Last month we saw the landmark ruling in favour of more than 3,500 employees, who had taken their employer Next, the multinational clothing, footwear and home products retailer, to an employment tribunal, over a six-year battle for equal pay. The case found that staff who worked in the stores, predominantly women, were paid less than warehouse operatives, who were predominantly men. The argument made by the employer, was that the women were paid less in accordance with the ‘market rate’, where warehouse workers are paid more than retail workers, to reflect the labour market.
Next employee Helen Scarsbrook told the press:
“Anyone who works in retail knows that it is a physically and emotionally tough job.”
“We do lots of heavy lifting, the same as the men do in the warehouse. We lift the same boxes they lift.” (1)
And here in lies part of the rub. The image of either men or women working in the warehouse or in the stores respectively, is part of an age-old problem that highlights the difference between stereotypical assumptions on gender roles and the actual lived reality, which we’ll come back to later. It is also a matter of perception, and how we have been conditioned to see such roles and give value to them, based on inherent gender norms. However, the ruling panel stated that this was not the case, and that the difference of pay allocation was purely financial. They said that “direct discrimination” in relation to gender was not at play, and that “there was no conscious or sub-conscious gender influence in the way Next set pay rates” (2). Despite this ruling, in this article we suggest otherwise.
What we are seeing are the effects of social conditioning, and how we have been conditioned to see sex, gender and associated gender roles. They are so engrained that that they become the norm. As the employer stated, this is the first ruling of its kind, which doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an issue before, but that this is the first time that a microscope has been held up to the situation. As we know with the way microscopes work, sometimes you have to adjust the wheel to position the lens and bring into focus what was hidden before.
It’s about choosing to see things differently, hence why the tribunal also stated that the employer hadn’t given enough evidence to show that the lower pay discrepancy, wasn’t due to gender-based discrimination. It was inconclusive. No evidence to prove it and similarly, non to disprove it. I say choose to see things differently, because in order to address the constant battle of awarding equal pay to women and men, we need to actively engage and reflect on our decision-making processes. This is at the heart of mitigating unconscious bias. In fact, we suggest that because gender bias is so engrained in the way that women are seen as the lesser sex, it becomes unthinkable, that such a case could be directly related to gender discrimination.
Written by Dr Ope Lori, PhD
To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.
