item and haul it to the checkout. If an untrained customer can do it themselves, then clearly warehouse work is no different than retail clerking work.

Nice try, but that doesn't really work.

Of course it's true that warehouse work isn't skilled either, in the sense that checkout work isn't skilled.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's hard physical work, to be walking around all day repeatedly lifting boxes of goods. (Which of course customers will not come close to in the average trip to a store.)

 

[Elixir]

I used to work in tesco as a shelf stacker

I was paid less that someone who worked on the tills as they were class as multi skilled and I wasn't. Warehouse work may require heavy lifting, working on a check out requires a different set of skills. The court will presumably looking at whether these jobs have same value.

This insistence that something involving heavy lifting is automatically worth more than a job that doesn't is weird because that's never been how it's worked. The heavy lifters would be earning more than the bosses.

Maybe that's something to fight for?

I would point out, that recently, supermarkets are partially moving over to getting the *customers* themselves to do the scanning and check out work.

So if an untrained customer can do it themselves, I doubt we are talking about particularly skilled work.

"There is an unexpected item in the packing area"... Annoying.

When you become a highly skilled self-checker, that won't happen.