Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

In the UK in recent times, various organisations have been taken to employment tribunals by unions for allegedly underpaying their female staff (compared to male staff). These cases are succeeding and the organisations affected find themselves liable for billions of pounds in compensation to affected staff. Recent examples include Birmingham City Council, Next (a clothing retailer) and now ASDA (supermarket chain).

What I think makes these cases interesting is that in each of these cases the employers have been found guilty, not for paying women and men differently for the same jobs, but for different jobs - judged to be of equal value.

For instance in Birmingham City Council, certain (female dominated) roles such as cleaners, teaching assistants and caterers were paid less / received less bonuses than those in (male dominated) roles such as street cleaners and refuse collectors. With Next, it was the female dominated shop staff being paid less than the male dominated warehouse staff. And with ASDA, it is the female dominated retail staff getting paid less than the male dominated distribution staff.

Note, in none of these cases was there evidence of men and women receiving different pay for doing exactly the same jobs. But these roles were judged to be equivalent and hence the court findings. But does anyone really believe these cases indicate sexism in these organisations? Could it not possibly be because some roles are harder to fill and the pay levels reflect that difference?

Personally, I think one is on thin ice already by saying that two people doing the same job should be on equal pay. Two people are not necessarily equally as productive at their job, even if they have the same experience. Why should employers not be able to reward the more productive staff with higher pay? But even if we accept the premise of same job, same pay, it is quite a stretch to go from that to judging two different jobs are of equal value. This is going into the realms of outright socialism.

Now, if you're a socialist, you probably don't see a problem with objectively judging the comparative values of different labour. But if you're not, and you think the free formation of prices is important for the proper functioning of a market economy, you should be seriously worried about this trend.

After all, if it is possible to objectively judge when two different roles of equal value, why can we not objectively judge the value of all labour? Why should the markets set the price for labour at all when we can objectively work out what labour is worth?

Is there anybody here who thinks these kind of judgements are reasonable and would not describe themselves as a socialist?

[Pattern-chaser]

Is there anybody here who thinks these kind of judgements are reasonable and would not describe themselves as a socialist?

Sorry, I can't pass your final 'entrance requirement'.

[Fried Egg]

Is there anybody here who thinks these kind of judgements are reasonable and would not describe themselves as a socialist?

Sorry, I can't pass your final 'entrance requirement'.

Fair enough. It's because if one is a socialist and doesn't believe that (in most cases) prices should be set by the market, that is a whole other argument (and not really an argument I'm looking to explore here).

Although, I wouldn't mind someone explaining to me here how anybody can judge that two completely different jobs to be of "equal value"? Note, the judgements in question aren't claiming that everyone should be paid the same no matter what they do. Rather they have judged that two particular roles are of equal value, and because one is predominantly done by women and the other men, it is tantamount to sexual discrimination.

Does anyone really believe there is systematic discrimination against women here in these large employers? Could the difference in wages offered simply reflect that the male dominated roles are simply harder to fill because of less pleasant working conditions?

And, if that is the case, these judgements are going to severely and negatively impact the economy in the UK. It's not like we don't have enough to deal with that we need the GMB union dreaming up their own phantom problems.

[Pattern-chaser]

Does anyone really believe there is systematic discrimination against women...

Yes.

...here in these large employers?

According to all available empirical and historic evidence, it has gone on for 100,000 years or more. So yes, even given the final constraint you offer.

[Pattern-chaser]

I wouldn't mind someone explaining to me here how anybody can judge that two completely different jobs to be of "equal value"?

Ah, now this is extending the idea of "equal pay". Being a socialist, I would tend toward this idea too, but even I would insist that it should and must be carefully considered, on a case-by-case basis. Not all such cases will be justified or justifiable. IMO.

[Fried Egg]

Does anyone really believe there is systematic discrimination against women...

Yes.

...here in these large employers?

According to all available empirical and historic evidence, it has gone on for 100,000 years or more. So yes, even given the final constraint you offer.

I'm not disputing that women have faced historic discrimination in the workplace in the past, but I think it has all but disappeared today (and certainly in such large organisations as these).

But let's focus on these actual cases I mentioned above and the facts (as far as we know them). In no instance were men found to be being paid more than women in the same roles. Two different roles were considered in which the average rates of pay were found to be different (and the representations of men and women were also different). These roles were judged to be of equal value and then they reasoned, ipso facto, that the women were being discriminated against. In other words, the evidence of sexual discrimination rests on the judgement that these two roles were of equal value.

I would argue that, since the prices the market put on these roles were not the same, they were not equal. Hence we have no evidence of discrimination taking place. That is not to say there was no discrimination taking place, only that there was no evidence for it.

I would also argue that the fact that certain roles are less desirable than others, they would have to offer higher rates of pay to attract staff and that seem like a far more likely explanation as to why those roles offered higher pay than sexual discrimination. It appears that women were less likely to want to work in warehouses, or as refuse collectors. Perhaps because these roles tend to be more physically arduous? Even though those women that did do these roles were paid the same as men, less chose to do so.

[Good_Egg]

With Next, it was the female dominated shop staff being paid less than the male dominated warehouse staff.

Without knowing the details, I'd imagine that:
- the warehouse is not as well heated in winter (or air-conditioned in summer) as the shop
- work in the warehouse involves more risk of accidents and injuries
- warehouse workers are less likely to be able to keep doing the job into old age, and thus earn for fewer years
- in the event of a strike, management are more able to cover shop roles than warehouse roles.

