Asda faces mass legal action over equal pay for women

[Cata Larga]

We've just established that you don't have a business, so that's largely correct. The argument, however, isn't whether women should be paid equally, because obviously they should and anyone who does not think that way is disgusting, but whether or not the retail positions at Asda are fundamentally the same as the warehouse positions.

I think you don't understand a thing about customs but its fine I have no intentions of talking about my business

As I said before women should not be paid equally as they cost more in the long run,any business that is smart knows that but the bloody government wants to fuss about gender equality and shit

Well, I don't know about over there, but here in the old U.S. of A employers don't give the slightest shit about how you get home as long as you come back in the morning. Is there some sort of provision that requires employers to cover an employee's transport expenses in the U.K.?

[Fartsniffage]

I think you don't understand a thing about customs but its fine I have no intentions of talking about my business

As I said before women should not be paid equally as they cost more in the long run,any business that is smart knows that but the bloody government wants to fuss about gender equality and shit

Well, I don't know about over there, but here in the old U.S. of A employers don't give the slightest shit about how you get home as long as you come back in the morning. Is there some sort of provision that requires employers to cover an employee's transport expenses in the U.K.?

He's in India.

[Cata Larga]

Well, I don't know about over there, but here in the old U.S. of A employers don't give the slightest shit about how you get home as long as you come back in the morning. Is there some sort of provision that requires employers to cover an employee's transport expenses in the U.K.?

He's in India.

Ah, India, then. Sincere apologies.

[Manisdog]

I think you don't understand a thing about customs but its fine I have no intentions of talking about my business

As I said before women should not be paid equally as they cost more in the long run,any business that is smart knows that but the bloody government wants to fuss about gender equality and shit

If I'm working in an office doing the exact same job as a man and with the same qualifications and experience I should be paid less than him because I'm a woman?

Why?

Well if your doing exactly the same job but it costs me more money to keep you than yes, if I am legally obliged to set up committees to protect you, yes. If I have to spend more money on legal and maternity hassles, I am going to recover that money from somewhere

[Fartsniffage]

If I'm working in an office doing the exact same job as a man and with the same qualifications and experience I should be paid less than him because I'm a woman?

Why?

Well if your doing exactly the same job but it costs me more money to keep you than yes, if I am legally obliged to set up committees to protect you, yes. If I have to spend more money on legal and maternity hassles, I am going to recover that money from somewhere

Have you ever heard the phrase "Corporate Social Responsibility"?

[Ifreann]

Well if your doing exactly the same job but it costs me more money to keep you than yes, if I am legally obliged to set up committees to protect you, yes. If I have to spend more money on legal and maternity hassles, I am going to recover that money from somewhere

Have you ever heard the phrase "Corporate Social Responsibility"?

[Manisdog]

Well if your doing exactly the same job but it costs me more money to keep you than yes, if I am legally obliged to set up committees to protect you, yes. If I have to spend more money on legal and maternity hassles, I am going to recover that money from somewhere

Have you ever heard the phrase "Corporate Social Responsibility"?

We are not eligible for that

[Nadkor]

If I'm working in an office doing the exact same job as a man and with the same qualifications and experience I should be paid less than him because I'm a woman?

Why?

Well if your doing exactly the same job but it costs me more money to keep you than yes, if I am legally obliged to set up committees to protect you, yes. If I have to spend more money on legal and maternity hassles, I am going to recover that money from somewhere

Well, for a start let's rule out maternity because, as I already said, not happening. But you would still pay less on that basis, because I'm a woman. Makes sense, Einstein.

And you would pay me less because I may need to be protected from men? Sound like, if anything, you should be paying the men less to cover that one.

[Fartsniffage]

Have you ever heard the phrase "Corporate Social Responsibility"?

We are not eligible for that

So you haven't. Perhaps you should look it up. It'd answer all your questions about why you should swallow any increased costs of employing women on the same terms as men.

[Sdaeriji]

If I'm working in an office doing the exact same job as a man and with the same qualifications and experience I should be paid less than him because I'm a woman?

Why?

Well if your doing exactly the same job but it costs me more money to keep you than yes, if I am legally obliged to set up committees to protect you, yes. If I have to spend more money on legal and maternity hassles, I am going to recover that money from somewhere

Seems like you ought to dock the pay of the male employees to cover those protection expenses, since they're the ones really costing you that money.

[Salandriagado]

She's still right though.

