No Straight White Men Allowed At Labours Equality Conference

First topic message reminder :

“Labour are a divisive Party who want to divide people into victim groups. They have not learnt from the Equalities Commission ruling last month regarding their discriminatory attempt to sell tickets for their East Midlands Conference at different prices based on ethnicity. Now they are banning white male heterosexuals from attending their Equalities Conference. They seem to believe that white, male heterosexuals have nothing to contribute to the subject of Equality. It seems that in La La Labour land everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.”

“This is yet another example of discrimination by Labour.
“Their lazy assumption that straight white men can’t fight for equality is shocking. It is essential that political parties represent each and every person irrespective of race, sexuality or age.
“The Labour Party should take action now to ensure that this discrimination comes to an end.”

https://order-order.com/2018/02/11/no-straight-white-men-allowed-labour-equalities-conference/

What is the idea then? Is it that white men have been privileged in the past, so the new generation of white men should be discriminated against to make up for that?

Raggamuffin wrote:What is the idea then? Is it that white men have been privileged in the past, so the new generation of white men should be discriminated against to make up for that?

Ah but why do you call it that?  In the analogy I gave, the twin boy called it 'discrimination' too.  If moves are being taken to rectify the injustices, inequalities and unfairness of the past, perhaps it should be simply called 'achieving parity'.


Yorkshire people [who are of course highly intelligent, ]  chose a very intelligent solution, a simple, quick, clinical one. >

The yorkshire authorities sent nice fat cheques to all female council workers, backdating the unfair shortfall of payments accrued over a decade. A one-off lump sum.  End of! 

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What is the idea then? Is it that white men have been privileged in the past, so the new generation of white men should be discriminated against to make up for that?

Ah but why do you call it that?  In the analogy I gave, the twin boy called it 'discrimination' too.  If moves are being taken to rectify the injustices, inequalities and unfairness of the past, perhaps it should be simply called 'achieving parity'.


Yorkshire people [who are of course highly intelligent, ]  chose a very intelligent solution, a simple, quick, clinical one. >

The yorkshire authorities sent nice fat cheques to all female council workers, backdating the unfair shortfall of payments accrued over a decade. A one-off lump sum.  End of! 

In your example it was one guy though, not a different guy in a new generation. A white guy isn't responsible for what happened before he was born, and he shouldn't be penalised for what happened back then.

Had the female councils all actually worked there for a decade, and did they do the same job as the guys?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules wrote:


Ah but why do you call it that?  In the analogy I gave, the twin boy called it 'discrimination' too.  If moves are being taken to rectify the injustices, inequalities and unfairness of the past, perhaps it should be simply called 'achieving parity'.


Yorkshire people [who are of course highly intelligent, ]  chose a very intelligent solution, a simple, quick, clinical one. >

The yorkshire authorities sent nice fat cheques to all female council workers, backdating the unfair shortfall of payments accrued over a decade. A one-off lump sum.  End of! 

In your example it was one guy though, not a different guy in a new generation. A white guy isn't responsible for what happened before he was born, and he shouldn't be penalised for what happened back then.



Had the female councils all actually worked there for a decade, and did they do the same job as the guys?

No the women were traditionally restricted to typical girly jobs like school dinner ladies and care assistants, .... and the men had the blokey jobs like driving, collecting bins, mining. For simplification it was ruled that all these jobs were of roughly equal value. The payments were commensurate with length of service, ten years max. There were some FAT compensation cheques!

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In your example it was one guy though, not a different guy in a new generation. A white guy isn't responsible for what happened before he was born, and he shouldn't be penalised for what happened back then.



Had the female councils all actually worked there for a decade, and did they do the same job as the guys?

No the women were traditionally restricted to typical girly jobs like school dinner ladies and care assistants, .... and the men had the blokey jobs like driving, collecting bins, mining. For simplification it was ruled that all these jobs were of roughly equal value. The payments were commensurate with length of service, ten years max. There were some FAT compensation cheques!

Sounds more like the men were restricted to being given all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs out in the cold/rain and down in the mines (to face that particular extremely harsh/hazardous environment)... while the women were given the nice easy jobs inside in the warm with comfortable surroundings...


And of course the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs should pay more than the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs...!


If you think the jobs are equal and should pay the same... then send all the women out there doing all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs for a week and the men do all the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs for a week, and see the result!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:
No the women were traditionally restricted to typical girly jobs like school dinner ladies and care assistants, .... and the men had the blokey jobs like driving, collecting bins, mining. For simplification it was ruled that all these jobs were of roughly equal value. The payments were commensurate with length of service, ten years max. There were some FAT compensation cheques!

Sounds more like the men were restricted to being given all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs out in the cold/rain and down in the mines (to face that particular extremely harsh/hazardous environment)... while the women were given the nice easy jobs inside in the warm with comfortable surroundings...


And of course the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs should pay more than the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs...!
If you think the jobs are equal and should pay the same... then send all the women out there doing all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs for a week and the men do all the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs for a week, and see the result!!!

So the women had things easy did they?? Have you forgotten that this was the era when they were [almost] exclusively responsible for the onerous duty of childcare of their own children, plus all the other domestic duties at home too  .... and they had to somehow fit this into their professional careers too?


I know you genuinely believe women have it easy, Tommy.  Ever heard of heavy, painful periods which bring life to a crippling standstill? Ever heard of the traumatic hormonal rollercoaster of menopause?


Ever heard of childbirth?? The day you successfully push out something the size of a huge melon out of a ring the size of an eggcup come back and we'll talk.    

Tommy, that twin brother in my analogy represents you, 100%, in fact I nearly mentioned your name!! You totally personify that attitude in your debates.

I once mentioned that the FLOTUS gave a motivational talk to inspire poor kids from disadvantaged sections of UK society and you harassed me about why she did not also give speeches to other types of schools.  

No need to go to expensive fee-paying schools to give speeches. That would be a very inefficient use of her busy schedule. Millionaires don't need motivational speeches on how to become successful .... they're ALREADY successful, duhh!

Kids at rich private schools are already successful?

WTF

So none will ever suffer bullying, prejudice or discrimination and that now theey will go onto have successful jobs?

Talk about some people living in a sterotypical bubble

That person needs to be sacked if they think there is no need to go to such schools and clearly has not got a clue in what equality is.

Didge wrote:Kids at rich private schools are already successful?

WTF

So none will ever suffer bullying, prejudice or discrimination and that now theey will go onto have successful jobs?

Talk about some people living in a sterotypical bubble

That person needs to be sacked if they think there is no need to go to such schools and clearly has not got a clue in what equality is.

In a tight schedule during an overseas visit, she had to pick & choose .... and she chose the school where she felt she'd make the maximum impact. Sue her!

Jules wrote:

Didge wrote:Kids at rich private schools are already successful?

WTF

So none will ever suffer bullying, prejudice or discrimination and that now theey will go onto have successful jobs?

Talk about some people living in a sterotypical bubble

That person needs to be sacked if they think there is no need to go to such schools and clearly has not got a clue in what equality is.

In a tight schedule during an overseas visit, she had to pick & choose .... and she chose the school where she felt she'd make the maximum impact.  Sue her!

No, just sacking her would be best.

Didge wrote:

Jules wrote:


In a tight schedule during an overseas visit, she had to pick & choose .... and she chose the school where she felt she'd make the maximum impact.  Sue her!

No, just sacking her would be best.

Go ahead.

Jules wrote:

Didge wrote:

No, just sacking her would be best.

Go ahead.

Give me the name, then I can first of all check up on your claims, then if true report her for discrimination.

Didge wrote:

Jules wrote:

Go ahead.

Give me the name, then I can first of all check up on your claims, then if true report her for discrimination.

The FLOTUS came here on a visit accompanying her husband. She was sidelined into giving a talk. Her talk was to inspire pupils that a nobody can come from nothing and reach the highest heights in the land, like she did. 

In a tight schedule, with very limited time,  she had to choose who she thought would benefit most. If you think she made the wrong choice, sue or sack her.

Jules wrote:

Didge wrote:

Give me the name, then I can first of all check up on your claims, then if true report her for discrimination.