So it seems that there are probably good reasons for differential pay that have nothing to do with the sex of the workers.

If men who choose shop work are not of themselves entitled to pay parity with those doing more-demanding warehouse work, but gain such an entitlement in law if enough women work alongside them, then that is sex discrimination.

Not a case of going too far, more a case of abandoning the founding principle altogether...

[Fried Egg]

Not a case of going too far, more a case of abandoning the founding principle altogether...

Maybe, but judges are repeatedly interpreting the 2010 Equality act in this way. I think there's nothing for it but to abolish it entirely. The real problem here is that evidence of apparent pay disparities is damning and then it falls on employers to prove their innocence, rather than prosecutors to prove that actual discrimination took place.

[Sy Borg]

I agree with the Eggs.

I am long retired. I worked in payroll and HR analytics. There was zero wage discrimination against women. It was always equal work, equal pay. I am sure that has not changed. The wonks all claim there is a gap but I never saw it in any of my workplaces. Then again, academics - especially in the humanities - are mostly roaring Marxists and the higher education system has been corrupted by ideology and $$.

Studies have been done which worked out that for part-time workers (a rapidly growing cohort), if you take into account hours worked and maternity leave, women were being paid slightly more than men.

https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/ma ... 309-gnecy0

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm not disputing that women have faced historic discrimination in the workplace in the past, but I think it has all but disappeared today (and certainly in such large organisations as these).

This seems odd, when the gender pay gap continues to exist. There are all sorts of statistics available, depending on exactly what you choose to measure. But women are still paid less than men, many of them for doing the same job. Empirical evidence seems to contradict your opinion here.

But let's focus on these actual cases I mentioned above and the facts (as far as we know them).

I'd rather not. You've already said this is a minor thread of the issues you want to discuss. And there are always instances where rules are misapplied.

Many of them caused by those who know of the rule, but don't understand why it's there, or what it's for. Such people are so nervous about breaking the rule, possibly fanned by right-wing sensationalist press headlines, that they apply it even where they should not.

I don't think it says much at all about the main issue(s) if we simply focus on the aberrations, does it?

...

Unless your point is that misapplications of the rules are the majority of cases?

[Pattern-chaser]

Not a case of going too far, more a case of abandoning the founding principle altogether...

Maybe, but judges are repeatedly interpreting the 2010 Equality act in this way. I think there's nothing for it but to abolish it entirely. The real problem here is that evidence of apparent pay disparities is damning and then it falls on employers to prove their innocence, rather than prosecutors to prove that actual discrimination took place.

I think the problem with that is that the employers can often afford Very Expensive Lawyers, while the complainants, ordinary working people, cannot. And so, if we follow your apparently reasonable and sensible advice, discrimination will continue. For the same reason OJ Simpson still walks free... Money

[Fried Egg]

I'm not disputing that women have faced historic discrimination in the workplace in the past, but I think it has all but disappeared today (and certainly in such large organisations as these).

This seems odd, when the gender pay gap continues to exist. There are all sorts of statistics available, depending on exactly what you choose to measure. But women are still paid less than men, many of them for doing the same job. Empirical evidence seems to contradict your opinion here.

But you see you are doing the very thing that I am attacking as wrong here; reasoning from statistical disparities to concluding discrimination. I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before and I don't want to pursue that point. To that end, I will concede that there is probably still sexual discrimination going on in the workplace. But even if we accept that premise, my arguments against these cases still stand. Do they really identify cases of actual discrimination going on? And do these cases even address it if it is?

But let's just concede for the purposes of this discussion that sexual discrimination is happening and, where it is happening it should be stopped. It is my contention that these cases are not doing that.

But let's focus on these actual cases I mentioned above and the facts (as far as we know them).

I'd rather not. You've already said this is a minor thread of the issues you want to discuss. And there are always instances where rules are misapplied.

Many of them caused by those who know of the rule, but don't understand why it's there, or what it's for. Such people are so nervous about breaking the rule, possibly fanned by right-wing sensationalist press headlines, that they apply it even where they should not.

I don't think it says much at all about the main issue(s) if we simply focus on the aberrations, does it?

...

Unless your point is that misapplications of the rules are the majority of cases?

I'm attacking the very principlee that these three cases all rest on (and there are others I haven't mentioned). The very notion that one can judge the comparative values of two different employee roles (outside of free forming market prices).

Answer me this. If it is true that women tend not to work as refuse cleaners, event at the higher rates of pay offered in such roles, and men are more willing and so end up disproportionately represented in such roles, you would accept that this would not constitute sexual discrimination? Do you think it is wrong that rates of pay should incorporate how difficult it is to fill those roles?

[Fried Egg]

Oh, and I object to such cases as these that remove the presumption of innocence. That is supposed to be a cornerstone of our justice system.

[Sy Borg]

In short, I support equality but not equity, as these terms are defined in the media today. Equality of process, not outcome. Some people are simply better than others at certain things. Ideally, people are rewarded for their output, not their skin colour, genitalia, or preferred usage of said genitals.

[LuckyR]

In short, I support equality but not equity, as these terms are defined in the media today. Equality of process, not outcome. Some people are simply better than others at certain things. Ideally, people are rewarded for their output, not their skin colour, genitalia, or preferred usage of said genitals.

Ideally, but, alas uncommonly.