Salary gaps in public sector (not due to discremination) My relative works in the NHS as a data analyst. Her direct supervisor earns 3.5 time her salary (she knows that as the role has just been advertised and HR responded with the pay scale for the role). The two job titles are different, both are women and there is no suspicion for discrimination (both identify themselves as belonging to a minority). However both share similar education that is engineering (not MD), both on a full time job and sometime the manager even puts her as second in line when on leave. It is not the case of a PA and an exec. Is there any legal ground to ask for a raise and what would that be?
In the first instance, employers generally set wages based on the job description: a janitor is paid a janitor's wage and a surgeon is paid a surgeon's even if the janitor is a qualified surgeon. The amount of these wages are, broadly speaking, set by a combination of minimum wage laws and economic market forces. People get paid different amounts for different jobs. For example, while it may be wildly unfair that Hugh Jackman earns 100x per annum more than I do despite us both being the same age, ethnicity, sex and city of origin and the fact that I have 2 Master's degrees and he doesn't this simply reflects the fact that people at the top of the acting profession command a greater income than those at the top of the engineering profession. People doing the same job do not have to be paid the same amount. All else being equal, an employer would prefer to pay less and the employee would prefer to be paid more, however, both are constrained by the availability of replacement labour (for the employer) and alternative employment opportunities (for the employee): these things are mutually interdependent. In addition, even in non-profit sectors like governments, an employer is looking to maximise productivity - an employee who produces more in a given time frame is worth more to the employer, a wise employer will be willing to split this increased productivity with the employee in order to retain them, subject to cultural and operational constraints. Government departments, however, tend to be more culturally constrained about paying people different amounts for the same job title and more hierarchical in pay scales. As a private sector employer, I don't believe any of my employees earn the same amount, either per hour or per annum, and I know of several nominally subordinate employees who earn more than their supervisors because the former are of more value to me than the latter: such things are much less common in the public sector and in larger businesses in the private sector too. Anyone can ask for a raise at any time. The request will either be refused, accepted or be met with a counter-offer. A request will be more likely to get a favourable outcome if the employee is specific about why they are of greater value to the organisation - comparisons with other people are generally not the best way to go with this.
Adding m/w/d in a job posting is not explicitly required by any German law. It is however the established way to implement the requirements of the AGG (~ general equal treatment act) which in turn implements various EU directives. Protected classes under the AGG are race, ethnic origin, gender, religion or belief system, disability, age, and sexual identity. Of these, only gender manifests itself in the German language, making workarounds necessary that indicate that no gender is preferred. Within certain bounds, the German language can use gender-neutral terms, for example a job called “Lehrer/-in” or “Lehrer*in” could also be called “Lehrkraft”. If you are able to use gender-neutral language in English but are still subject to German law, adding “m/f/d” is probably not necessary but still a very sensible idea as it corresponds to German best practices. If you fail to add some explicit note that applicants of all genders are welcome, nothing bad will happen automatically. However, a person with a not-explicitly listed gender may apply for the job, get denied, and then sue with the argument that they were denied because of their gender. The employer would have the obligation to prove that their job postings are non-discriminatory.
In the US at least, discrimination is legal (and sometimes even required) unless it is discrimination against specific, protected characteristics, and even then it is sometimes allowable if it is "necessary". Income, whether of an individual or that individual's family, is not in any list of protected characteristics. As such, discrimination upon it is fully legal.
Even though student status is not on the list of protected classes, this still might be discrimination. By proxy. Status as student can be a proxy for age, race, and/or color. Maybe even religion if there is a religious school nearby! In fairness to the store manager, when a pack of ten kids comes rolling in on the way home from school things can get pretty hectic. Rather than try to kick out the problem kids many managers will attempt to avoid the problem in the first place. Also, a sign like this might help the manager be less discriminatory. For example, let's say he lets all kids in and only kicks out the ones who are causing problems. If those problem kids are all in one protected class and it's different from the kids who don't get kicked out, the manager looks like he's discriminating based on that protected class. Discrimination by proxy can be hard to prove and I am not sure of the burden of proof in Canada. I have read that "Canadian experience" is used as a proxy in employment discrimination and has been getting some attention lately. That might be a good issue to keep an eye on as it may define proxy discrimination jurisprudence.
In the U.S. a board member would not be an employee just by virtue of being a board member, even if they were compensated for attending board meetings. The CEO, an employee, might or might not also be a board member. Employees can be fired by their manager. A board member can't be fired from the board but, typically, only removed by a vote of shareholders. They are not assigned tasks by managers of the company. This is 100% clear in CA under employment code 622 (a) “Employee” does not include a director of a corporation or association performing services in his or her capacity as a director. I was a CEO of a private company I co-founded I was a board member as a result of voting myself on the board via my stock ownership. The majority of the board could fire me as CEO but I would still be a board member. If outside board members did get compensation, it would be as a consultant, paid with a 1099. The CA code does say that a board member could take on actual work, like auditing financial information, that might fall under the activities of an employee.
I can't help you with the UK but this would be 100% illegal in Australia. Unpaid trials are permitted of a reasonable duration sufficient to establish if the candidate has the requisite skills. For a hospitality worker 2-3 hours would be reasonable. Unpaid work experience is allowed if it is part of a program of education provided by a school or university. Unpaid internships are allowed provided the internship is for the education of the intern and their work output is incidental to that purpose. If the intern is doing work the company would otherwise have to pay someone to do it's not an internship. Other than that, all work including training must be paid.
Ask yourself... What are you trying to achieve? My understanding is an employer is not obliged to provide you a positive job reference. I believe at most, they are only to obliged to confirm that you worked there. Anything above that is optional. The fact that you have left British Columbia only makes it more difficult for the company to chase you - It does not alter your legal obligations. As part of the settlement, both the employer and employee singed an mutual non-disparagement agreement. Why did you sign a mutual non-disparagement agreement if you still disagree? It leads me to believe there could be trust issues between you and others. Why do you think your old employer must abide by the agreement, but you have an exemption? Let's say you make noise - let's say your old employer in BC tracks you down. Ask yourself how an independent third party like your new employer would react when they read that you signed an agreement, then decided to ignore it. Both you and your previous employer have begun new separate journeys. You two crashed once - I suggest you not alter your path or you could crash again. Life is too short. Concentrate on making your new home in your new city and a new job a new start. It will bring you a greater benefit than breaking a signed, sealed non-disparagement agreement.
Defining the value of a privately held company is hard (tax returns don't provide a very informative basis because accountants will tend to under-value things like "goodwill" in order to avoid paying tax). However that doesn't matter for this stack, because the only legal question is: If I had some means of coming up with a number and presenting it, would it be legally acceptable to define that as their company value in a license? And the answer is: absolutely yes! You are pretty much entirely free to define terms in your license as you see fit. If you want to define "company value" as meaning "the annual gross salary paid to receptionists", go for it. (You would probably need to define what a "receptionist" is in this case).