It is one of the mysteries of contemporary life that sex segregation exists even when there is, in theory, no basis for it. A couple of years ago, I visited a popular and well run mail order and retail business. And what I saw was that on the customer helplines and the PR side of things, as well as the store assistants, all were women — with the exception of one young man who did social media.
When I visited the warehouse, exactly the reverse was the case. It was all men hauling big boxes around and loading wooden pallets. Yet there was no company policy to put blokes in the warehouse and the ladies behind the tills; it was just one of those gender divides which happens all by itself, probably because you need to be heftier to lift the boxes.
So, when shop workers at Next launched an equal pay claim at an employment tribunal, arguing successfully that shop workers should be paid the same as warehouse workers on the basis A) that the work is of equal value; and B) that the jobs were mostly the preserve of women and men respectively, I wasn’t in the least bit surprised by B).
Retail staff don’t usually spend most of their time lifting heavy boxes; warehouse work is harder
The trouble is the first bit of the claim, the assumption that the work is of equal value. Now I yield to no one in my admiration for shop workers; they put up with tiresome and demanding members of the public, usually with good humour, and they do indeed get to haul railings full of clothes about and lift the boxes that their mail colleagues send over from the warehouse. As one of the successful claimants, Helen Scarsbrook, observed: “We do lots of heavy lifting... it’s a physically and emotionally tough job.” And after 20 years working for Next, she should know.
But the work isn’t exactly the same. Retail staff don’t usually spend most of their time lifting or unloading heavy boxes; their work is often diversified by stints behind the counter, say, and dealing with picky customers. Work in the warehouses by contrast is usually physical and it’s in a colder, bleaker place. So, might it merit a different pay grade?
Certainly warehouse worker pay is determined by market rates, which is Next’s argument. Put simply, it’s harder to get warehouse staff than shop assistants. And the market recognises that with a higher rate of pay. It’s kind of how the labour market works. And that’s Next’s argument, the reason why it’ll be challenging the tribunal’s ruling in favour of the women in the courts.
But what the tribunal found is that Next wasn’t guilty of direct sex discrimination. There wasn’t any company diktat forbidding women from applying for warehouse jobs. If women fancy hauling boxes about, go for it. Same goes for men who want to work in the shop.
So, the ruling is based on a curiously subjective notion of what different kinds of labour are worth, powerfully influenced by the gender argument. The most famous case was that of Birmingham city council which was based on the notion that a dinner lady’s job is worth the same as a grave-digger’s. Which would you rather do?
This ruling may cheer up the equality lobby but it’s fundamentally flawed. Next will have to pay £30 million in back pay. Asda and Sainsbury’s are next. And who do you think will end up paying the bill? Yes, us.
