Male Claimants

A number of male readers have been in touch in the past few days to ask whether men are able to pursue an equal pay claim - or is this process restricted only to women.

Well I've written about this situation many times on the blog site and the position is that lots of male workers have equal play claims as well which fall into two categories.

The first covers male workers employed in a job mainly but not exclusively by women - a Home Support Worker (HSW), for example, Playground Supervisors or School Crossing Patrollers.

Now a male HSW has exactly the same equal pay claim as a female HSW and there is no difference between the two, although like everywhere else equal pay will not simply fall into people's laps out of the sky.

So people need to register an individual claim to avoid missing out altogether.

The second category of male claimant covers jobs predominantly done by men but which have never received a bonus payments - social services drivers, janitors and caretakers for example. 

If in doubt contact Action 4 Equality Scotland for further advice and information. 

Contact Action 4 Equality Scotland:

Phone:0131 652 7366

Email: enquiries@action4equality.co.uk

Men and Equal Pay (25 April 2014)

As I said the other day, in many cases men have the same arguments in relation to equal pay as women and just to prove the point here's a report from BBC Wales which explains how a recent case in the university sector has now been conceded, having originally been fiercely resisted by the employer.

Men win sex discrimination pay case against university

Rob Cooze, Nicholas Thomas and Mike Betson are among the claimants

Eighteen men unhappy at being paid less than their female colleagues have won an equal pay claim against a university.

The caretakers and maintenance staff said they were being sexually discriminated against.

Bosses had insisted the difference was not due to gender but down to changes to the men's contracts.

But on Thursday the University of Wales Trinity Saint David (UWTSD) said it would no longer contest the claim.

Representing the university, Peter Wallington QC said: "In light of the evidence that was agreed this morning, I have taken some further instructions from the respondents who concede the (claim of) equal pay was well founded."

It is believed to be the first time such a large group of men have launched legal action in Britain claiming sexual discrimination.

All the men were originally employed by Swansea Metropolitan University, which merged with the UWTSD in August last year.

The men had been on minimum 45-hour-a-week contracts, until new regulations sought to standardise workers's contracts to a 37-hour working week instead.

'Common Sense'

Fearing the drop in hours would cause problems, university bosses said they would guarantee the men the extra eight hours but class it as overtime pay.

But when the new system was implemented, the men said they realised their hourly rate was less than women who were on the same pay scale.

The claimants said they were also not given any choice but to accept the changes - with the situation described as a "fait accompli".

Tradesman Rob Cooze, 50, said he and his colleagues were over the moon with the outcome.

"We didn't want it to come to this really but we're glad common sense has prevailed," he said.

"We are just so relieved and can get on with our ordinary working days now. At certain times it did get us down because in the past, because we felt like we weren't being listened to."

'Historical decisions'

The workers are seeking back pay plus interest but no financial agreement has yet been reached.

A separate group of seven workmen said they would launch their own legal bid if their colleagues were successful with their claim.

If all 25 are successful, the university could end up paying out around £750,000 - with each worker receiving around £30,000 in back pay.

A spokesman for UWTSD said it had no involvement in the decisions made by Swansea Metropolitan University in 2007.

"This was a complex case and we are very disappointed that the new university now has to deal with, in an appropriate manner and with due care, the consequences of historical decisions," the spokesman added.

Big Old Sexist (21 April 2014)

I haven't read a more patronising article that this one by Barbara Ellen in a long time, but it is still galling to see such rubbish coming out of the Guardian/Observer stable.

Now I don't recall any supportive columns by Barbara Ellen during all the years I've been involved in the fight for equal pay, but if she had visited the blog site Barbara would know that male workers have a big stake in things as well.

Because there are significant numbers of men in council jobs that are normally associated with women, home carers for example, and there are lots of male jobs that have never attracted the big bonuses paid to refuse workers, gardeners and so on.

For example, school janitors and the drivers of social services vehicles who get paid a lot less than their male colleagues in other council departments.    

So I wish Barbara Ellen well in her task of not being a big old female sexist because that's exactly what she is, as well as being spectacularly ill-informed. 


Get your grubby male hands off my equal rights

Sexual discrimination laws are for everyone – but it still jars me to see men using them


By Barbara Ellen - The Observer

The equal pay for women campaign advertised in the Strand, London, in 1952. The placard bearers marching to Piccadilly Circus included many professional women, some wishing to remain unidentified. Photograph: Observer

Here's a question. When you think of sexual discrimination laws, do you automatically think of equal rights or women's rights? If your instinctive honest answer is women's rights, how long does it take to correct yourself?

A group of caretakers and tradesmen, originally employed by Swansea Metropolitan University, which merged with the University of Wales Trinity Saint David (UWTSD) last year, is suing their employersfor more than £700,000 for sexual discrimination, claiming that for years they have been paid less than female counterparts (library assistants, secretaries).

Their solicitor, Paul Doran, who has represented women in similar pay disputes, says that the case is unusual. "Here we have men who are alleging that they are the ones who are being discriminated against when compared with female colleagues on the same pay grade."

Unusual is one way of putting it. For me, initially at least, it was jarring.

Why did this take me aback? It was slightly strange to see burly guys in overalls and safety helmets claiming to be victims of sexual discrimination, but that soon passed. If it turns out that the men have been underpaid, one could only sympathise with their grievance, and commend them for fighting their corner. What rankled went deeper (and weirder) than that. It was something that I knew was wrong, illogical, unfair, even as I felt it.

That feeling was: what are men (any men!) doing using legislation that was brought in to help women?

As I say, wrong, illogical, unfair. Sexual discrimination legislation wasn't brought in just to help women – it was to enforce equality for everybody, regardless of gender. Those men, and any others, have every right to bring sexual discrimination cases.

Still there it was – the flicker of surprise, even irritation, at seeing a "female" law being used to protect the interests of men. So what's going on? Am I just a big old female sexist, someone who covertly, and perhaps not so covertly, believes that sexual discrimination in the workplace and everywhere else is a one-way street? Are people like myself really as supportive of equal rights (as opposed simply to women's rights) as we like to think we are?

While sexual discrimination laws belong to everybody, does everybody truly feels that way? Or, like me, do they tend to see only the female point of view – excluding the male, because we feel that men could never be victims of sexual discrimination in quite the same way?

Historically, this legislation was the preserve of women. Moreover, in employment terms, there are still biases against women (the massive earnings dip that comes with having children; the mere possibility of having children). Few could seriously deny that sexual discrimination remains predominantly a women's issue.

Perhaps this explains the atmosphere of farce and embarrassment surrounding men and sexual discrimination suits – that they're somehow being ridiculous, even "unmanly", to turn to such laws.

An underlying insinuation is that they're "trying it on", subverting and exploiting important hard-won "women's rights" for their own ends.

It could be that part of the problem lies with the tiny but highly vocal minority of men who appear to operate a crude and provocative good for the goose/good for the gander sex wars agenda. Which, in turn, makes women feel somewhat protective and tribal about "female-friendly" laws.

Maybe this explains why people, myself included, are instinctively taken aback to see men using sexual discrimination arguments.

Momentarily, it could register as an opportunistic misuse of valuable "female" resources. Obviously there is a middle ground here – where women acknowledge that men have every right to such legislation and men promise not to abuse it.

In the meantime, I'll work on not being a big old female sexist.