Next - structural sexism or different markets?
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo
Cursory read of this is very very bizarre to me.
Does anyone know more background here (there must be some, surely?) and potential implications?
Will be interesting to see the appeal I think. Sounds like Nexts position was different roles, different markets, different rates, but the tribunal upheld the roles were sufficiently similar?
Does this open floodgates or was there something specifically relevant to this case the beeb didn’t mention?
Cursory read of this is very very bizarre to me.
Does anyone know more background here (there must be some, surely?) and potential implications?
Will be interesting to see the appeal I think. Sounds like Nexts position was different roles, different markets, different rates, but the tribunal upheld the roles were sufficiently similar?
Does this open floodgates or was there something specifically relevant to this case the beeb didn’t mention?
stuthe
said:
said: Does this open floodgates or was there something specifically relevant to this case the beeb didn’t mention?
The No Win No Fee solicitors handling this one, Leigh Day, are also currently making essentially the same claims against Tesco, Asda, Morrisons, Co-Op, Sainsbury's ..."[The tribunal] rightly found that Next could have afforded to pay a higher rate but chose not to and that the reason for that was purely financial."
Presumably they could have also afforded to pay the warehouse staff more but chose not to for financial reasons. Isn't that how capitalism works?
Presumably they could have also afforded to pay the warehouse staff more but chose not to for financial reasons. Isn't that how capitalism works?
Tigerj said:
Very similar to the Birmingham council mess.
What I struggle to understand in these cases is that if the warehouse staff had better pay for the same work, why didn’t the retail staff request transfers.
Presumably because they didn't fancy the job - even if it paid more?What I struggle to understand in these cases is that if the warehouse staff had better pay for the same work, why didn’t the retail staff request transfers.
Have to assume working in a warehouse is somewhat tiring, working on the shopfloor isn't.
If it was the case that Next only employed men in the warehouse these ladies would have a claim based on the fact they couldn't work in the warehouse even if they wanted to. But that's obviously not the case - there's women in the warehouse and blokes on the shop floor.
Each has made their own choice.
Warehouse work is harder than shop floor.
Colder or hotter, noisier and worse hours.
Shop floor especially checkouts regular breaks, no real hassle you have to deal with and most of the ones that complain about the difference in pay are on a juicy 9-2 etc so they can get the kids etc. Ie premium hours.
99% of warehouse staff could do the checkout job.
99% of checkout staff are morbidly obese and struggle to walk to their work.
There's a reason its used as the end of the line job in food retail.
Colder or hotter, noisier and worse hours.
Shop floor especially checkouts regular breaks, no real hassle you have to deal with and most of the ones that complain about the difference in pay are on a juicy 9-2 etc so they can get the kids etc. Ie premium hours.
99% of warehouse staff could do the checkout job.
99% of checkout staff are morbidly obese and struggle to walk to their work.
There's a reason its used as the end of the line job in food retail.
I have done both. Warehouse work is physically harder and a worse environment. If the checkout staff disagree then they can always jump ship. The only thing that is harder about the tills is dealing with customers but anything serious and a manager will step in.
If a company willingly pays workers more than they think necessary for no benefit in return then they must be the only one.
If a company willingly pays workers more than they think necessary for no benefit in return then they must be the only one.
They are two different jobs. The fact that the staff are predominantly male in one and female in another is not an issue. Both jobs are open to both sexes, so its a choice.
My son works in a supermarket. If he wants warehouse wages then he needs to get a warehouse job.
It's harder work, worse hours, and a longer commute though.
My son works in a supermarket. If he wants warehouse wages then he needs to get a warehouse job.
It's harder work, worse hours, and a longer commute though.
The hours in warehouses are likely also going to be different than the 9-5 for customer facing retail, warehouses are also generally cold in the winter and hot in the summer.
Other companies may look at this ruling and force members of staff to rotate rolls to avoid natural gender based roles to avoid potential lawsuits.
untakenname said:
The hours in warehouses are likely also going to be different than the 9-5 for customer facing retail, warehouses are also generally cold in the winter and hot in the summer.
Other companies may look at this ruling and force members of staff to rotate rolls to avoid natural gender based roles to avoid potential lawsuits.
Also the warehouses tend to be centralised rather then distributed. Mrs 98elise worked at a warehouse (doing admin) many years ago. She had a proper commute. My son works in a supermarket. It's a 5 minute drive. They have a branch in just about every town.Other companies may look at this ruling and force members of staff to rotate rolls to avoid natural gender based roles to avoid potential lawsuits.
Edited by 98elise on Tuesday 27th August 16:50
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff