Male workers at Welsh university win equal pay claim.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Thanks for repeating what you've already said.

I'm having some difficulty locating it so can I ask you to to point me to where it says specifically, as you have claimed, "Before the new contract they were graded as "equal value" jobs and paid the same annual salary." ?

Cheers.

First link. And actually reading and comprehending the articles. If the alternative explanation for something isn't or can't be true, then the alternative explanations don't exist.

The ONLY change was the minimum contracted hours. The articles STATE that BOTH sides agreed the men had a LOWER hourly rate on the SAME pay grade. The disagreement was on whether the AGREED DIFFERENCE IN HOURLY RATES was based on gender.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

First link. And actually reading and comprehending the articles. If the alternative explanation for something isn't or can't be true, then the alternative explanations don't exist.

The ONLY change was the minimum contracted hours. The articles STATE that BOTH sides agreed the men had a LOWER hourly rate on the SAME pay grade. The disagreement was on whether the AGREED DIFFERENCE IN HOURLY RATES was based on gender.

Again, where does it say specifically, as you have claimed, "Before the new contract they were graded as "equal value" jobs and paid the same annual salary." ?

I can find no trace of that being stated anywhere. While we're on the subject of of "alternatrive explanations" the burden of proof lies with you, who made the above statement, to back it up and prove your assertion. Thus far you have not managed to do so beyond reiterating your comprehension of the articles.

If, as you suggest, before the circumstances came about which prompted the equal pay claim they were graded as "equal value jobs" and on the "same" salary why then did they undergo a job evaluation and grading process?

Are you suggesting that the plaintiff in the aforelinked video is being disingenious with the truth?

Clearly the "minimum contracted hours" were not the only change - that is why the case was brought. Again, the plaintiff states "There was a discrepancy to what our grade should have paid us and the salary that they were offering us".

With all due respect, the plaintiff has a better grasp of the issues involved in the case than either you or I.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Again, where does it say specifically, as you have claimed, "Before the new contract they were graded as "equal value" jobs and paid the same annual salary." ?

I can find no trace of that being stated anywhere. While we're on the subject of of "alternatrive explanations" the burden of proof lies with you, who made the above statement, to back it up and prove your assertion. Thus far you have not managed to do so beyond reiterating your comprehension of the articles.

If, as you suggest, before the circumstances came about which prompted the equal pay claim they were graded as "equal value jobs" and on the "same" salary why then did they undergo a job evaluation and grading process?

Are you suggesting that the plaintiff in the aforelinked video is being disingenious with the truth?

Clearly the "minimum contracted hours" were not the only change - that is why the case was brought. Again, the plaintiff states "There was a discrepancy to what our grade should have paid us and the salary that they were offering us".

With all due respect, the plaintiff has a better grasp of the issues involved in the case than either you or I.

Already linked and quoted before.

They were on grade three of the university's pay scale and the dispute arose when their contracts changed.
Previously, the men had been on a minimum 45 hour week until new regulations sought to standardise all workers to a 37 hour week instead.
Fearing the drop in hours would cause problems, university bosses said they would guarantee the men the extra eight hours but class it as overtime pay.
Yet when the new system was put in place, the men said they realised their hourly rate was less than women including secretaries and office employees who were on the same pay grade.

They were on grade 3 pay scale.
Contracts changed to standardize all workers to a 37 hour week.
Led to drop in hours. As a result, the university allowed them to work guaranteed overtime to make up the difference. Prior to that overtime offer there would have been a "discrepancy to what our grade should have paid us and the salary that they were offering us". Hence the NEWER offer.
In the wages system, before and after any contract changes, there would have been an annual salary converted to hourly rate. That would depend on the the minimum contracted hours, which for the men would have been 45 hours. Both sides agreed beforehand that had resulted in DIFFERENT hourly rates. That is reported in the articles. Dividing a figure by 45 is going to result in a smaller answer than if divided by 37. Basic Maths. Multiply that (agreed by both side)smaller answer back up by the new minimum of 37 hours and you get a smaller weekly and annual wage. If they had worked out a new contract hourly rate for the men based on 37 hours, then the new hourly rate would have been the same as the women and no problems whatsoever. Everything equal, hours, rates, and annual salary.

Their hourly rate had been less than the women's, before and after the the contract changes. Again, agreed by both parties and reported as such. The difference wouldn't have been routinely noticeable before the contract changes, because the men worked 45 hours and so the final weekly and annual wages matched that of the women. To be honest, they should have worked out that their hourly rates were lower, because they had to work more hours(discrimination) to earn the same pay as the women.

[Mr Angry]

Still no link to anything that corroborates your assertion "Before the new contract they were graded as "equal value" jobs and paid the same annual salary."

They were not graded as equal value jobs until the such time as the National Pay Modernisation Review in 2006/2007 had evaluated their jobs as part of the salary harmonization program.

You are attempting to oversimplify an extremely complex issue.

Your earlier question "How is having to work 45 hours to earn the same as somebody else working 37 hours, equal?" gives us a clue as to the difficulties. Two people of differing genders working in a shop (for example) doing the exact same job but who are aged 18 and 21 respectively will face this very situation week in week out and will continue to do so until the issue becomes a matter of tested equality. The national minimum wage currently allows such wage anomalies to exisist based on age, not gender. However this recent ruling based on work of equal value (as determined in 2007 and not before) has wider reaching implications

The grade three band of the University pay structure has several "paypoints" therein. Neither you nor I know which specific salary the comparators were being paid in comparison to what the men were being paid so all of the mathematical theorizing in the world is irrelevant.

Ah, the joy of HERA...