Is this the same thing which bankrupted Birmingham? AIUI, cleaners argued that they should have been paid the same as binmen and since there was a sexual difference in the majority of staff this amounted to sexual discrimination.
According to the article they’re striking because they’re doing the work of higher pay grades without the pay, which strikes me as a different claim.
> Their action follows a strike by more than 8,000 female carers, caterers and cleaners in Glasgow,
It is just me that finds it depressing carers are considered in the same sentence as the other two?
Not to insult anyone, and I’m all for people getting what pay they can get. Just seems like a stain on our society that people who care for some of the most vulnerable have to strike for decent conditions alongside caterers and cleaners. Seems like there should be a different level of importance placed on that role.
Ah yes, the I have a vagina brigade. Never mind that the gender pay gap has been debunked because it’s based on false and poorly collected data. [Here’s a very good example from the Aussie Senate](https://youtu.be/-pdnkbs4l_g?si=pAwy5VP6bo_fHs43).
Easily led, these folk!
They are comparing apples to oranges here. A woman and a man doing the same role, get the same pay. A woman and a man doing different roles, get different pay.
There is nothing stopping women entering male dominated industries, and vice versa, if they want to do the exact same role for the exact same money.
Is it just the way this has been put forward in the article or is this actually mental? Pay should be equal across “comparable” jobs? Surely that’s subjective and it’s impractical to equate two different jobs?
Also, FWIW, I was a civil serval for many years, the grading system is as non-discriminatory as it gets. It says a job is paid at x per hour, regardless of who and what you are. If you’re salaried you can earn a bit more if you do the job for longer but everyone starts at the same rate and if you want a bump in pay you need to get promoted.
5 comments
Is this the same thing which bankrupted Birmingham? AIUI, cleaners argued that they should have been paid the same as binmen and since there was a sexual difference in the majority of staff this amounted to sexual discrimination.
According to the article they’re striking because they’re doing the work of higher pay grades without the pay, which strikes me as a different claim.
> Their action follows a strike by more than 8,000 female carers, caterers and cleaners in Glasgow,
It is just me that finds it depressing carers are considered in the same sentence as the other two?
Not to insult anyone, and I’m all for people getting what pay they can get. Just seems like a stain on our society that people who care for some of the most vulnerable have to strike for decent conditions alongside caterers and cleaners. Seems like there should be a different level of importance placed on that role.
Ah yes, the I have a vagina brigade. Never mind that the gender pay gap has been debunked because it’s based on false and poorly collected data. [Here’s a very good example from the Aussie Senate](https://youtu.be/-pdnkbs4l_g?si=pAwy5VP6bo_fHs43).
Easily led, these folk!
They are comparing apples to oranges here. A woman and a man doing the same role, get the same pay. A woman and a man doing different roles, get different pay.
There is nothing stopping women entering male dominated industries, and vice versa, if they want to do the exact same role for the exact same money.
Is it just the way this has been put forward in the article or is this actually mental? Pay should be equal across “comparable” jobs? Surely that’s subjective and it’s impractical to equate two different jobs?
Also, FWIW, I was a civil serval for many years, the grading system is as non-discriminatory as it gets. It says a job is paid at x per hour, regardless of who and what you are. If you’re salaried you can earn a bit more if you do the job for longer but everyone starts at the same rate and if you want a bump in pay you need to get promoted.