The FLOTUS came here on a visit accompanying her husband. She was sidelined into giving a talk. Her talk was to inspire pupils that a nobody can come from nothing and reach the highest heights in the land, like she did. 

In a tight schedule, with very limited time,  she had to choose who she thought would benefit most. If you think she made the wrong choice, sue or sack her.

Which one?

There has been many that have visited the UK?

Frankly I think you are talking shit here and trying to speak for someone you do not even know. Even worse advocating prejudice based on class. Which is typical of the Middle class  socialist mindset, hate anyone rich.

So the best bet for you is not say porkies in regards to someone, you do not know, claiming you speak for them.

Yeah, yeah, whatever, Didge.

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Sounds more like the men were restricted to being given all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs out in the cold/rain and down in the mines (to face that particular extremely harsh/hazardous environment)... while the women were given the nice easy jobs inside in the warm with comfortable surroundings...


And of course the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs should pay more than the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs...!
If you think the jobs are equal and should pay the same... then send all the women out there doing all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs for a week and the men do all the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs for a week, and see the result!!!

So the women had things easy did they?? Have you forgotten that this was the era when they were [almost] exclusively responsible for the onerous duty of childcare of their own children, plus all the other domestic duties at home too  .... and they had to somehow fit this into their professional careers too?


I know you genuinely believe women have it easy, Tommy.  Ever heard of heavy, painful periods which bring life to a crippling standstill? Ever heard of the traumatic hormonal rollercoaster of menopause?


Ever heard of childbirth?? The day you successfully push out something the size of a huge melon out of a ring the size of an eggcup come back and we'll talk.    

Waffle... we were talking about how a sexist mindset gave men all the hard/dangerous/dirty jobs and gifted only the women with the nice/easy/warm/safe/comfortable jobs... and then how the same sexist mindset decided that they were 'equal' jobs that should deserve the same rate of pay...!


If you think the jobs are equal and should pay the same... then send all the women out there doing all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs for a week and the men do all the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs for a week, and see the result!!!

Jules wrote:Yeah, yeah, whatever, Didge.  

So clearly I was correct and that you were disingenuously claiming to speak for someone you do not know.

Hey ho

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:
No the women were traditionally restricted to typical girly jobs like school dinner ladies and care assistants, .... and the men had the blokey jobs like driving, collecting bins, mining. For simplification it was ruled that all these jobs were of roughly equal value. The payments were commensurate with length of service, ten years max. There were some FAT compensation cheques!

Sounds more like the men were restricted to being given all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs out in the cold/rain and down in the mines (to face that particular extremely harsh/hazardous environment)... while the women were given the nice easy jobs inside in the warm with comfortable surroundings...


And of course the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs should pay more than the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs...!
If you think the jobs are equal and should pay the same... then send all the women out there doing all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs for a week and the men do all the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs for a week, and see the result!!!

So the women had things easy did they?? Have you forgotten that this was the era when they were [almost] exclusively responsible for the onerous duty of childcare of their own children, plus all the other domestic duties at home too  .... and they had to somehow fit this into their professional careers too?


I know you genuinely believe women have it easy, Tommy.  Ever heard of heavy, painful periods which bring life to a crippling standstill? Ever heard of the traumatic hormonal rollercoaster of menopause?


Ever heard of childbirth?? The day you successfully push out something the size of a huge melon out of a ring the size of an eggcup come back and we'll talk.    

I don’t think women have it harder than men nor vice versa.
People are people and each suffers their own pains -physical and emotional - in life.

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Sounds more like the men were restricted to being given all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs out in the cold/rain and down in the mines (to face that particular extremely harsh/hazardous environment)... while the women were given the nice easy jobs inside in the warm with comfortable surroundings...


And of course the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs should pay more than the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs...!
If you think the jobs are equal and should pay the same... then send all the women out there doing all the hard/dirty/dangerous jobs for a week and the men do all the nice easy warm and comfortable jobs for a week, and see the result!!!

So the women had things easy did they?? Have you forgotten that this was the era when they were [almost] exclusively responsible for the onerous duty of childcare of their own children, plus all the other domestic duties at home too  .... and they had to somehow fit this into their professional careers too?


