Post by tim... Post by Yellow
You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".
but it shouldn't just be equal value
whether a job strenuous or not
whether the job is dangerous or not
whether the job is under cover or outside
IMHO it's perfectly reasonable to pay gardener more than a cleaner, because
being gardener requires you to work outside in the cold and rain. Whereas a
cleaner is inside in the warm all day.
But it would be difficult to argue that the garden has greater value that
You are simply listing the things that to you, personally, are less
pleasant and stating that you therefore would wish to be paid more to do
But I cannot see any reason why the equal value criteria would not cover
work being dangerous against work that is not.
Working in weather as against not working in weather, not so sure. Just
because you do not like the idea, plenty would pick weeding in the rain
over cleaning a disgusting toilet in the dry. I know I would! Also
gardening tends to be a day time activity while cleaning hours are often
anti-social. And finally of course there is no guarantee that cleaner
will be working in heated conditions.
I am an engineer but have all too often had to work in freezing
And a job being strenuous. Should someone really be paid more just
because the job includes lifting? First, they should be taught how to
lift and second they should only ever lift what they can comfortability
manage, aids being supplied to help. So if no one does more than they
can comfortably cope with, should that really be a reason for extra
cash? I guess it also depends on the other aspects of the work, whether
the lifting is the core of the work or not.
And this of course has come up with the ASDA case, the argument being
that warehouse work is more strenuous so it should pay more. To counter
that, the people in the store say they also have to lift goods and move
them around but they do not have the benefit of a forklift. Will be
interesting to read what the court rules.
Post by tim... Post by Yellow
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.
Yes it will
I did a holiday job in a shop once
I worked on the shop floor most of the time. It was piss easy.
One week I was asked to cover in the warehouse. At the end of the week I
was absolutely fucking knackered.
The job's physically harder, so IMHO the guy (in fact the person that I
worked alongside that week was female) should be paid more
In these more modern times it will be forklifts and pallet trucks vs
pallets, shelf filling, standing all day and dealing with customers.
It will be an interesting case.