Tesco backdated pay issue - n/g | Vital Football

Tesco backdated pay issue - n/g

GillsBluenose

GillsBluenose

Vital Football Hero
I have tuned out of the other thread about feminism/misogyny but would be interested in peoples opinions about this news story this morning.

We now have employees claiming that it is unfair that store staff are being paid less than warehouse staff and they are demanding a backdated settlement that would cost Tesco a fortune. As a test case, the result will obviously have knock on effects not only for supermarkets but also all retail stores that have such a disparity.

Although most Tesco store staff are women and warehouse staff are men, that is not exclusive and I was in fact served by a lad only last week at the check out.

My thoughts are that nowadays when you apply for these jobs there is a generic job description and a salary range. You decide whether to apply and whether to accept the offer. Why should these be a comparison with another part of the organisation?

I am not saying that the warehouse jobs are any harder or easier than a store job but I would have thought the employer would pitch the salary range at a figure that would attract the number of staff with the necessary skills they need. I would therefore suspect that it may be more difficult to obtain the latter.
 
The obvious answer is that this is a load of bollocks. I?ll keep an open mind but I?ve not yet heard an argument in favour of it.

Would be absolute chaos if it was to be successful - the new PPI.

?Were you mis-sold a job when you could have earned more in a different job??.

I think the fairest thing would be if all the warehouse workers gave Tesco half their salaries back from the last 20 years.
 
I also heard this, this morning and my initial reaction was that they are not comparing like with like.
 
I had a summer job as a shop fitter at Debenhams in Chatham in 2005 when it was being refitted from the old Allders to Chatham. Me and a mate had to lug heavy stuff around the place, go up ladders to fit displays etc, and generally work to move the departments around.

Mostly women then worked on the departments themselves, doing the finer points of the job by actually laying them out etc. So doing the finishing off rather than any heavy lifting.

My and my mate were paid around a quid an hour more than the others. Which was interesting because we didn't actually ask for it, and it was given to us by our boss who was a woman.

This topic came up with some of the other girls, some of which were also doing summer jobs and the like from uni, and they were upset, but when we said that the extra was for all the heavy lifting and going up ladders etc, they understood and thought fair enough.

Be interesting if any guys on this board have actually worked on the floor or the warehouse in tesco to see whether there's anything more fundamentally wrong going on.

 
Your line of reasoning is fine within itself but the issue in question is a little different. The law is concerned with jobs of equal value and that value is not expressed as some general idea of hardship, scarcity, or whatever. It has to do with value to the organisation. I don't pretend to have any legal knowledge but that's my imperfect understanding. This case will now be heard and decided upon and any settlement will apply to all affected parties. That means that any males employed instore would benefit if the case is won.

To take a wider look what we are talking about is taking another look at how we classify and value work. We have had our current arrangements for so long that it is difficult to reimagine them. ThreeSixes spoke about mens and womens jobs and indicated that the former were generally of higher value. He talked about breadwinners and finding a mate. It's that basic outlook we are trying to change and to leave behind a world in which jobs are gendered and then female jobs deemed worthy of less remuneration. It is not an easy process and you are right that many men are in predominantly female jobs and so suffer discrimination. The care profession hardly bears thinking about. We don't want to pay for it now when we pay "womens'" wages.

The market in labour reflects expectations as well as value and those expectations are changing, womens' mainly but plenty of men too.
 
I dont think it should be back dated, but yes they should be on the same pay. Both roles are equally important to running the company.
I belive the Asda checkout staff took something similar to court last year.
 
jogills - 7/2/2018 11:37


To take a wider look what we are talking about is taking another look at how we classify and value work. We have had our current arrangements for so long that it is difficult to reimagine them. ThreeSixes spoke about mens and womens jobs and indicated that the former were generally of higher value. He talked about breadwinners and finding a mate. It's that basic outlook we are trying to change and to leave behind a world in which jobs are gendered and then female jobs deemed worthy of less remuneration..
Click to expand...

I suppose the question is then, if there is a hurricane and power cables fall down, will there be women in cranes at 2 am in the morning in a howling gale putting them back. Will there be women going home with their fingers black, because they've spent all night laying tarmac. Will there be women who go home smelling of shit as they've just spent a 12 hour shift at a waste recycling site moving household waste. And will there be women spending the rest of their life in a wheelchair, because they've been shot in a firefight in a war zone.

Women can do all those jobs if they want, they generally don't want to (and neither do I). I'm sure I didn't say that female jobs are worthy of less remuneration, it's just a fact that jobs that women are happier doing, will pay less than "nastier" jobs (e.g. working in a slaughterhouse).

Tescos should merge the jobs, and make men and women do the same roles - everyone will be happy then.
 
MedwayModernist - 7/2/2018 11:35


This topic came up with some of the other girls, some of which were also doing summer jobs and the like from uni, and they were upset, but when we said that the extra was for all the heavy lifting and going up ladders etc, they understood and thought fair enough.
Click to expand...

Why is it fair enough that you were running the risk of injury going up ladders and doing heavy lifting, and they weren't?
 
