This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Stuk Top half 07 Feb 18 5.22pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol
So play one set of people off against another to drive the wage down, the old race to the bottom. That's what they want people to do so they can justify paying less. Shame on us as a society workers have to take a huge company who make billions from taxpayers to court to pay a decent wage That is exactly what this law firm is trying to do, not Tesco. Tesco offered certain jobs at certain rates of pay and people willingly took them. Now that a law firm has dangled a carrot in front of one group of them, because they've arbitrarily decided that two completely different jobs are comparable, some of the workers have also decided it's not fair. It's got sod all to do with society or taxpayers. Tesco is a plc and they pay a decent wage for a job that soon won't exist, so best not to rock the boat I'd say.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rubin 07 Feb 18 5.27pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol
So you support Tesco paying employees less? Is that an ironic Cathy Newman impression?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 07 Feb 18 5.31pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rubin
Is that an ironic Cathy Newman impression?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 07 Feb 18 5.48pm | |
---|---|
Wouldn't this set a dangerous precedent? Office clerks demanding parity with people higher up because they tap the keys on the keyboard for equal hours? And this Tesco case the law firm are trying for backdated pay. Maybe all those Dagenham girls and every other worker paid 'unfairly' should take their employer to court. It's so stupid it shouldn't be given court time. Edited by Rudi Hedman (07 Feb 2018 8.41pm)
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
the.universal 07 Feb 18 7.04pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Pretty much. Different pay for different jobs is fine. Young females earn more than young males.....for sexist and obvious reasons.....and I'm also fine with that. You sure about that? Edited by the.universal (07 Feb 2018 7.05pm)
Vive le Roy! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
grumpymort US/Thailand/UK 07 Feb 18 7.15pm | |
---|---|
The way this is heading i can start seeing companies being put of by hiring women. Can you imagine if men tried this no one would even pay any attention to it and there is plenty of jobs women do get paid more then men p***.tars are one of them lol
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 07 Feb 18 8.19pm | |
---|---|
Companies will get away with paying as little as possible. At the store I worked in they had a waiting list of about 200 people who wanted to be shelf stackers so they knew low wages wasn't a problem. 70% of the staff were female and I think this applied to the waiting list as well. In the warehouse I got the impression they had to be paid more because they were competing not with other stores but other industries e.g construction. If the many women had wanted to do that job you would have pay equality as they could reduce the wages. I still think the roles are different but even if they were the same that does not take into account the attractiveness of the job. Salary is one of the ways to ensure you have a good supply of recruits.
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
braunstoneagle the middle of bumf*** nowhere... 07 Feb 18 8.50pm | |
---|---|
i was shocked the other day when i learnt what the workers in the tesco warehouse earnt after 8 weeks probation. tbf quite a lot for an unskilled job. i expected it to be min wage...i bet the workers thank god for the union every night they go to sleep!!!
‘Football isn’t instant coffee. You have to work at it. You must grow the bean, grind it.’ Ian Holloway |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
braunstoneagle the middle of bumf*** nowhere... 07 Feb 18 8.51pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Pretty much. Different pay for different jobs is fine. Young females earn more than young males.....for sexist and obvious reasons.....and I'm also fine with that. sorry fella, but thats not true.
‘Football isn’t instant coffee. You have to work at it. You must grow the bean, grind it.’ Ian Holloway |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 07 Feb 18 8.53pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
Companies will get away with paying as little as possible. At the store I worked in they had a waiting list of about 200 people who wanted to be shelf stackers so they knew low wages wasn't a problem. 70% of the staff were female and I think this applied to the waiting list as well. In the warehouse I got the impression they had to be paid more because they were competing not with other stores but other industries e.g construction. If the many women had wanted to do that job you would have pay equality as they could reduce the wages. I still think the roles are different but even if they were the same that does not take into account the attractiveness of the job. Salary is one of the ways to ensure you have a good supply of recruits. People work in harder low skilled jobs rather than the easier one for 2 reasons. 1. They're paid more. 2. They can deliver what the employer requires. If you can't manage what the employer wants in that harder low skilled work you take the easier, lower paid, low skilled work. The lawyers and ladies in the lawyer's office claim that in the store they have to deal with customers and it's more emotionally demanding. Tell that to the worker who's probably knackered, falling asleep in front of the tv pretty early. This is just a go at some dosh, and backpay is laughable. If people wanted this extra before they'd either go for the other job or look for another industry.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
braunstoneagle the middle of bumf*** nowhere... 07 Feb 18 9.03pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
People work in harder low skilled jobs rather than the easier one for 2 reasons. 1. They're paid more. 2. They can deliver what the employer requires. If you can't manage what the employer wants in that harder low skilled work you take the easier, lower paid, low skilled work. The lawyers and ladies in the lawyer's office claim that in the store they have to deal with customers and it's more emotionally demanding. Tell that to the worker who's probably knackered, falling asleep in front of the tv pretty early. This is just a go at some dosh, and backpay is laughable. If people wanted this extra before they'd either go for the other job or look for another industry. having experienced what workers go through in a warehouse, the expectations are high & im sure much more than stacking shelves. the industry is brutally hard... as you would expect from a company as big as tesco. i dont work for tesco personally but they expect a lot from everybody involved in their organisation.
‘Football isn’t instant coffee. You have to work at it. You must grow the bean, grind it.’ Ian Holloway |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 07 Feb 18 9.05pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Pussay Patrol
So play one set of people off against another to drive the wage down, the old race to the bottom. That's what they want people to do so they can justify paying less. Shame on us as a society workers have to take a huge company who make billions from taxpayers to court to pay a decent wage
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.