UK supermarket Asda loses latest round of equal pay case
LONDON (Reuters) - British supermarket chain Asda, which is owned by Walmart, has lost a challenge at the Court of Appeal in the latest round of a long-running dispute with staff over equal pay for different roles.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-asda-pay/uk-supermarket-asda-loses-latest-round-of-equal-pay-case-idUKKCN1PP1JH
It's not the same thing to work in a warehouse pushing cages in and out in the middle of the night (mostly men) and sitting at the till in the warm at daytime (mostly women). The justice system have been contaminated with the crazed equalizing fever, nothing is immune from it these days. No right to appeal for Asda either, in itself quite a thing.
There will be consequences to this, I've only just looked it up and there is already an ad popping up offering legal assistance to claim from ASDA in this page. It will cost the supermarkets millions or more, we know who ends up paying for it all. In a way, they ought to face up to this by dragging everyone's pay to the lower level but of course that would be unfair on some.
Women v. Men, that's what made this ruling what it is. Enforced equality regardless of what people do, that is the pervading ethos in the public sector these days and it will spread beyond it by decree. Carrie Gracie is the modern version of Joan of Arc.
(edited 5 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Notice how they've avoided specifically making a gender discrimination case out of this. That's because there is literally no grounds for it. Instead they're having to make it about store staff and distribution centre staff.
Store staff do not have to operate forklifts. They don't have to work from heights. They are exposed to fewer hazards. They do less manual labour. A lot of them are just seventeen-year-olds sitting at checkout counters, for crying out loud.
Store staff do not have to operate forklifts. They don't have to work from heights. They are exposed to fewer hazards. They do less manual labour. A lot of them are just seventeen-year-olds sitting at checkout counters, for crying out loud.
I'm not sure what the issue is or why ASDA has been fighting this bit. The only explicit bit is "an earlier ruling that Asda store staff can compare their roles with those in distribution centres" which I agree with, even if I can see obviously there's a difference. A cashier can compare themselves to the shift manager if they want, but it'd be very easy to point out the differences that justify (some of?) the pay difference.
And that indeed is the "next stage - assessing whether store and distribution centre roles are of equal value". This is where I expect the case to crash and burn, and if it doesn't, that'll be where the focus should be as anyone with half a brain can see the differences in hazards, manual labour, hours and being able to talk to people to name a few.
And that indeed is the "next stage - assessing whether store and distribution centre roles are of equal value". This is where I expect the case to crash and burn, and if it doesn't, that'll be where the focus should be as anyone with half a brain can see the differences in hazards, manual labour, hours and being able to talk to people to name a few.
Original post by zhog
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-asda-pay/uk-supermarket-asda-loses-latest-round-of-equal-pay-case-idUKKCN1PP1JH
. No right to appeal for Asda either, in itself quite a thing.
. No right to appeal for Asda either, in itself quite a thing.
From the article you've just linked:
'Asda said it was disappointed with the decision and would apply to the Supreme Court to appeal the judgment.'
Perhaps you should actually read the article yourself. They have the same right to apply for an appeal as anyone else does after judgement against them.
(edited 5 years ago)
So women working at the warehouse distribution centre earn the same money, when doing the same job, as men working at the warehouse distribution centre.
Meanwhile women working in the supermarkets earn the same money, when doing the same job, as men working in the supermarkets.
Women are free to choose to work in either the supermarkets or distribution centres.
What's the problem?
Meanwhile women working in the supermarkets earn the same money, when doing the same job, as men working in the supermarkets.
Women are free to choose to work in either the supermarkets or distribution centres.
What's the problem?
Original post by DSilva
From the article you've just linked:
'Asda said it was disappointed with the decision and would apply to the Supreme Court to appeal the judgment.'
Perhaps you should actually read the article yourself. They have the same right to apply for an appeal as anyone else does after judgement against them.
'Asda said it was disappointed with the decision and would apply to the Supreme Court to appeal the judgment.'
Perhaps you should actually read the article yourself. They have the same right to apply for an appeal as anyone else does after judgement against them.