I know you genuinely believe women have it easy, Tommy.  Ever heard of heavy, painful periods which bring life to a crippling standstill? Ever heard of the traumatic hormonal rollercoaster of menopause?


Ever heard of childbirth?? The day you successfully push out something the size of a huge melon out of a ring the size of an eggcup come back and we'll talk.    

Women's pay at work is nothing to do with any of that - they don't get paid more at work to make up for them doing the housework at home. Tommy was talking about the actual jobs.

Raggamuffin wrote:
Women's pay at work is nothing to do with any of that - they don't get paid more at work to make up for them doing the housework at home. Tommy was talking about the actual jobs.

Yes it is! It's all linked!! 

Take a look at the big picture and you'll see what I mean. 
The domestic commitments of women severely stunted their earning power and pegged them down to low paid jobs.
This low pay entitled them to numerous subsidies, top up payments, tax credits etc
Makes more sense for the govt to simply pay them well UPFRONT ie increase their salary and close the gender gap.
That way, they don't need taxpayer-funded top ups. Simple!

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Women's pay at work is nothing to do with any of that - they don't get paid more at work to make up for them doing the housework at home. Tommy was talking about the actual jobs.

Yes it is! It's all linked!! 

Take a look at the big picture and you'll see what I mean. 
The domestic commitments of women severely stunted their earning power and pegged them down to low paid jobs.
This low pay entitled them to numerous subsidies, top up payments, tax credits etc
Makes more sense for the govt to simply pay them well UPFRONT ie increase their pay and close the gender gap.
That way, they don't need taxpayer-funded top-ups. Simple!

Anyone's earning power would be stunted if they don't do a full day's work. Nobody forces women to have "domestic commitments". They get paid for the job they do, just the same as men.

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Women's pay at work is nothing to do with any of that - they don't get paid more at work to make up for them doing the housework at home. Tommy was talking about the actual jobs.

Yes it is! It's all linked!! 

Take a look at the big picture and you'll see what I mean. 
The domestic commitments of women severely stunted their earning power and pegged them down to low paid jobs.
This low pay entitled them to numerous subsidies, top up payments, tax credits etc
Makes more sense for the govt to simply pay them well UPFRONT ie increase their salary and close the gender gap.
That way, they don't need taxpayer-funded top ups. Simple!

Actually Rags, Jules does have a point on the domesticated commitmnents of women with children, but that is not the full, picture

Didge wrote:

Jules wrote:

Yes it is! It's all linked!! 

Take a look at the big picture and you'll see what I mean. 
The domestic commitments of women severely stunted their earning power and pegged them down to low paid jobs.
This low pay entitled them to numerous subsidies, top up payments, tax credits etc
Makes more sense for the govt to simply pay them well UPFRONT ie increase their salary and close the gender gap.
That way, they don't need taxpayer-funded top ups. Simple!

Actually Rags, Jules does have a point on the domesticated commitmnents of wmen with children, but that is not the ful, picture

I don't see the connection. If women have children and don't work, of course they don't get paid.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Actually Rags, Jules does have a point on the domesticated commitmnents of wmen with children, but that is not the ful, picture

I don't see the connection. If women have children and don't work, of course they don't get paid.

We are talking about how women have been perceived as homeowners

This comes onto women that do work and have children

A perception is percieved over work and family

Not one held to men

True, nobody forces women to have commitments, but commitments are a reality they are here to stay and need to be catered for.

No wonder the population of Europe is dwindling so scarily fast, with such harsh attitudes.

eddie wrote:I don’t think women have it harder than men nor vice versa.
People are people and each suffers their own pains -physical and emotional - in life.

That applies only in the west, which frankly is a small percentage of the global population.

Even a brief glimpse outside the small, cloistered, privileged western world we live in, will clearly reveal the massive gap between the lives of men versus women in other cultures, .... where the biological differences between the sexes make a massive difference and women's earning power is pitifully small and their lives would be pure shite if not for their steely determination to fight against the odds and improve their lot.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't see the connection. If women have children and don't work, of course they don't get paid.

