https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/02/06/british-equal-value-lawsuits-have-become-an-absurd-denial-of-markets
> The aim of all this is equality. Advocates of “equal value” suits argue that predominantly female jobs are systematically paid less than similarly useful “male” ones, and that needs rectifying. This was not originally a British notion of equality. Barbara Castle, a Labour minister who brought about the Equal Pay Act in Britain in 1970, had thought “equal value” too abstract a concept to be included in her law. But the European Union insisted, and an amendment came in 1983: British workers were then entitled to claim equal pay if they could prove they performed work of equal value to their opposite-sex colleagues.
>
> . . .
>
> The new wave hit councils and the health service first. A suit comparing cleaners with binmen in effect bankrupted Birmingham City Council. Supermarkets came next. Leigh Day, the law firm representing Asda’s staff, is also representing shop workers bringing claims against Tesco, the Co-op, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s. A clothes chain, Next, is already on the hook to pay compensation, possibly more than £30m. The cases are costly even for those not directly involved in them. Organisations pay millions to consultants to draw up “job evaluation schemes” in an effort to protect themselves from litigation.
>
> The cases do not hinge on proving any actual sexism. The ruling against Next noted that “there was no conscious or subconscious gender influence in the way Next set pay rates”. Nor are women precluded from working in warehouses (Next’s was 47% female). The court will not even consider whether Asda had a good reason for the pay disparity until the coming stage of the case.
Addressing disparities in pay between workers performing the same job is one thing, but drawing an equivalence between different jobs entirely is another. This appears to be an attempt to litigate in court a matter that would be better handled by the job market.
WAGRAMWAGRAM on
I remember the Economist is right-wing when they whine about the socialist EU. (there’s a lot of other factors)
2 Comments
Excerpt:
https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/02/06/british-equal-value-lawsuits-have-become-an-absurd-denial-of-markets
> The aim of all this is equality. Advocates of “equal value” suits argue that predominantly female jobs are systematically paid less than similarly useful “male” ones, and that needs rectifying. This was not originally a British notion of equality. Barbara Castle, a Labour minister who brought about the Equal Pay Act in Britain in 1970, had thought “equal value” too abstract a concept to be included in her law. But the European Union insisted, and an amendment came in 1983: British workers were then entitled to claim equal pay if they could prove they performed work of equal value to their opposite-sex colleagues.
>
> . . .
>
> The new wave hit councils and the health service first. A suit comparing cleaners with binmen in effect bankrupted Birmingham City Council. Supermarkets came next. Leigh Day, the law firm representing Asda’s staff, is also representing shop workers bringing claims against Tesco, the Co-op, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s. A clothes chain, Next, is already on the hook to pay compensation, possibly more than £30m. The cases are costly even for those not directly involved in them. Organisations pay millions to consultants to draw up “job evaluation schemes” in an effort to protect themselves from litigation.
>
> The cases do not hinge on proving any actual sexism. The ruling against Next noted that “there was no conscious or subconscious gender influence in the way Next set pay rates”. Nor are women precluded from working in warehouses (Next’s was 47% female). The court will not even consider whether Asda had a good reason for the pay disparity until the coming stage of the case.
Addressing disparities in pay between workers performing the same job is one thing, but drawing an equivalence between different jobs entirely is another. This appears to be an attempt to litigate in court a matter that would be better handled by the job market.
I remember the Economist is right-wing when they whine about the socialist EU. (there’s a lot of other factors)