Equal pay - for men!

The BBC reports here today on a 'landmark' case where men have been awarded equal pay to women. Wow. Excerpt:

'A "landmark" legal decision involving three councils in the north east of England could pave the way for 12,000 men to take forward equal pay claims. Financial settlements had earlier been agreed for women workers paid less than men doing similar work. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now ruled that 300 other male workers were discriminated against as they then remained on lower pay than the women.
...
Mr Justice Underhill said: "It would be surprising and unsatisfactory if the [Equal Pay] Act offered no remedy to men in a situation like the present.

"The case where men and women do the same job but receive different rates of pay is the paradigm of the kind of situation which the Act was intended to prevent, how would it seem if the roles were reversed and the 'piggyback' claimants were not men but women?"

Lawyers involved, from the Cloister Chambers, have described it as a landmark ruling which will have a bearing on many other cases, and could cost councils hundreds of millions of pounds. Yvette Genn from Cloisters said: "This ruling is what thousands of male workers who have not received equal pay up and down the country have been waiting for. "There is no doubt that many of the similar 12,000 cases in the system will now proceed and are likely to be successful."'

So does this mean we get some justice for us, for a change?!

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

manonthestreet

I don't know how this case will go. But the real point is that it should never have happened in the first place. It only goes to show how confident the feminist in local government are that they think they could get away with paying men less even when they are in the same job. Of course they might get away with it, we don't know yet.

Also why is this case described as 'landmark'? This is a very loaded term and makes one think that new case law is being created here - that is applying the law to men when it had hitherto only applied to women. Actually the law as drafted only refers to sex discrimination. The intention might have been only to apply this legislation to women ( I suspect it was) but the law only refers to sex discrimination and given that men are still defined as one of the sexes then it applies to them and the case is not 'landmark' at all. Just to contradict myself it could be 'landmark' if the case goes against the men as then new case law would have been created which would redefine sex discrimination as something that can only be applied to women.

Like0 Dislike0

I from time to time visit this site only because occasionally interesting and important news like this one appear here. (90% of topics here I don't even read after looking at their headers.)

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism. Article here.

Like0 Dislike0