"Metman2012" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2014 13:40, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20141030132558.501aca2f@home-1...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:12:53 -0000
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

The offer in no way addresses pay inequalities between sexes

Not quite sure what you mean by this one, Will. The only pay inequality
I noticed when I first started work for the Met Office was that the
take-home pay of a man was lower than that of a woman of equal grade
and service. That was due to only the male workers paying for
widows-and-orphans benefits. However, that went away with pensions
reorganisation years later.

There was an exercise done, in 2011 I think, that looked at pay equality
and there are instances of womens and mens pay in the same grade/same
length of service being different (not necessarily women lower). Reasons
for this are complex and possibly stem in part from pay offered on
appointment. Pay inequality is not really a big issue in the MetO,
however, as it is an equal opportunities employer, but staff were
promised over 5 years ago that any unfair inequalities would be sorted.
They haven't been. In fact the pay system is now effectively broken (due
to government imposition) and things are getting worse not better.

Will
Wasn't there also the issue of women taking time off for children (x
years) and coming back to the same pay scale, but men who joined at the
same time had continued up the pay scale (spine) so were getting more than
the women?

Hi Malcolm, that was when we had a pay spine. As you know the idea of role
pay (which came in in 2008) was equal pay for equal work. The aim was for
staff to take circa 4 years (depending on role) to get to the full rate for
the job. But this was scuppered by the then Labour government deeming it as
unaffordable. I'm not kidding, I was in the Union Pay negotiating team at
that time when we thought we were really getting somewhere. But on the day
of the Treasury announcement of "unaffordable" - the HR (official side) pay
team were literally in tears. Months of hard work from both sides gone up in
smoke because of the bleedin Treasury. Now new staff *never* make the rate
for the job because their rises are severly restricted. They are kept on
lower pay despite being competent and doing good work. So in the same team
doing the same quality work one person's pay can be £1000s pounds less than
the other simply because one person has been employed longer (pre 2008).
That is wrong.

But hey, look on the bright side, we are paying off the deficit (or are we?
Seems as big as ever?) caused by greedy ignorant w.. er bankers.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------