We are talking about how women have been perceived as homeowners

This comes onto women that do work and have children

A perception is percieved over work and family

Not one held to men

If they work, they get paid. I don't see the problem.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

We are talking about how women have been perceived as homeowners

This comes onto women that do work and have children

A perception is percieved over work and family

Not one held to men

If they work, they get paid. I don't see the problem.

So anyone that cannot work, cannot be paid?

I think you need to think again Rags?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they work, they get paid. I don't see the problem.

So anyone that cannot work, cannot be paid?

I think you need to think again Rags?

Eh?

The point is that if women work, they get paid, just as men get paid. Why should they get paid for not working just because they're women?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

So anyone that cannot work, cannot be paid?

I think you need to think again Rags?

Eh?

The point is that if women work, they get paid, just as men get paid. Why should they get paid for not working just because they're women?

Because when they are unable to work?

You already pay when they cannot work

Its called maternity leave and for men paternity leave

Yet both can actually work at this time

Its why you had an education

Who do you think paid for that?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eh?

The point is that if women work, they get paid, just as men get paid. Why should they get paid for not working just because they're women?

Because when they are unable to work?

You already pay when they cannot work

Its called maternity leave and for men paternity leace

Its why you had an education

Who do you think paid for that?

They get maternity pay, so what's the problem? Do you think they should get a pay rise because they have to do the washing up at home or something?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Because when they are unable to work?

You already pay when they cannot work

Its called maternity leave and for men paternity leace

Its why you had an education

Who do you think paid for that?

They get maternity pay, so what's the problem? Do you think they should get a pay rise because they have to do the washing up at home or something?

Where did i claim that?

Go back to what I said and understand over what you said

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Actually Rags, Jules does have a point on the domesticated commitmnents of wmen with children, but that is not the ful, picture

I don't see the connection. If women have children and don't work, of course they don't get paid.

Here is your first false start point rags

Your first error

Am just waiting to rip it apart

In your own time

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They get maternity pay, so what's the problem? Do you think they should get a pay rise because they have to do the washing up at home or something?

Where did i claim that?

Go back to what I said and understand over what you said

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I have no interest in your waffle. I was addressing Jules, not you.

Jules appears to be saying that women have a harder time than men generally, so they should be compensated for that at work by getting a pay rise.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't see the connection. If women have children and don't work, of course they don't get paid.

Here is your first false start point rags

Your first error

Am just waiting to rip it apart

In your own time

Go ahead and rip yourself apart arguing over nothing. Have a good time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Here is your first false start point rags

Your first error

Am just waiting to rip it apart

In your own time

Go ahead and rip yourself apart arguing over nothing. Have a good time.

I dont need to, I simple have just done that to you and not intentionally

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Where did i claim that?

Go back to what I said and understand over what you said

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I have no interest in your waffle. I was addressing Jules, not you.

Jules appears to be saying that women have a harder time than men generally, so they should be compensated for that at work by getting a pay rise.

Contradiction

You just replied

Any person in employment in the same position. Should get the same pay rise no matter when on maternity leave

That is a nobrainer

Jules wrote:True, nobody forces women to have commitments, but commitments are a reality they are here to stay and need to be catered for.

No wonder the population of Europe is dwindling so scarily fast,  with such harsh attitudes.

Commitments are a reality by choice though. I don't think that lifestyle choices should influence anyone's pay at work. People get paid for doing a particular job, and the pay doesn't depend on what commitments they have at home.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules wrote:True, nobody forces women to have commitments, but commitments are a reality they are here to stay and need to be catered for.

No wonder the population of Europe is dwindling so scarily fast,  with such harsh attitudes.

Commitments are a reality by choice though. I don't think that lifestyle choices should influence anyone's pay at work. People get paid for doing a particular job, and the pay doesn't depend on what commitments they have at home.

Okay that is fair.

Are you thus going to pay back what it cost you as a child growing up having schooling and free health care?

If a woman applies for a job as a cashier in a supermarket, and then finds out that the people working in the warehouse get paid more, she is perfectly free to apply for a job in the warehouse. I don't why people are moaning about that sort of thing. If you apply for a job, you're told what the pay is, and you either accept it at that pay, or you turn it down. You don't accept it and then start moaning that people doing a completely different job are getting more.

