There has been a significant development in the ongoing equal pay case involving over 40,000 female employees at Asda. This case is just one among many in the retail sector, including one at Next, where female staff recently won the right to proceed to the final stage of their case. These cases pose larger questions about how we value “women’s work” even in the year 2023, more than 50 years after the Dagenham machinists fought for equal pay.
An email leaked to ITV from lawyers handling the Asda case revealed positive findings from an independent review commissioned by the employment tribunal. The review found that shop-floor jobs, mainly done by women, scored higher on various factors, such as knowledge and responsibility, compared to distribution jobs primarily held by men. This is significant because retail workers claim they are being paid £1.50 to £3 less per hour.
These findings follow a series of victories, including at the supreme court, examining whether it is appropriate to compare the two groups of workers. However, the case is far from over, with a tribunal hearing not scheduled until next year. Asda rightly points out that higher average scores do not automatically lead to a ruling that specific jobs are of equal value.
Moreover, even if such a ruling were made, Asda could argue, in the final stage of the process, that there are other valid reasons for the pay disparity between the two groups. As a company spokesperson stated, “Retail and distribution are very different sectors, with their own distinct skill sets and rates of pay.”
It is natural for shop-floor workers and other women in relatively low-paid jobs to wonder why pay rates in these sectors remain so low. There is a suspicion that the underlying social norm displayed in the Dagenham case, that work performed by women is inherently less valuable, continues to persist.
For instance, caring for preschool children or elderly care home residents are crucial jobs, yet these female-dominated roles often command no more than the national minimum wage. Although the root causes of poverty pay in these sectors are political, with chronic underfunding for social care and nursery provision, it is worth questioning how we arrived at this situation. Is sexism a contributing factor?
Lawyers representing retail employees hope to challenge the employers’ claim that the shop-floor worker and warehouse operative roles command different market rates. They argue that the market forces argument is tainted by sex discrimination and should not be considered a material factor in determining fair pay.
While these equal pay cases are groundbreaking, they only address disparities in specific job roles. Many women in other low-paid sectors face similar pay inequality without a comparable “men’s job” to use as a benchmark. The Labour party has pledged to facilitate fair pay agreements for low-paid sectors, starting with social care, where negotiations between unions and employers would take place.
If successful, this policy would primarily benefit women. However, the willingness of Labour’s leader, Keir Starmer, to argue that the sector needs better funding, not just to cap families’ fees, as promised by Boris Johnson, but also to ensure that thousands of undervalued care workers earn a decent wage remains uncertain.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
