Ruling on equal pay at Next - the road to hell is paved with good intentions....

[GreenTeaLikesMe]

Thousands of Next workers secure landmark £30 million equal pay victory (bmmagazine.co.uk)

"More than 3,500 current and former employees of fashion retailer Next have emerged victorious in a historic equal pay battle, marking the first successful claim of its kind against a major national retailer.
"After a six-year legal struggle, the Employment Tribunal ruled that the company had failed to justify paying its predominantly female sales consultants lower hourly wages than their male-dominated warehouse counterparts. This ruling could see Next facing compensation costs exceeding £30 million."

Roughly speaking, this goes well beyond the remit of what I'd consider "equal pay legislation." Historically, it was common for women to be paid less than men even when doing exactly the same work, and modern legislation rightly prevents companies from doing this. However, we seem to have moved onto a new level, in which companies can be forced to pay the same rate of pay for different jobs, on the grounds that "well, men more commonly do Job A while Job B is done mainly by women."

My own feelings are that a) no, working on the tills is not comparable with humping stuff about in a warehouse, especially when occupation risk is taken into account; b) women can and do work in warehouses if they want to; they are mostly not choosing to do so; c) this risks a lot of really dodgy downstream consequences, including the possibility that warehouse workers' wages could be pushed downwards as well, or the likelihood that more and more companies will close more brick-and-mortar branches of shops or services.

Does pinning two different working groups pay together work though? If there is suddenly a shortage of warehouse workers and salaries need to be increased to entice workers into that area do such judgments prevent this (and vice versa). I am being criticised for being 'anti woman' but it is only fair to suggest such discrimination claims do run counter to the idea of liberal economics where employers are free to set salaries according to supply and demand of portions of the workforce. I think if you are attacking employers for not actively looking at gender equal pay then you should also criticise a system where salary is ultimately down to market.

If we take Birmingham City Council for example it could be argued the council set salary levels such that a workforce could be provided that was best value for the council tax payer in Birmingham. The really unpalatable truth might have been that the council could set lower wages for female dominated roles as women were prepared to apply for those jobs at the salaries advertised and this meant lower council tax bills in general. Possibly the council would want to have reduced the male series as well but there was a smaller supply of male workers so we're in a better collective bargaining position.

With all these things remember no one is forced to work for a company and everyone has the right to move on to other employment for a greatest wage; it's the way of the world.

Not being able to raise wages for jobs where there are shortages is going to create a LOT of downstream consequences which will upset many of the people here who are currently expressing enthusiasm for the change.

The fact that this can be applied retrospectively is very concerning and risks having a real chilling effect on hiring.

How are companies meant to pre snot these actions. The only solution that is fair to the shareholders is to limit hiring into positions which may be prone to such class actiin. In the case of the retail sector it would mean fewer shop floor staff who would be under greater strain. My last trip to a clothes store meant I had to use a self.scan payment device as there was one cashier with a huge queue. I guess self scan machines won't bring equal pay claims based on gender.

How does this work with collective pay bargaining in future? If the warehouse workers decide through union action to lobby for greater pay (or take industrial action) in future couk d employers settle with the warehouse workers without just promoting a second round of tribunals to bring up the pay of the retail workers 🤷

One of the first things the employers have to do is review their recruitment practices. Our local supermarket would recruit in groups. You didn't know what job you would be offered but women were never offered warehouse jobs.

Equal value cases are very difficult to win. The retail cases have been going through the court system for years. This isn't some random snap decision.

I'm not sure why there seems to be so much hand wringing about this decision. The employees involved are on close to NMW. The count back of payouts (6 or 7 years) is going to cost Next £30m which is around 3% of this year's annual profits.

We all benefit from this win and I hope the supermarket cases are equally successful. Many people in retail jobs are also in receipt of income supporting benefits. We are subsidising large private companies so that they can pay low wages and make more profit.

Exactly. I mean, if there were clearly set out codes that were not subject to change, that would not be too bad (although there is still the risk of creating weird distortions if it becomes impossible raise wages in response to shortages of workers in particular roles).

But what is really concerning is the possibility that a judge could, at the stroke of a pen, decide that "actually, these two roles should have been paid the same, from day one. You'll have to pay backdated pay and possibly pensions."

Like, really, how can companies possibly feel comfortable about hiring workers in such circumstances? It may seem easier to just hire as few people as possible and outsource things overseas whenever possible, especially in service roles.

Is that you, Simon Wolfson?

The ignorance from the OP and others on the law is quite depressing. Barbara Castle would be shaking her head in disbelief.

Maybe if you are left minded the bugbear is low pay and poor working conditions independent of gender? The pay disparity between genders may be something of a side issue.....It all depends on the colour of your politics.

You can be a woman and believe in the free market with firms being able to flexibly alter wages in order to attract staff while bearing in mind it is a competitive economy and the point of companies is to make profit. A company could try and enhance its profit by advertising a lower wage than its competitors (it may not work but it is a right). The point is we are a capitalist society and flexible wage structures based on market sustains it. Other economic systems are available as Marx possibly said.

The tribunal rulings here are a kind of microcosm of communism where a state body determines wages for a particular local sector and though we have gender pay equality a motivation in reality it is still an invasion into the free market for employees. Simply because it is good for feminism doesnt detract that decisions like this have anticipated economic consequences.

@mids2019 this ruling hasn't been at the stroke of a pen.

There have been several years of checking of documents, analysing of rules, checking of terms.

When this whole thing started back in 2019 the discrimination was plain to see.

The employer was able to distort the market.