From the same link:
Following Thursday's ruling, the Court of Appeal denied Asda the right to appeal.
Keep trying.
Original post by Just my opinion
So women working at the warehouse distribution centre earn the same money, when doing the same job, as men working at the warehouse distribution centre.
Meanwhile women working in the supermarkets earn the same money, when doing the same job, as men working in the supermarkets.
Women are free to choose to work in either the supermarkets or distribution centres.
What's the problem?
Meanwhile women working in the supermarkets earn the same money, when doing the same job, as men working in the supermarkets.
Women are free to choose to work in either the supermarkets or distribution centres.
What's the problem?
If there is a problem, it is that the courts have a different way of looking at it.
Original post by zhog
From the same link:
Keep trying.
Keep trying.
It doesn't say that anywhere in the article you linked to...
They have the right to apply to the Supreme Court for an appeal... As was written in the article you linked.
Perhaps you should 'try again'. It's amazing really, you make a factually incorrect statement and then post an article which contradicts your own argument.
But it's rather unsurprising to see you take the side of big business underpaying their staff.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by DSilva
It doesn't say that anywhere in the article you linked to...
They have the right to apply to the Supreme Court for an appeal... As was written in the article you linked.
Perhaps you should 'try again'. It's amazing really, you make a factually incorrect statement and then post an article which contradicts your own argument.
But it's rather unsurprising to see you take the side of big business underpaying their staff.
They have the right to apply to the Supreme Court for an appeal... As was written in the article you linked.
Perhaps you should 'try again'. It's amazing really, you make a factually incorrect statement and then post an article which contradicts your own argument.
But it's rather unsurprising to see you take the side of big business underpaying their staff.
You're right, it was from a BBC link that says ASDA were denied the right to appeal the ruling we're talking about. Also, I heard it in their news bulletin on the day, that ASDA had been denied the right to appeal the ruling. So now they are going to appeal against the denial of the right to appeal.
That you find no better opening is satisfactory, reveals a lack of arguments against the topic despite the best of intentions to argue against it.
So you are with ASDA on this one, is that right?
Your situation sounds exceptional, however, and would generally not be the case with these larger retailers. These things are not typically in a cashier's job description nor that of most other front store staff.
Occasionally we have to do things we wouldn't normally be expected to do. So did I when I worked at a retailer. But we don't get the full salary of someone who was hired to do it full time at a warehouse. That's just not how it works.
And yes, checkouts are certainly brain-killing and I have horrible memories of 8 hour shifts back in the day, but a chimp could still do it. It's not particularly hard work.
Occasionally we have to do things we wouldn't normally be expected to do. So did I when I worked at a retailer. But we don't get the full salary of someone who was hired to do it full time at a warehouse. That's just not how it works.
And yes, checkouts are certainly brain-killing and I have horrible memories of 8 hour shifts back in the day, but a chimp could still do it. It's not particularly hard work.
Original post by zhog
You're right, it was from a BBC link that says ASDA were denied the right to appeal the ruling we're talking about. Also, I heard it in their news bulletin on the day, that ASDA had been denied the right to appeal the ruling. So now they are going to appeal against the denial of the right to appeal.
That you find no better opening is satisfactory, reveals a lack of arguments against the topic despite the best of intentions to argue against it.
That you find no better opening is satisfactory, reveals a lack of arguments against the topic despite the best of intentions to argue against it.
Are you opposed to poorly paid staff being paid more?
Original post by Dandaman1
Your situation sounds exceptional, however, and would generally not be the case with these larger retailers. These things are not typically in a cashier's job description nor that of most other front store staff.
Occasionally we have to do things we wouldn't normally be expected to do. So did I when I worked at a retailer. But we don't get the full salary of someone who was hired to do it full time at a warehouse. That's just not how it works.
And yes, checkouts are certainly brain-killing and I have horrible memories of 8 hour shifts back in the day, but a chimp could still do it. It's not particularly hard work.
