The Court of Appeal has ruled that inequality between the pay of mainly female carers working for Sheffield City Council and their predominantly male colleagues doing equivalent jobs, like gardening and rubbish collection, was "tainted by sexism".Now, who in their right mind would argue that gardening and rubbish collection – heavy manual labour, mostly out in the elements – was equivalent to indoor work like wiping bottoms and dishing up meals?
Lord Justice Pill said a bonus scheme introduced in the 1960s gave the council's overwhelmingly male manual workers extra pay to boost their productivity, whilst no bonuses were paid to carers and others doing traditionally female jobs. The council now faces having to compensate women carers who have been paid up to 38 per cent less than men for decades.Maybe I’m missing something here, but if the money was paid because the men boosted their productivity accordingly, then how can the Court of Appeal assume that the women would have all done so should they have been offered a bonus..?
This was extra pay for extra work.
Not the same thing as paying them a higher base rate (not that there’d be anything wrong with that, after all, they are clearly different jobs).
The tribunal had dismissed the carers' equal pay claim on the basis that the reason for the disparity in male and female pay was that "men's work can be measured to provide a benchmark for productivity and the women's work cannot". But the Appeal Court found the women were victims of "indirect" sex discrimination.Ah, right.
Like the MacPherson Report and ‘institutional racism’, the Appeal Court started with the judgement they wanted, and proceeded from there…