They didn't offer women jobs in the warehouse. They were able to avoid shop workers collectivising by offering short shifts which started and ended at different times. I don't think this was intentional but it was a benefit they enjoyed.

Since the cases started the employers have already narrowed the gap. Some of this because of the increases to NMW. Some of this because the cases have held up the mirror to the employers. The discriminatory processes were subconscious, the employers have had to become conscious of their actions.

Next and hopefully the supermarkets to come can all afford to pay their employees legally. If they can't they shouldn't be in business.

I don't know the Next case particularly but I have been following one of the supermarket cases fairly closely. They have been up and down the court system. At each stage the employers have lost.

The employers have chosen to drag this out. They should have saved the legal fees and paid their retail staff properly.

I’m genuinely shocked that large retailers are apparently (according to people on this thread) recruiting in groups and then just shuffling men into higher paying roles without giving women that option. It makes me wonder how they couldn’t see that this was discrimination earlier but I suppose it just became a habit?

@mids2019 @GreenTeaLikesMe Employment hasn't been a free market (with employers allowed to do whatever they could get away with) since The Truck Act of 1831 which required employees to be paid in money rather than tokens to be used at the, expensive, company shop.

Left to their own devices (ie market forces) employers will discriminate on grounds of race, sex, disability or anything else, ignore health, safety and environmental considerations. Anything which will save them a penny or give them an advantage over a competitor.

This is why we have employment laws. Every now and then employers have to have a sharp smack on the nose to remind them that the employment laws do apply to them.

Back in the mid 1980s when I was doing my degree a lecturer suggested that the rules on equal pay for work of equal value would open the flood gates for employment tribunal cases. If these are the floods they have taken a hell of a long time getting here.

Next clearly don't care about actually paying their staff fairly. One of the largest retailers in the UK and the hourly rate for retail staff on Oxford Street is under the London living wage (£13.15) at £8.79 to £12 something an hour.

Other companies dealt with this discrepancy years ago

@WitcheryDivine it was certainly in place when family members went through the recruitment process. The discrimination was structural. It was done that way because it had always been done that way.

It has probably now improved, in no small part because of the cases being raised which have held up the mirror to these employers.

@Vinorosso74 employers have been getting away with it forever. Part time hours mean unions often aren't interested (lower union subs). Employees are vulnerable and don't have the resources to fight. Competition for shifts keeps their attention away from how much per hour and focused on how many hours.

There isn't a warehouse in Leicester. Next's warehouses are massive standalone distribution centres in Yorkshire

I also think this is bonkers. As per a PP next proved that 53% of warehouse ops are male so it's hardly overwhelmingly men is it?

When taliking about 'warehouses' they are also referring to the massive distribution sheds but the stock rooms attached to a store

Next do not struggle to recruit in retail. Presumably, those women who work in retail could go to warehouse, work 12 hour shifts and get paid more per hour? The court made it clear there is no suggestion next are paying women less than men, it's purely that more women CHOOSE to be employed in retail.

And whoever said they don't start work at 4am on Boxing Day - who do you think picks and packs all those sale orders and stuff that replenishes stores?!

*no suggestion that women are paid less for the same role

It been more than 20 years since working in retail, however, I remember having to move stock etc. There is a lot of manual handling in retail

This is not a new legal development though.

as well as “obvious” equal pay ie equal pay for equal work, equal pay legislation also covers work of equal value and work rated as equivalent. This has been the law for a very, very long time.

the question I think needs asked though why is it the jobs the women do that are alway deemed worthy of less pay? How many men end up needing to bring equal pay claims? It’s so depressing that men’s work is always deemed more valuable.

If you were a shareholder you would be upset if they didn't ...

I said exactly that in conversation 30mins ago.

I’ll start to wonder if it’s disproportionate when men are the ones experiencing discrimination because of poor pay.

Funny how the struggle to recruit hasn’t attracted better pay in woman dominated fields like care work.

Women are as a group less likely to be able to work 12 hour shifts because they are more likely to have caring responsibilities that would make that not feasible

What, be sexist? Why would I be disappointed?

Shareholders demand - or are required to demand - the best possible returns on their investment. Which basically boils down to maximum profits (and therefore dividends) and minimum costs.

If a company can add an extra 1p to it's dividend by reducing pay to the workers, then why wouldn't it ? (This isn't a rhetorical question for an exam, it's just the accumulated evidence of centuries of practice). This is why almost all improvements in workers rights (H&S, etc) have had to come at the end of a big pointy stick called "the law". And even then only if anyone is checking.

Exactly the same motives that drove mill owners to employ children to scurry among working looms to retrieve dropped threads (with the obvious outcome of death and injuries you'd expect) rather than shut the looms down for 5 minutes persist to this day. As anyone who cares to casually peruse the worlds news would be aware.

Is it hyperbole to suggest that Lord Shaftesbury would be appalled to realise how at home his contemporaries would feel in the modern day UK ?

Even as I type, on a similar note, 7 years after many many people died in a terrible tragedy that was preventable under the law of the day, the abuses that led to those deaths are still ongoing.

People whining about equal pay are possibly missing the point. Workers being shat on is a permanent state of affairs, as is the counterfight to protect their lives, rights and health.

@banjaxxed is that split male/female current or in place at the time this case started? This case started in around 2019 as did the supermarket cases.

In the supermarkets it is noticeable that the pay differential has come down since the cases started. I don't know if they have also improved their recruitment practices (women only offered jobs in stores). It's almost like they knew they were discriminating!

I am saddened by how many people on a site for women are still so determined that equal pay for work of equal value is a bad thing.