Occasionally we have to do things we wouldn't normally be expected to do. So did I when I worked at a retailer. But we don't get the full salary of someone who was hired to do it full time at a warehouse. That's just not how it works.
And yes, checkouts are certainly brain-killing and I have horrible memories of 8 hour shifts back in the day, but a chimp could still do it. It's not particularly hard work.
I imagine it depends on the retailer, but I worked for Iceland for years. In their business all store staff got paid the same wage (bar home delivery drivers) and were all called customer service employees or whatever the role was. This was because technically everyone could use the tills as everyone got till trained, but some were mainly put on stock and some pretty much exclusively on tills. I used to start at 5am as that's when the delvery wagon would arrive with its pallets of frozen, grocery & chilled items. We'd have to drag all the pallets into the store, up the lift etc alone, many 1+tonnes. Then for example I tended to do frozen deliveries, so you'd have say roughly 4 pallets taller than you of stock which you'd then put away in the large freezer room alone. It would take over an hour to a couple depending on delivery size. In that situation bar warehouse workers getting paid a night rate, I'd feel I'd deserve something pretty similiar to them, since you knew the girls (the company had a basically unspoken rule of girls on tills, guys unloading stock) where sitting on the till while you were freezing your arse off at -30c with giant fans blowing a gale in your face haha. Maybe some ASDA staff feel the same, I used to know someone at Tesco and all their in-shop staff where paid the same, again regardless of if they did tills or stock like me.
I'm sure you appreciate the wider consequences of this ruling, though. This is the State ordering a private business to consider 'equal' what they and most of us define as 'unequal', where does it end? The compo drive is now on, with the legal suits rubbing their hands in glee, this could and will spill onto other parts of the business world with the assistance of the unions, the consequences could be far-reaching.
I agree that there isn't much info in the news we get, hopefully someone will dig the State's arguments from the courtroom.
I agree that there isn't much info in the news we get, hopefully someone will dig the State's arguments from the courtroom.
Original post by DSilva
Are you opposed to poorly paid staff being paid more?
Of course not, nobody is. Do you know anyone at all who is?
Original post by zhog
Of course not, nobody is. Do you know anyone at all who is?
Well you seem to be in this case. This judgement would give some rather poorly paid people some very welcome backpay.
Original post by DSilva
Well you seem to be in this case. This judgement would give some rather poorly paid people some very welcome backpay.
I have a question for you, if you don' mind: why do ASDA pay distribution centre staff more than shop staff?
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by DSilva
Well you seem to be in this case. This judgement would give some rather poorly paid people some very welcome backpay.
That's an issue for the minimum wage, and presumably ASDA didn't breach that else they'd have bene in a lot of trouble a lot sooner. If you don't think it's high enough, then it's not just ASDA cashiers involved in that.
The same reasoning you are using could be applied to the distribution staff, should ASDA claw back the extra money they paid those workers?
Original post by zhog
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-asda-pay/uk-supermarket-asda-loses-latest-round-of-equal-pay-case-idUKKCN1PP1JH
It's not the same thing to work in a warehouse pushing cages in and out in the middle of the night (mostly men) and sitting at the till in the warm at daytime (mostly women). The justice system have been contaminated with the crazed equalizing fever, nothing is immune from it these days. No right to appeal for Asda either, in itself quite a thing.
There will be consequences to this, I've only just looked it up and there is already an ad popping up offering legal assistance to claim from ASDA in this page. It will cost the supermarkets millions or more, we know who ends up paying for it all. In a way, they ought to face up to this by dragging everyone's pay to the lower level but of course that would be unfair on some.
Women v. Men, that's what made this ruling what it is. Enforced equality regardless of what people do, that is the pervading ethos in the public sector these days and it will spread beyond it by decree. Carrie Gracie is the modern version of Joan of Arc.
It's not the same thing to work in a warehouse pushing cages in and out in the middle of the night (mostly men) and sitting at the till in the warm at daytime (mostly women). The justice system have been contaminated with the crazed equalizing fever, nothing is immune from it these days. No right to appeal for Asda either, in itself quite a thing.
