The Gender Pay Gap and the Equality Act 2010 (UK) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/5/chapter/3/crossheading/sex-equality If the Equality Act 2010 Part 5 Chapter 3 protects employees from differences in wage based on gender for the same work, then where does the Gender Pay Gap issue arise from? I have been able to find figures on the differences in annual wage between men and women but nothing on a difference in hourly wage which leads me to believe that, in the UK at least, the gender pay gap is a myth. Can someone please provide information to explain the legal issues, if any, the UK has in terms of equal wage, and help explain what aspect of the law complaints on unequal pay arise from. Are employers lowering women's wages illegally or is the issue with annual pay? Any help would be much appreciated.
The law is hard to enforce Lets look at what the law prohibits - paying different rates of pay for the same work based on gender. Does that mean that two workers doing the same work must be paid the same? No, it just means that the reason for the difference cannot be based on gender. For example, one worker may be more productive than the other, or a better negotiator, or have been employed longer, or etc. etc. None of these reasons is prima facie gender based (although some may contain inherent gender bias) and all of them would be a defense to a business alleged to be breaching that law - remember the government must prove that the reason for the difference is gender. Notwithstanding, most employers comply with the law and pay women equal rates to men for the same work all else being equal. Causes of the gender pay gap The gender pay gap is a cultural problem, not a legal one. From the European Commission's web page, different rates for the same work "explains a small part of the gender pay gap, due to the effectiveness of the European Union and national legislation." They list 4 causes that are much more significant: The undervaluing of women's work - "Jobs requiring similar skills, qualifications or experience tend to be poorly paid and undervalued when they are dominated by women rather than by men. For example, the (mainly female) cashiers in a supermarket usually earn less than the (mainly male) employees involved in stacking shelves and other more physical tasks." Segregation in the labour market - "Women and men still tend to work in different jobs. On the one hand, women and men often predominate in different sectors. On the other hand, within the same sector or company women predominate in lower valued and lower paid occupations." For example, doctors are paid more than nurses, plumbers are paid more than hairdressers and store-persons are paid more than cashiers - guess which jobs have traditionally been and still are male and female dominated? Traditions and stereotypes - "While around 60% of new university graduates are women, they are a minority in fields like mathematics, computing and engineering. Consequently, there are fewer women working in scientific and technical jobs. In many cases this results in women working in lower valued and lower paid sectors of the economy." I work in construction, when I studied electrical engineering in the 1980s there were 3 women in a year of 47 students; there are now more female engineers and architects then there were but there are still far more male ones. In terms of actual construction workers, the number of female builders, electricians, tilers and bricklayers I encounter is approximately none. Balancing work and private life - "Family, care and domestic responsibilities are still not equally shared. The task of looking after dependent family members is largely borne by women. Far more women than men choose to take parental leave. This fact, together with the lack of facilities for childcare and elderly care, means that women are often forced to exit the labour market." These are cultural and structural issues in society and the economy - they are highly resistant to legal solutions.
Yes. But it isn't illegal discrimination in many places. Laws against discrimination prevent the discrimination based on forbidden categories. Take the national Olympic team: They are allowed to discriminate based on athletic performance, obviously. They are allowed to discriminate based on gender. There are men's teams and women's teams, and men cannot simply apply for a slot on the women's team. They are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Discrimination based on a minimum age might be legal, discrimination based on a maximum age probably not. For an employer, it is legal in many places to discriminate based on (formal) qualifications, but not to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race. (It may be legal to discriminate based on nationality, however ...)
No First, there does not appear to be unlawful discrimination: there is nothing to suggest that you are a member of a protected class and were terminated because of that. Second, you were given no reason for your dismissal so your employer is not claiming you were terminated for just cause. So, in BC, an employer &quot;can end an employee's job by giving written working notice or pay&quot; and this is perfectly legal. For someone who worked for &quot;about 6 months&quot;, the notice/pay period is 1 week. So either they must give you 1 weeks work or pay you 1 weeks wages.
