Is it really Andrew Tate or do some boys just have terrible role models in the home?

[snughugs]

I’m seeing all this sexism in class stuff on TV just now, they blame Andrew Tate for everything. I bet a lot of these boys have Fathers and male role models who are the type of men we read about on the relationship boards here. You know the guys who want a submissive provider.

It would be great if you could engage with the information presented in the post.

I am doing, to do so you need to clarify your position on the above please.

You're not engaging with the evidence presented, you're trying to engage me in a hypothetical situation.

"You're not engaging with the evidence presented, you're trying to engage me in a hypothetical situation"

I think your being disingenuous here.

He is saying that a salary gap does not take account for differences in overall hours worked, overtime and perhaps levels of seniority/promotion records etc

The evidence is pretty clear, please see the above post. There is also additional information on the statistics should you choose to investigate further.

It's not hypothetical.

Men on average do more hours paid work than women.

Men on average get paid more.

You need to share some evidence that women in the same role with the same experience and qualifications get paid less on an hourly basis - which you haven't.

Please share evidence supporting a gender pay gap in hourly rates.

Here is an example of a woman winning a case due to being paid less than her male colleagues for equal work:
https://wegobeyondhr.com/female-engineer-awarded-305k-in-equal-pay-claim/

Here are some examples of women winning a claim for equal pay
https://afterathena.co.uk/female-asda-workers-win-key-ruling-in-equal-pay-claim/

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/what-next-workers-equal-pay-claims-succeed-against-next/

So reading that, the men were Grade 24 Sigma Black Belt (more qualified) and she was Grade 23.

There is no mention of hours worked.

And again here, no mention of hours worked and they're not even doing the same job.

What was stopping the women working in the warehouses?

The workers argue they are paid less than their male counterparts in distribution centres for work of equal value.

The case was found in her favour because she was doing work of equal value but being paid substantially less.

You keep talking about hours worked but haven't taken into account the evidence presented above which cited pay disparities for full time workers.

I've actually gone and read the history on the two cases you've posted.

Asda
A tribunal and appeal have agreed some retail roles are equal in terms of physical effort, mental demands, responsibility and working conditions to warehouse based roles.

They now have to prove that these roles of equal value were paid differently because of sex (retail workers mainly being female). Rather than all the other factors such as supply and demand, geographic pay differences, autonomy of departments, stronger unios etc.

So no, this isn't a case which shows women earn less on an hourly basis.

NEXT
Judges have rejected all claims of direct discrimination — where an employer offers some staff worse terms specifically because of their sex — and had only partly accepted the claims of indirect discrimination.

But they were awarded a settlement essentially it seems on the basis allowing Next to argue market forces led to different pay for different jobs would defeat equal pay legislation.

The court found that the vast majority of roles carried out, mainly by women, were of equal value to those paid more in the warehouse.

Asda now have to prove why people doing roles of equal value aren't being paid the same.

It's not possible to argue that this doesn't prove women aren't paid an equal amount for work of an equal value.

"It's not possible to argue that this doesn't prove women aren't paid an equal amount for work of an equal value."

I'm lost what you are making this statement on, nothing has been concluded, there has been no ruling?

The court found that the vast majority of roles carried out, mainly by women, were of equal value to those paid more in the warehouse.

You've jumped straight from - there is a different in pay for two groups of workers doing different jobs, in different locations. You've ignored the wide range of factors in the same you have where we've discussed the pay differences between men and women.

Uplifts for living costs mean the mainly female staff of a primary school in central london gets paid more than the mainly male teaching staff in the Northeast of england. Should they all be paid the same?

And you seem to be ignoring the court findings in a feverish attempt to ignore pay disparity, despite the above statistics, despite court rulings and despite centuries of misogyny.

There are not yet any court finding beyond the jobs being of equal value .........🙄

The court found that the women were doing work of equal value to the men and being paid less. You asked for evidence of women being paid less for men in NMW work.

People in different places doing different jobs with different market forces are getting paid different rates. This is a long way from proving women get paid less because they are women.

The court found that the women working outside the warehouses were being paid less for work of equal value. I believe in 12 out of 14 roles. They considered the role being performed.

It's now up to the company to explain why.

I'm glad you agree with me that no one has proven it is anything to do with sex. 👏

Apart from women being less well paid than men for work of equal value.