There will be consequences to this, I've only just looked it up and there is already an ad popping up offering legal assistance to claim from ASDA in this page. It will cost the supermarkets millions or more, we know who ends up paying for it all. In a way, they ought to face up to this by dragging everyone's pay to the lower level but of course that would be unfair on some.
Women v. Men, that's what made this ruling what it is. Enforced equality regardless of what people do, that is the pervading ethos in the public sector these days and it will spread beyond it by decree. Carrie Gracie is the modern version of Joan of Arc.
The case in full is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/44.html
I don't care about employment law or the Equality Act 2010, so I won't read it in full nor will I give my opinion.
However it is fairly obvious that the CA is applying the wording of statute, preceding case law, and EU law (including EU legislation and CJEU case law). The decision is not based on wanting to divide men and women nor does it suppose that it is proper that we should have equal pay legislation; all it is concerned about is whether the circumstances of the case meet the definition(s) found in various sources of the law. If it does, then Asda must lose and pay compensation. If not, then bad news for the employees. It comes down absolutely to a technical question of law.
Original post by Notoriety
However it is fairly obvious that the CA is applying the wording of statute, preceding case law, and EU law (including EU legislation and CJEU case law). The decision is not based on wanting to divide men and women nor does it suppose that it is proper that we should have equal pay legislation; all it is concerned about is whether the circumstances of the case meet the definition(s) found in various sources of the law. If it does, then Asda must lose and pay compensation. If not, then bad news for the employees. It comes down absolutely to a technical question of law.
Well, that is not a fair representation of my position but we must always accept it may be lack of clarity at my end. It doesn't come as a surprise to learn that somewhere in that report (thanx for it, a quick look made me wish to wait for the SC instead) will be all technicalities that make the ruling more than a case of 'dividing men and women', it's not as if I was suggesting anything illegal has taken place. If there is a stage at which the divide between men and women may surface, that will be at the point of interpretation of the technicality. A 'sympathetic' attitude towards women could affect the interpretation, as much as prejudice against them could go against. We don't know whether that is the case here, of course.
It is a revolutionary case, we're talking equal pay for different jobs and roles here. Whatever the technicality is, it has been buried somewhere all this time, awaiting discovery and application to the world. Now that it's out of the box, how far is it going to travel? I suspect the same technicality will now open the door to a new field of court time on arguing why can't everyone just have the same pay. Up until now, businesses were mostly free to choose how to grade their employees and that is very likely to be affected. It is a big ruling, it will cost ASDA and others billions.
On top of all that, we all mainly agree it is totally counter-intuitive. The technicality has to be a very powerful one and it would all be clear to us, had we sat through the whole thing or able to search for it in the report, but as it is... I'd have to have it explained in detail to be sure it is all black and white. ASDA have a different interpretation, it's not that they want anything illegal.
(edited 5 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- what’s the worst supermarket chain?
- Do you really need a lot of stuff to make a bed
- College ID as proof of age?
- Seek a job
- Which is the 'poshest' supermarket chain?
- Drug testing at tesco/asda/aldi
- college student job applications.
- Supermarket Hurt/Heal Game
- Places to work at as a 17 year old?
- Food Safety and Supermarkets
- What supermarket do you shop at?
- Places to make out??
- How hard will it be to find a part time job with no experience in anything?
- Grant 2023 A Level grading allowances in England similar to Wales/Scotland/NI
- Where to buy cheap kitchenware for uni?
- Retake A levels or do pharmacy
- should bring my car to uni?
- Jobs for under 16's
- What is The University of Bristol like?
- Asda still haven't replied to job application
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Posted 1 minute ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of Bath Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 2 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Social Security Scotland - Client ManagerLast reply 5 minutes ago
SIP civil service 2024 threadLast reply 6 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 13 minutes ago
Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challengeLast reply 13 minutes ago
Cannot find any apprenticeships for Child NursingLast reply 15 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 16 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 16 minutes ago
when should I apply for accommodation in Uni of EdinburghTrending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