Is it lawful to offer smaller portions only to children below a certain age..? Yes Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010 covers &quot;Services and Public Functions&quot; and at section 29 states: Provision of services, etc. (1)A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service. This is the only definition of &quot;service-provider&quot; in the Act, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission confirms a restaurant falls with the scope of Part 3: Equality law applies to any business that provides goods, facilities or services to members of the public. This includes a wide range of different businesses and services. These include: [...] restaurants [...] However all that is moot (but posted here for context) as Part 3 of the Act opens with caveats at section 28 which establishes that: (1)This Part does not apply to the protected characteristic of— (a)age, so far as relating to persons who have not attained the age of 18; [...]
are employers legally allowed to punish (e.g. fire, reprimand, etc.) an employee who shares wage/salary information with their colleagues? No. Section 8 of the BC Labour Relations Code preserves for the employee &quot;the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact [...] with respect to the employer's business&quot;. More conclusively, section 64 entitles a person to disclose --except for purposes of picketing-- &quot;information [...] relating to terms or conditions of employment or work done or to be done by that person&quot;. Wage/salary information clearly is a condition of employment. the only answer to that question relies on a law from a different province (Ontario) and so is not relevant in BC. That answer is relevant to Canada (also the question was about Canada). That answer cites a statute from Ontario because that is the jurisdiction that the asker specified. It would be tiresome as well as futile to provide the statutory equivalent of every province on a matter that the provinces are very unlikely to legislate materially differently.
The official judgements do not reveal the funding for these lawyers; so where can I find this information? Nowhere. The commercial arrangements between lawyers and their clients are private and confidential like any other business transactions. You have no more right to know this then you do to know how your neighbour pays their mortgage. how could she have funded litigation in the EWHC and then EWCA before the UKSC? She may have rich parents or another benefactor who has in interest in her or the outcome of the case. She may have won the lottery. She may be the heiress of a dead rich uncle. By the way, "having" student loans does not mean you "need" student loans. Interest rates on student loans are cheap - if I need to pay $10,000 for a course and have $10,000 earning 5%, I would be nuts to use that if I could take out a loan at 3%.
Article 8 is pretty clear. The fact that it is recommended to extend the draft to women indicates that there is a conflict needing resolution. A relevant case before the European Court of Human Rights ruled on this and found the law to violate articles 14 and 8 of the ECHR. They identify an exoneration from the tax under the Military-Service Exemption Tax Act sect. 4. Reading the judgment could be helpful (maybe you know the case). What I get from it is that there are a bunch of situation-specific details that could be applied (e.g. you have to first complain formally in-country before going to ECHR), and issues of disability level and the distinction between disability and illness. This gives a model for anyone to attempt to resist the tax, but only a change in the law will get rid of it.
This is an increasingly common practice in the UK for dismissals, especially for reasons of redundancy. What is going on here is that they are attempting to enter into what until recently was known as a compromise agreement, and is now termed settlement agreement. Normally, when you are made redundant, you are entitled to statutory redundancy pay (amount depends on age and length of service; see https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/redundancy-pay). You can take this and do not need to sign anything. However, sometimes companies make slightly more generous offers in exchange for you agreeing not to take them to tribunal/court or discuss/disclose certain matters. This would often involve more money and an agreed reference. These agreements only have legal standing if you have taken legal advice from a person qualified to give it. The UK's national conciliation and arbitration service ACAS has information on settlement agreements at http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4395 Therefore the employer is offering to pay legal fees because they need you to get advice before you sign a document which protects them. They are suggesting solicitors because they know of solicitors willing to do this work for the price they are willing to pay. Some companies will do this for every dismissal and have a have a standard package for enhanced redundancy. Other companies decide for each case. Before you proceed to arrange a solicitor, you should check: That you are free to choose another solicitor who will do the same for £500. That this will be paid whether or not you agree to the terms. What your length of service is, what your statutory entitlement is and what the difference is between that and what you are being offered. You should also think carefully about whether you have any potential claims against the employer - for instance, if you think you are not being made redundant because the employer is doing less of a particular type of work but because you have raised issues of discrimination. You are probably being asked to give up your right to pursue this. In terms of choice of solicitor, a solicitor which gets work from employer recommendations probably won't be too forthright in encouraging you to challenge unfavourable terms (even if they do not work for employers). If you are a member of a trade union, they will be able to suggest lawyers who do settlement agreements for employees on a regular basis. If not (and I assume not as otherwise they would be helping you through this), I would suggest finding a firm that specialises in representing employees - some solicitors' firms like Thompsons and Morrish are pretty open about their focus.