WHTY ARE MEN NOT AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED IN EQUAL PAY APPEALS AGAINST LOCAL AUTHORITIES?

There have been a number of equal pay cases over the past few years involving the unions fighting for equal pay, normally around bonuses or pensions, for women undertaking jobs such as care/classroom assistants, dinner ladies and the like. These roles were governed by one set of employment rules and more manual roles, such as dustmen for example, who were governed by another set of rules. However, the latter were able to get bonuses, overtime, pay rises etc and the former were not or recoved lower benefits.

The cases that have come out of the woodwork suggest that the same conditions should have applied and the litigants keep on winning.

Now, we can get into arguments on whether in reality they should be viewed as the same type of job but that can take us down a cul-de-sac. The real issue for me is whether men are being included in the litigation and also whether by default men who were also carrying out the same jobs as the women were also winning backpay etc. Not all care assistants, classroom assistants, dinner 'ladies' etc are women.

The "Equalities" and Human Rights Commission in Scotland won a case against Dumfries and Galloway council recently but they only mention women: "The Supreme Court has today ruled in favour of 251 female employees in their equal pay case against their employer, Dumfries and Galloway Council."

The court papers also state that they classroom assistants et al did not want to be compared to janitors who did not get bonuses etc - is this because they were men! Why were the janitors not included in the case? Plus would Alastair Pringle of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission support a case if the roles were reversed - I think we know the answer to that!

 (media coverage - here, here and here)

The site has covered other cases before:

Were men included in the Birmingham victory? Have any men claimed, does it apply to them, can they piggyback?

And we know that men in Tyneside, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough had to fight for their rights when they were excluded (full judgement here). It looks like the councils did shamefully appeal but I cannot find the outcome. It would be very interesting to see whether they did successfully appeal and also even if they then lost or withdrew - how much did that cost local male council taxpayers.

Overall though, why are men not automatically included in these appeals?

If it was about equality for all, then men would be but when has equality been an issue of interest to Unison or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Posted by Skimmington

 

Here is the solicitor responsible and helpfully at the botom you can click through to the court papers.

 

Comments

[Terry]

Nice to see Newspapers who frequently assist feminist organisations and support their anti-male drives, also delete comments and accounts to help cover up the truth about female child abusers. Account number 89 deleted now, anything that goes against feminist anti-male propaganda or agenda narrative is always deleted here....even when it is sourced and fact.

Now why would anyone want to help cover up child abuse?

Before:

http://postimg.org/image/a9pfagbjl/

After:

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10591985.Volunteer_to_help_stop_sexual_predators_reoffending_in_Dorset/?ref=rss

[Terry]

You will notice the comments they allow on this story above, after deleting links to facts and source to show women are the main perpetrators, are ones that clearly express that Men are the perpetrators. (small operation)

[Groan]

The cases are made by the Unions. In the 1970s the unions were male and councils had comparatively small workforces, largely doing practical jobs such as emptying the bins. In labour councils with "closed shops" those unions often got bonuses and other additions negotiated. Twenty years later the workforce had ballooned. Mainly in social care and non teaching jobs in schools . Now a largely female workforce in the unions. Hence the claims coming decades after they could have been made. Unions are now mainly in the state sector and mainly female as a result.

[terry]

Dorset Echo guilty of deliberately censoring comments in line with feminist agenda and protecting female child predators again....keeping the public ignorant as to the truth about child abuse while allowing comments that clearly uphold the "mostly men do it" narrative.

(post deleted and account deleted screen grab before)

http://postimg.org/image/rrwpuu8ex/

As it is now after censorship:

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10591985.Volunteer_to_help_stop_sexual_predators_reoffending_in_Dorset/?action=success

Now what in that post was offensive other than the truth?

[paul parmenter]

Very clear proof of sexist bias in the press, Terry; and thereby, making it all the harder to solve the problem of abuse. I also wonder if the goon who offered to act as Hangman would be quite so keen if he realized that the job would entail hanging quite a considerable number of women.

[Bob]

Comments that are off topic just spam the boards, free speech is not about just saying whatever you want, its about allowing everyone to have equal say regarding opinion about a topic, in a courteous and muture manner. Otherwise the board gets a bad reputation and penalised in searches also.

Usually you can tell that you are being trolled by having to repeat the obvious over and over again. Arguing and rearguing obscure points and repeated, even low level, personal attacks are also a sign of trolling.

[terry]

Paul, skimmington failed to let through the follow up one where i reposted that link to the facts and asked that if they wish to censor my comment again, which contained nothing offensive, could they explain why they are deleting it, they of course censored it and left no explanation

Bob while some may be off topic i ask you, which comment is a hundred time more useful? Mine which makes effort to expose media sexism and deliberate censorship or yours which whines?

Did you go along to the paper and leave a comment or send an email to its editor asking why they censor the truth and protect female paedophiles?