Raggamuffin wrote:If a woman applies for a job as a cashier in a supermarket, and then finds out that the people working in the warehouse get paid more, she is perfectly free to apply for a job in the warehouse. I don't why people are moaning about that sort of thing. If you apply for a job, you're told what the pay is, and you either accept it at that pay, or you turn it down. You don't accept it and then start moaning that people doing a completely different job are getting more.

I agree that you either accept it or that you rise above fear and negotiate a better pay

However, that does not answer my points

Are you thus going to pay back what it cost you as a child growing up having schooling and free health care?

In fact, the main discrimination is based on age these days. A company can pay someone over 25 more than someone under 25 even if they're doing exactly the same job, whether they're male or female.

Raggamuffin wrote:In fact, the main discrimination is based on age these days. A company can pay someone over 25 more than someone under 25 even if they're doing exactly the same job, whether they're male or female.

So you are massivelly avoiding the questions

That is all I need to know

I think people should be paid on worth/ability, not age, sex, race ect, but you are a byproduct of a prejudice system

Many people happilly accept paying for your schooling and health care growing up.

Were they wrong to do so, based on your views here?

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Women's pay at work is nothing to do with any of that - they don't get paid more at work to make up for them doing the housework at home. Tommy was talking about the actual jobs.

Yes it is! It's all linked!! 

Take a look at the big picture and you'll see what I mean. 
The domestic commitments of women severely stunted their earning power and pegged them down to low paid jobs.
This low pay entitled them to numerous subsidies, top up payments, tax credits etc
Makes more sense for the govt to simply pay them well UPFRONT ie increase their salary and close the gender gap.
That way, they don't need taxpayer-funded top ups. Simple!

You really are quite insane...

No I'm not.
You're the insane one, with the Hitler avatar.

You came and challenged my posts, so I REPLIED.
Paying council women more fairly reduces the need for taxpayer funded top ups.

(Double post)

Jules wrote:No I'm not.
You're the insane one, with the Hitler avatar.

You came and challenged my posts, so I REPLIED.
Paying council women more fairly reduces the need for taxpayer funded top ups.

Where does the money come from to pay these 'council women' more...?





And if you think my avi is Hitler, then you are definitely insane... it's a pic of a cat... and I'm pretty sure Hitler was not a cat...

Tommy Monk wrote:
And if you think my avi is Hitler, then you are definitely insane... it's a pic of a cat... and I'm pretty sure Hitler was not a cat...

The cat's nose looks like a Hitler moustache and shows a Nazi salute. You know what you're doing!    

If my opinions are 'insane' why do you care so much about them?    Ignore!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:No I'm not.
You're the insane one, with the Hitler avatar.

You came and challenged my posts, so I REPLIED.
Paying council women more fairly reduces the need for taxpayer funded top ups.

Where does the money come from to pay these 'council women' more...?

Which is my point! 'Swings & roundabouts'.

Unison Ruling: https://www.unison.org.uk/get-help/knowledge/pay/equal-pay/
"People doing the same job or work of equal value should get the same or equal pay; ..."



To get identical pay, the jobs do not have to be identical, or even similar, the jobs have to be deemed of EQUAL value to the community.  Eg the local council could judge that it's as important for women to cook for small pupils and feed them at the school canteen as it is for men to come and take the kitchen bins away to the local tip, or drive disabled folks to a local occupational workshop.


Had a friend who worked for the council. Her pay was low  enough that the DWP/local council had to step in and give her all these extras: - national insurance top ups, extra help with rent, her kids had extra help to buy uniforms, and also got free school meals. Her family even had one-off  random hardship payments. All these extras came out of the public purse. When the new rule about closing the pay gap was enacted, (see the unison statement above) her pay was equalised to the men's and this took her into a higher income bracket .. so she no longer needed all the extra top ups and subsidies she used to get for herself and her children out of the public purse. She got a good salary UPFRONT instead.

So the choice was

1. Give women an unfair low pay, then give them numerous extra top ups to keep them afloat

2. Or simply close the gender pay gap and pay the women a decent wage UPFRONT ... and then there's no need for 'extras'


What's so difficult to understand about that?
Should I draw a picture with crayons to simplify the explanation?