Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'inequality'.
Found 4 results
Hello, I currently work for a Government ran business on back shift (4pm-12am) and all of back shift are having to work day shift for a few days between Christmas and New Year. While I feel it is unfair that we have to change our shift, this is not my problem. My problem is, a week ago we had to state what time on day shift we were going in: 7am-3pm, 8am-4pm or 9am-5pm. I chose 7-3, only, today we have found out that the building is closing at 1pm (which it did last year but everyone just worked a half day regardless of time started and got paid a full days pay) BUT this time if you start at 7am you work until 1pm, start at 8 or 9 you work until 1pm. How is this fair? I would be working 1-2 hours more than those starting later yet getting paid exactly the same. Is this level of inequality wrong? If so, what can I do about it?
Hi all, The team I am on at work has people on a wide range of earnings (the difference between the highest and lowest is double the lowest earner's wage). Mostly people were not "new hires" - some moved to the company about 20 years ago under TUPE, whilst others either moved to the team from elsewhere in the company or started as apprentices (although for some that was about ten years ago). There were a few new hires - contractors who were taken on permanently (but again more than ten years ago). However, we now have five new hires and their starting wage is £7,000 more than the lowest earner and about £5,000 more than quite a few other people's. These people who have been taken on do not have previous skills or experience that put them ahead of current workers nor will they be doing a different job to the rest of us. These new hires seem to have finally established a base line for pay and "job level" (it's a large company with extensive job "ratings"/"levels"). I have done some research and seem to be getting mixed messages whether it is legal or not and if we have a credible argument to be at least brought in line with the new starters. A lot of the information out there is about pay inequality between genders (two of our high earners are actually women, almost all of the men are paid less than them - however, their pay I guess is a "reward" for experience and performance over the years), but this is not really the issue here (aside from the two women, everyone else is a man). The issue that we see and want to deal with is to be paid the same wage as someone doing to same work, i.e. the same as the new starters (well, once we have finished training the new starters they will be doing the same work as us - it usually lasts for a few months). Has anyone been involved in such a situation before? Does anyone know of success stories for pay equality outside of gender-related disputes?
Can anyone tell me what evidence to gather for this? This is not for me but for a member of my family. Having worked for four years the union is happy to take it forward but we would like to put as much information together as possible and I would like to be as helpful as I can.
I am hoping I can pick some peoples brains here about contracts and employment law etc.I have worked for a company for 4years now and have a contract that I signed when I started I work 12 hour shifts on a pattern of 2 days and then 2 nights followed by 4 days off. This is one block of 7, then after block 7, I have 18days off. This is also a job that is at sea, but within coastal waters no more than 12miles offshore.New staff have been taken on over the last 2 years on a new type of contract deeming the same job to be a Multi Skilled role, meaning they company will train these people for other roles within the company. (Roles that I am not allowed to do, because I am not being trained. Jobs I would like to be able to train for. However also as part of this new contract, they have to do 16 shifts in a year extra at flate rate, not at an overtime rate. These hours can also be used for training purposes. So say for instance I have to do a first aid course, for me, that is a days overtime, they get the hours taken off of the prepaid shifts they have to do. So in effect they are being paid upfront to do the overtime, but on a flat rate. I realise this is swings and roundabouts, but the difference is, I cannot do the training except anything that I require to keep my certification in date. Also I am being denied a financial difference and the reason being, many people on this contract aren't actually doing the extra shifts. But by them not doing them, I am. But they are being paid the same at the end of the year as me, but I am having to actually do the work to earn the extra money.Also some of my colleagues on contracts before I started, when the company was owned by some other bank or business is on almost 10k pa more than me. Also it is recognised that he is lazy etc. HR and my manager will not look at my salary or discuss my contract although it is completely immoral that in effect you have 3 different contracts and rates of pay for the same job. Suggestions? Laws? All suggestions and advice welcome.