MRA's simply hate women, they have an awful track record in this regard, and in general they offer very few solutions to any of the problems that men face,

Ban circumsicions incrementally (banned for except for religious reasons. Banned without consent of both parents. Banned in public healthcare. Allow 16 year olds who dislike the decision to sue their parents and doctors. Then ban it completely. You can boil a frog.)

You should really specify non-medical circumcisions.

[Manisdog]

We are not eligible for that

So you haven't. Perhaps you should look it up. It'd answer all your questions about why you should swallow and increased costs of employing women on the same terms as men.

The New CSR laws are horrible though, I mean this would just eat into profits and why should good honest hard working bussinessmen pay up, when it is the role of the government to do, it seems that just paying your taxes is not enough

[Fartsniffage]

So you haven't. Perhaps you should look it up. It'd answer all your questions about why you should swallow and increased costs of employing women on the same terms as men.

The New CSR laws are horrible though, I mean this would just eat into profits and why should good honest hard working bussinessmen pay up, when it is the role of the government to do, it seems that just paying your taxes is not enough

Which laws are horrible?

[Manisdog]

Well if your doing exactly the same job but it costs me more money to keep you than yes, if I am legally obliged to set up committees to protect you, yes. If I have to spend more money on legal and maternity hassles, I am going to recover that money from somewhere

Well, for a start let's rule out maternity because, as I already said, not happening. But you would still pay less on that basis, because I'm a woman. Makes sense, Einstein.

And you would pay me less because I may need to be protected from men? Sound like, if anything, you should be paying the men less to cover that one.

No your paying because the cops did not do there jobs and some idiot wants to act funny. There are some cities in the country where women arent allowed to work after eight pm. what do you say on that ?

[Nadkor]

Well, for a start let's rule out maternity because, as I already said, not happening. But you would still pay less on that basis, because I'm a woman. Makes sense, Einstein.

And you would pay me less because I may need to be protected from men? Sound like, if anything, you should be paying the men less to cover that one.

No your paying because the cops did not do there jobs and some idiot wants to act funny. There are some cities in the country where women arent allowed to work after eight pm. what do you say on that ?

This sounds like a problem with men, not with women.

Perhaps a more equitable solution would be that if men pose such a threat to women then men shouldn't be allowed out after 8pm so that women can continue to go about their business safely.

[Manisdog]

No your paying because the cops did not do there jobs and some idiot wants to act funny. There are some cities in the country where women arent allowed to work after eight pm. what do you say on that ?

This sounds like a problem with men, not with women.

Perhaps a more equitable solution would be that if men pose such a threat to women then men shouldn't be allowed out after 8pm so that women can continue to go about their business safely.

As I said it is the women who this comittee according to the laws is set up for, it is not a men protection committee but a women's comitee.

Also such a thing is fantasy as I said I am a practical man, it is not going to happen

[Neutraligon]

This sounds like a problem with men, not with women.

Perhaps a more equitable solution would be that if men pose such a threat to women then men shouldn't be allowed out after 8pm so that women can continue to go about their business safely.

As I said it is the women who this comittee according to the laws is set up for, it is not a men protection committee but a women's comitee.

Also such a thing is fantasy as I said I am a practical man, it is not going to happen

Since it is apparently men causing the problem why are women being punished for it. if you are a practical man you would punish the men for acting in a way that reduces your profits, since they are the ones creating the situation in the first place. Instead you blame the women who are victims of a crime and thus make their situation even worse. If you don't want to pay for these problems, why not attempt to sole the problem?

[Nadkor]

This sounds like a problem with men, not with women.

Perhaps a more equitable solution would be that if men pose such a threat to women then men shouldn't be allowed out after 8pm so that women can continue to go about their business safely.

As I said it is the women who this comittee according to the laws is set up for, it is not a men protection committee but a women's comitee.

Women need protecting from men. Men are the aggressors and woman are the victims.

Do you feel that it is correct to "protect" victims by restricting their activities and reducing their pay, while continuing to pay the aggressors more and letting the aggressors roam free as they wish? Men attack women yet you respond by punishing women by docking their pay to finance their protection and restricting their activities while continuing to reward men with higher salaries and to permit them to act freely. Does that seem fair to you?

As I said before - if women are under such threat from men that they require some protection to be implemented, the only equitable protective solution is to restrain men in order than women can continue with their lives without that threat.

[Cata Larga]

As I said it is the women who this comittee according to the laws is set up for, it is not a men protection committee but a women's comitee.

Women need protecting from men. Men are the aggressors and woman are the victims.

