Sheffield Council Faces Mass Equal Pay Claim Over Job Evaluation Scheme

[dan_999uk 74]

Lol crikey.

[leviathan13 350]

14 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Dont caretakers usually have responsibilities regarding the premises, i.e. opening up, locking up etc?

Cleaners just turn up, clean, and then go.

Thats one obvious difference I can think of between the two.

And carrying out repairs etc.

[sheffbag 230]

4 hours ago, Anna B said:

Women's work has always been undervalued and this continues. 

In spite of endless legislation, women still only earn approx 75% of the male wage, and still do most of the housework and caring duties.

 

complete and utter rubbish.

 

Show me a job that men and women can apply for but it says that women will be paid less for it.

 

If that was the case, companies would just hire women and not men as it would cost them less.

Want more money? move jobs

[Dannyno 19]

2 hours ago, leviathan13 said:

As always, earnings and salary being confused...

 

It is illegal, and has been for some decades, for an employer to pay different salaries for the same job. However, the EARNINGS differ due to the choices made by the individuals.

 

Want to earn the same as a man, do the same hours or the same type of work.

What Anna B is referring to, I think, is the overall difference between what men are being paid and what women are being paid, overall.   It is now illegal to pay men and women differently for the same work, or work of equal value, but there can still be an overall difference.    Some of that difference is because men and women are told they are good at certain things and not others, and so social expectations can direct people into different types of roles, some of which might be paid less.   Some of that difference is because women take more time out of work when they have children, and so fall behind a bit.   Some of that difference is likely because of discrimination.   Some of that difference might even be because men and women have different preferences and make different choices - but the point of course is to keep jobs open to all and always to appoint the best person, and to encourage everyone to think about all possibilities.

 

The argument GMB seem to be making is that it is the job evaluation scheme that is at fault, ie that it happens to calculate grades for jobs mainly done by women lower than grades for jobs mainly done by men.     

 

In other words, this is an argument about work of "equal value".   So while it is true that a cleaner and a caretaker are not the same jobs, exactly, the question is whether they are of equal value, and how you establish that.

 

[HeHasRisen 3,411]

A caretaker quite clearly isn't the same job as a cleaner.  The former has more responsibility. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[Mister M 1,628]

2 hours ago, sheffbag said:

complete and utter rubbish.

 

Show me a job that men and women can apply for but it says that women will be paid less for it.

 

If that was the case, companies would just hire women and not men as it would cost them less.

Want more money? move jobs

 I don't think Anna is saying that it is advertised that women will receive less than men, but the fact is on many occasion they still do.

 

 

[leviathan13 350]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

 I don't think Anna is saying that it is advertised that women will receive less than men, but the fact is on many occasion they still do.

 

 

But not because of sexism and everything to do with with life choices.

[GleadlessLad 12]

The unions pushed Sheffield Council into conducting a Job Evaluation exercise for all employees about 14 years ago.  Pay for some posts was then reduced, while pay was increased for other posts.  Obviously this caused a lot of upset & stress for those folk who'd been appointed to a particular grade, only to be told - often many years later - that the grade for their job was now being arbitrarily reduced & therefore their pay would be cut - often significantly - when they had mortgages to pay etc.

 

A number of departments then suffered a loss of experienced staff as people left to work for other employers who were paying something like the original rates, while SCC subsequently struggled to fill the resulting vacancies with the right calibre of person because the remuneration wasn't judged as being competitive by potential applicants.

 

Throughout that job evaluation process (circa 2009), SCC repeatedly said that it was necessary in order to protect the authority from any liability in future for large expenses resulting from equal pay claims.

 

After the process had ended, all new posts ever since were run through the same Job Evaluation criteria to ensure "fair grading".

 

Hence I find it difficult to understand why GMB seem to be trying to re-visit the process?

 

 

[HeHasRisen 3,411]

4 minutes ago, GleadlessLad said:

 

 

Hence I find it difficult to understand why GMB seem to be trying to re-visit the process?

 

 

The whole thing sounds insanity, its comparing two totally different jobs and because one is generally done more by men and one is generally done more by women, despite neither role being closed off to either gender, they are crying sexism.

 

Baffling.

[Anna B 1,417]

1 hour ago, leviathan13 said:

But not because of sexism and everything to do with with life choices.

While ever women are the one's who give birth, they are going to be at a disadvantage in the commercial world.

 

 

 

 

[Delbow 707]

2 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

The whole thing sounds insanity, its comparing two totally different jobs and because one is generally done more by men and one is generally done more by women, despite neither role being closed off to either gender, they are crying sexism.

 

Baffling.

In 2010, SCC brought in a job pay and grading system designed to ensure that work of a similar nature (not 'identical', you'll note) was paid the same; this was to head off sex discrimination claims and rectify historical disparities in pay between jobs that were similar in nature or required the same level of skills and knowledge. From what I can remember, level of responsibility, unsocial hours, risks to workers and whether you worked indoors or outdoors were some of the factors. Assuming that scheme, designed by private sector consultants IIRC, is sound, then if a caretaker's job is significantly different enough to a cleaner's, then those GMB members will not win an equal pay claim in court. If SCC have paid more since 2010 for roles that are male-dominated but benchmark the same as roles that are female-dominated and paid lower, then clearly those female workers have a good chance of winning. Pretty straightforward and no need to imagine any injustice at this stage. If SCC have been stupid enough to continue pay disparity after introducing a system to eliminate it, then the city as a whole is in trouble.

[hackey lad 3,991]

2 hours ago, GleadlessLad said:

The unions pushed Sheffield Council into conducting a Job Evaluation exercise for all employees about 14 years ago.  Pay for some posts was then reduced, while pay was increased for other posts.  Obviously this caused a lot of upset & stress for those folk who'd been appointed to a particular grade, only to be told - often many years later - that the grade for their job was now being arbitrarily reduced & therefore their pay would be cut - often significantly - when they had mortgages to pay etc.

 

A number of departments then suffered a loss of experienced staff as people left to work for other employers who were paying something like the original rates, while SCC subsequently struggled to fill the resulting vacancies with the right calibre of person because the remuneration wasn't judged as being competitive by potential applicants.

 

Throughout that job evaluation process (circa 2009), SCC repeatedly said that it was necessary in order to protect the authority from any liability in future for large expenses resulting from equal pay claims.

 

After the process had ended, all new posts ever since were run through the same Job Evaluation criteria to ensure "fair grading".

 

Hence I find it difficult to understand why GMB seem to be trying to re-visit the process?

 

 

Cos they've  seen it work in Birmingham