Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
They may be the same pay grade but they still aren't the same jobs although granted they should have just changed the grading of jobs if they felt they justified higher pay rates but I guess that would then have meant further additional costs such as pension contributions. Were they doing it to reward male workers or were they just acknowledging that some jobs are more physically demanding than others (or even that some job vacancies are harder to fill than others)?
0 -
Your original post seemed to imply that women were saying X job is equivalent to Y, which they didn't, the council graded them the same (I may have misinterpreted your post though!). I agree they weren't the same jobs but if the council decides to grade them the same then they are subject to the same pay scales. My guess is that as the additional pay (as bonuses) were awarded almost exclusively to men and that female workers had no clue about it that it was by design. As you say Pross, they would just have put roles in a separate pay band otherwise.
0 -
I was reading a post by someone disappointed about the government's decision in the WASPI case. Her view was that the government had messed up, so the government needed to pay. This misses the point that the government is just spending everyone else's money, so he is actually arguing that people who won't retire until they are 68 should pay compensation to women who got to retire at an earlier age.
The same is true in Birmingham, have the women genuinely lost out? Were their salaries lower than similar jobs in other cities? Is it justifiable for every other resident to pay them money, because of the way their jobs were categorised?
0 -
This wasn't BCC messing up though. This was BCC deliberately handing out yearly £10-15k bonuses to one set of employees on the same pay scale whilst failing to offer the same to all employees (with no reasonable justification for said bonusses). I would say that women who were not offered an equivalent bonus to men on the same payscale (whilst admittedly doing different jobs) absolutely lost out, to the financial tune of tens of thousands of pounds.
I think the whole argument that residents are now left footing the bill is a bit of a red herring. BCC enacted a deliberate and underhand policy of underpaying female employees. The council are now liable to pay them what they owed. It is their fault and their responsibility.
0 -
W&G lives off grid in a cave in an Arizona canyon. He's prepared for anything.
0 -
Why did they pay the bonuses? Presumably to increase wages to a market rate to retain staff. It would be very strange for a council to choose to pay people more without it being necessary.
If they were not paying the market rate for any job, they would have found themselves without employees.
The system fell over because someone classified jobs as being the same level when they weren't the same level. That doesn't mean someone has lost out.
0 -
The male dominated jobs were binmen, gravedigger, gardener to name a few. The female dominated jobs were cooks, care workers, cleaners to name a few. In terms of manual labour, skills and experience required, I would suggest that they were very much the same level. It is very hard to justify a binman taking home double the salary of a careworker or school cook.
By dint of an agreement that BCC has paid, and will pay further claims totalling hundreds of millions, I would also suggest that this is a clear recognition that they lost out financially. The fact that a legal ruling also agreed this was an equal pay issue and laid out terms for extended time periods for equal pay compensation claims, also implies that the women lost out.
0 -
Paying is recognition of a lost legal battle.
My merit based test would be, having now taken legal advice, are these jobs all paid the same, and if so, is the level of vacancies the same? I'd be surprised if a refuse worker didn't earn more than a teaching assistant.
0 -
Point of order. If it's been paid to HMRC, it's not your money any more. It belongs to the State. I really wish people would stop repeating this comforting nonsense.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
But it hasn't been paid to HMRC yet.
0 -
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.
Thatcher's famous quote.
0 -
It was in response to the comment about the government 'just spending your money' and variants thereof. If it's in HMRC's account it's no longer yours. They're not just looking after it for you or spending it on your behalf. That is a fiction.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This is an odd ditch to die in.
2 -
I'll have to disagree with you on this. At a personal level, saving more may make sense - bigger rainy day fund in case mean Auntie Rachel comes round for her pound of flesh. But at an aggregate level it's bad news, as overall demand in the economy falls. Google "paradox of thrift" for more info.
I've not overrreacted to the suggestion there is "tax risk" in life. I've not reacted at all to that suggestion. I've simply disagreed that making tax policy in such a way that a small number of people might be stung for large amounts of cash for one of many potential tax changes is in anyway a sensible way to run a country. Just raise tax via income tax. It's administratively simple, tends to have relatively few "unexpected" behavioural impacts and can be made to be as fair / progressive as you like.
1 -
Never mind poring over maps of the US. (Though tbh, I think Montana or Wyoming are the traditional locations for "end of the worlders".) You could do with Googling "the paradox of thrift" too.
0 -
You have changed your statement to match mine. People saving more affects the economy. It doesn't affect the money supply and banks' ability to lend although with a worse economy they will probably lend less (not more as you stated).
0 -
The Magdeburg Christmas market attack. How absolutely horrific! My German friend just popped round and he has many family members who live there and were at the market at the time. He spoke to them this morning to make sure they were safe which fortunately they were. They were only in the next street from where it happened. UK news is not reporting the full facts. There was a gap in the bollards to allow the tram through hence the car was able to get in too. It was a big black BMW x5. It raced at 70-80mph along the pedestrian street for 4-500 meters swerving to hit as many as possible. Sounds absolutely awful. Many more people are dead than currently reported. So terrible and just before Christmas. Apparently the guy was known to police and on their watch list.
Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
Terrible. Why does someone do these horrible acts
Wife and son were visiting the markets in Munich and Stuttgart over the last few days.
0