Do you feel that it is correct to "protect" victims by restricting their activities and reducing their pay, while continuing to pay the aggressors more and letting the aggressors roam free as they wish? Men attack women yet you respond by punishing women by docking their pay to finance their protection and restricting their activities while continuing to reward men with higher salaries and to permit them to act freely. Does that seem fair to you?

As I said before - if women are under such threat from men that they require some protection to be implemented, the only equitable protective solution is to restrain men in order than women can continue with their lives without that threat.

W-well, I-I'll just be going then...

[Manisdog]

As I said it is the women who this comittee according to the laws is set up for, it is not a men protection committee but a women's comitee.

Also such a thing is fantasy as I said I am a practical man, it is not going to happen

Since it is apparently men causing the problem why are women being punished for it. if you are a practical man you would punish the men for acting in a way that reduces your profits, since they are the ones creating the situation in the first place. Instead you blame the women who are victims of a crime and thus make their situation even worse.

You know I have never seen sexual harassment at the workplace, I mean who is stupid enough to screw around with ones job, I think it barely happens but one still needs to set up committees and some legal costs to do come about

[Neutraligon]

As I said it is the women who this comittee according to the laws is set up for, it is not a men protection committee but a women's comitee.

Women need protecting from men. Men are the aggressors and woman are the victims.

Do you feel that it is correct to "protect" victims by restricting their activities and reducing their pay, while continuing to pay the aggressors more and letting the aggressors roam free as they wish? Men attack women yet you respond by punishing women by docking their pay to finance their protection and restricting their activities while continuing to reward men with higher salaries and to permit them to act freely. Does that seem fair to you?

As I said before - if women are under such threat from men that they require some protection to be implemented, the only equitable protective solution is to restrain men in order than women can continue with their lives without that threat.

And if you (not you Nadkor) don't like said restrictions on your freedom (ironic since that is what you are suggesting being forced on women), then you should change the society so that women are not being threatened. Your solution only makes the problem worse, and reinforces the culture that places those women in danger in the first place. You are not being practical at all.

[Manisdog]

Women need protecting from men. Men are the aggressors and woman are the victims.

Do you feel that it is correct to "protect" victims by restricting their activities and reducing their pay, while continuing to pay the aggressors more and letting the aggressors roam free as they wish? Men attack women yet you respond by punishing women by docking their pay to finance their protection and restricting their activities while continuing to reward men with higher salaries and to permit them to act freely. Does that seem fair to you?

As I said before - if women are under such threat from men that they require some protection to be implemented, the only equitable protective solution is to restrain men in order than women can continue with their lives without that threat.

W-well, I-I'll just be going then...

You see lets rewind 50 years ago, it was unheard of women going to work, I wasn't born then but women started working like 20 years ago before that they would prolly be married off and siting at home as housewife's. This is a relatively new concept and I am in favor of it but I am in favor of cutting costs too

[Neutraligon]

Since it is apparently men causing the problem why are women being punished for it. if you are a practical man you would punish the men for acting in a way that reduces your profits, since they are the ones creating the situation in the first place. Instead you blame the women who are victims of a crime and thus make their situation even worse.

You know I have never seen sexual harassment at the workplace, I mean who is stupid enough to screw around with ones job, I think it barely happens but one still needs to set up committees and some legal costs to do come about

Have you ever talked to the women at your workplace about this, because honestly I think you haven't.

[Manisdog]

Women need protecting from men. Men are the aggressors and woman are the victims.

Do you feel that it is correct to "protect" victims by restricting their activities and reducing their pay, while continuing to pay the aggressors more and letting the aggressors roam free as they wish? Men attack women yet you respond by punishing women by docking their pay to finance their protection and restricting their activities while continuing to reward men with higher salaries and to permit them to act freely. Does that seem fair to you?

As I said before - if women are under such threat from men that they require some protection to be implemented, the only equitable protective solution is to restrain men in order than women can continue with their lives without that threat.

And if you (not you Nadkor) don't like said restrictions on your freedom (ironic since that is what you are suggesting being forced on women), then you should change the society so that women are not being threatened. Your solution only makes the problem worse, and reinforces the culture that places those women in danger in the first place. You are not being practical at all.

this ^

[Neutraligon]

And if you (not you Nadkor) don't like said restrictions on your freedom (ironic since that is what you are suggesting being forced on women), then you should change the society so that women are not being threatened. Your solution only makes the problem worse, and reinforces the culture that places those women in danger in the first place. You are not being practical at all.

this ^

...you do realize I was supporting Nadkor against you, right?