What a smashing chap! 'Richer Sounds, which has 53 stores, refuses to use zero-hours contracts and is one of the 14% of companies with a pay gap that favours women.' He also believes in secure jobs, opposes zero hours contracts and campaigns for big companies to pay tax. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ds-staff-julian-richer?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Top man! It's refreshing to read that not all big businesses are run by Mike Ashley types.. good on him.
So you mean that they earn more than their male counterparts as they are actually doing jobs that don't have an equivalent role that a male fulfills? Equal pay for equal jobs has been law since the 60's.
I must say I laughed when I heard that Ashley had lost £150million when Debenhams decided not to accept his leadership. The guy is toxic. Years ago I taught his son at a very expensive fee-paying school. How shall I put this? His end of term reports might have tended to read along tbe lines of, 'X does have ability in some areas but is not really fulfilling his potential. To make progress he needs to hone his listening skills, develop a greater awareness of those around him and direct his focus more consistently to the task in hand.' I'll leave you all to translate that from Teacher Speak to plain English.
A friend went to a very good fee paying ‘it was for the crème de la crème’ she would say ‘...the thick and the rich!’
I did find it hard to feel sympathy for the man when I read about that.. I put him in the same category as Aron Banks...
Sonos speakers with built in Alexa. I couldn't remember what they were called! As we have no FM reception where we live, it's handy to have internet radio and you can just ask it to play virtually any radio station, or give a weather forecast or whatever without touching it.
Not sure about all the "women get paid less than men" hype, when I worked for a big corporate all the women used to get paid more than me and some others because they shouted "inequality" to the female management. Don't believe all you read.
I don't believe you Were those women doing exactly the same job, same hours, same time at the company, as you? Were you in the lap dancing pool? Don't think there's any question about the OVERALL picture favouring men
It's the word 'favouring' men that hacks me off - talking about the wider discussion, not you @Dub and Dubber per se. The fact that more men are in top jobs isn't open to much debate. How that happened or happens is WAY more complex than a one word answer. As is any solution, if the 'problem' is in fact something that needs fixing. What do I mean by that? Well....we are told over and over that equality means there are no differences between men and women in a capability sense....in which case why would having women in senior roles in successful companies make any odds....if they are equal then what's the benefit? For me, plainly that's a daft viewpoint, but you either have genuine equality, and recognise its shortcomings if applied with equity, or recognise it's far more about capability and the individual. We should move our tax process and in company initiatives to make having children far less of a career hindrance for women. After that, it's surely about capability of an individual....which is much harder to measure than the lazy arse 'have you got a dick yes/no' application we have now, that also kills the credibility of any debate for me. Equality of opportunity is underpinned by law, and is absoloutely what we should drive at. Incidentally, Richer having more higher paid females should be castigated just as much as all companies with males being higher paid. Equality is equality, right?
They were doing a lesser skilled job and the person in overall charge was a woman. I am questioning your comment, so there.