ThreeSixes - 7/2/2018 11:54

MedwayModernist - 7/2/2018 11:35


This topic came up with some of the other girls, some of which were also doing summer jobs and the like from uni, and they were upset, but when we said that the extra was for all the heavy lifting and going up ladders etc, they understood and thought fair enough.
Click to expand...

Why is it fair enough that you were running the risk of injury going up ladders and doing heavy lifting, and they weren't?
Click to expand...

We were getting paid more than them...
 
What Bluenose and others are not getting is that the argument turns on equivalent skills not, as blokes go on about, comparative strengths. As for 3x6, he's living in a time warp; do you think he saw the programmes about Crossrail?
 
Wayne.Kerr - 7/2/2018 12:38

What Bluenose and others are not getting is that the argument turns on equivalent skills not, as blokes go on about, comparative strengths. As for 3x6, he's living in a time warp; do you think he saw the programmes about Crossrail?
Click to expand...

Don't be abusive, just explain how I'm wrong (or don't)
 
Taken from The Guardian:

"A law firm has launched legal action on behalf of nearly 100 shop assistants who say they earn as much as 3 an hour less than male warehouse workers in similar roles. "

The fact they have different job titles should torpedo the claim. The fact that they admit the roles are similar rather than identical will also torpedo the claim.

It isn't actually a sex discrimination case and all Tesco has to demonstrate is that a male shop assistant gets paid the same rate as a female shop assistant and a female warehouse worker gets the same as a male one. From my own experience of working in Tescos many a decade ago, I would not be surprised if the female shop assistants get paid more on average than the male shop assistants. People who are trained to work on the tills tend to get paid more and there is a clear bias towards female cashiers than men.

The main question I'd want to ask the women behind this is "if the shop assistant role and the warehouse role are similar roles then why don't you apply for a warehouse role?".




 
They could argue that the warehouse role wasn?t female friendly. If they can then prove the jobs are of equal value they could then argue that they are being discriminated against.

I don?t like that argument personally.
 
nibbles - 7/2/2018 14:01

They could argue that the warehouse role wasn?t female friendly.
Click to expand...

What, because it is cold? This is (presumably) every Tescos warehouse in every store.

We both know why the roles pay different rates, it's because they are different jobs (that just happen do be done, mainly, by different sexes). I'm sure the courts will agree, this just seems like a law firm chancing their arm on the back of all the "me too" scandals.
 
I don?t think this has anything to do with the ?me too? scandals.
I do think you more than anyone show yourself up to be pretty mysoginistic.
 
3x6: you're as are others in this thread because the comparison is skills required for the job not dirty, heavy duty, out in the wind and rain or anything else. Most are barking the wrong tree; it's not about female-friendly but similar skill sets. I come from a background in high-end engineering and project management and, despite the macho image of the industry, was way ahead of the game in terms of equality, which is why I made reference to Crossrail.
 
WayneKerr, I don't really follow, are you saying that a checkout role and a warehouse role are a similar skill set, and therefore deserve similar pay? As per others, I haven't practical knowledge of both roles, but I've gone to supermarkets enough, and I definitely know what the cashier role entails. I don't imagine the warehouse role is the same.

As others have said as well, if the skill sets are the same, why are more women not doing the role that pays more? Is this sexism, have they not been given the opportunities, or do they just prefer the flexibility and the human interaction role on the tills? I suppose we'll find out who is right if / when the court makes their decision.

 
From experience, I know that grading different jobs is a bloody nightmare.

I once had a standup row with a grading committee who insisted that a chemist's job was of a higher grade than a sales rep's. I disagreed based on the 15 criteria that were used to rate the positions.

I've not followed the Tesco thing too closely but it appears that the real question is whether the warehouse jobs and store jobs are of similar total "job points" rather than one of sex. If this is true then there is a case. If however Tesco can show that it rigorously grades jobs fairly, then there is no case to answer.
 
This is a follow on from the successfull GMBS tribunal case against ASDA where the roles where found to be of equal value, which is subject to appeal. If the decision is upheld ASDA will have to backdate the claims to date of entry . It may not be the full 3.00per hour as i think Tesco surprisingly still pay a premium for unsociable hours. Good luck to them i say.
 
Thanks for the input everyone.

Actually, I did not see this as a gender issue. Having worked for a national company (In my case, a bank) until 5 years ago, all our jobs became graded under a points system in accordance with a generic description of what the job entailed and the responsibilities in about 1992.

At the time I was switching between two jobs that had the same grade but when the new gradings came out, the job that was described as mine was under Band D while the other job was under the higher Band E.

Each Grade had a lower and upper salary figure but because my grade was in the lower band, I hit my "salary ceiling" quickly so my salary became effectively frozen.

IMHO, I was convinced that the Band D job was far more difficult and technical as opposed to the Band E job which admittedly required more customer interaction. I was still asked to do the Band E job on occasion but received no extra money for doing so.

I later learned that points were in the hundreds if not thousands and the Grade D job was something like four points short of qualifying for Band E.

What this all hinges on is who decides which role is more important and valuable in making the company successful. In huge organisations, this must be impossible to quantify so can only be based on subjective opinions which makes it a grey area.

I will certainly be fascinated to read the whole of the legal arguments and the ruling when the court has passed judgement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.