#metoo

[Tommy Tainant]

Tesco faces £4bn equal pay claim

Women are still treated as inferior even today.

These girls are being paid a lot less than men doing work of equal value.

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

I cant understand why something like this is still an issue.

 

[Tank]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

Seriously ? Thats what you take from this ?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

Seriously ? Thats what you take from this ?

So, no answer

 

[Tank]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

Seriously ? Thats what you take from this ?

If what you say is true, a smart business man would hire all women

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

Correction...it will cost the customers a lot of money.

This article lends nothing to fact other than emotive platitude...worthless drivel. They reference a 1984 law without actually providing excerpts from the legal text. Typical BBC leading the reader.

 

[jillian]

Tesco faces £4bn equal pay claim

Women are still treated as inferior even today.

These girls are being paid a lot less than men doing work of equal value.

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

I cant understand why something like this is still an issue.

#Youtoo?

You were groped by Harvey Weinstein too?

you are aware it isn't' just about harvery Weinstein, right?

why does the subject bother you so much that you felt the need to troll it?

I'm wondering because it seems to me that one thing we should all agree on, since we are all either wives and daughters and mothers and sisters, or have wives and daughters and mothers and sisters...

THAT IT IS NOT OK to put your hands on a woman without her consent. that should be a no brainer, no matter what the genital grabber in chief says/does.

it should also be a no brainer that if a man and woman are in the same job, they should get the same pay for the same work.

you agree with those two things, right?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

From the linked article:

^^^^ If this is correct and those women have been paid less than the men even though the value of the work is comparable, then that is wrong and they should be paid the money, of course there must be care taken that some do not abuse this situation.

 

[jillian]

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

Correction...it will cost the customers a lot of money.

This article lends nothing to fact other than emotive platitude...worthless drivel. They reference a 1984 law without actually providing excerpts from the legal text. Typical BBC leading the reader.

they cited the law. why would they include it's contents. you can look up the contents.

 

[jillian]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

Seriously ? Thats what you take from this ?

are you surprised?

 

[jillian]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

From the linked article:

^^^^ If this is correct and those women have been paid less than the men even though the value of the work is comparable, then that is wrong and they should be paid the money, of course there must be care taken that some do not abuse this situation.

abuse the situation how?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Tesco faces £4bn equal pay claim

Women are still treated as inferior even today.

These girls are being paid a lot less than men doing work of equal value.

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

I cant understand why something like this is still an issue.

#Youtoo?

You were groped by Harvey Weinstein too?

you are aware it isn't' just about harvery Weinstein, right?

why does the subject bother you so much that you felt the need to troll it?

I'm wondering because it seems to me that one thing we should all agree on, since we are all either wives and daughters and mothers and sisters, or have wives and daughters and mothers and sisters...

THAT IT IS NOT OK to put your hands on a woman without her consent. that should be a no brainer, no matter what the genital grabber in chief says/does.

it should also be a no brainer that if a man and woman are in the same job, they should get the same pay for the same work.

you agree with those two things, right?

"I'm wondering because it seems to me that one thing we should all agree on, since we are all either wives and daughters and mothers and sisters, or have wives and daughters and mothers and sisters...

THAT IT IS NOT OK to put your hands on a woman without her consent. that should be a no brainer, no matter what the genital grabber in chief says/does.

it should also be a no brainer that if a man and woman are in the same job, they should get the same pay for the same work.

you agree with those two things, right?"

^^^^ I see no reason why anyone would not agree about these things, they should transcend politics Tank yes?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

Correction...it will cost the customers a lot of money.

This article lends nothing to fact other than emotive platitude...worthless drivel. They reference a 1984 law without actually providing excerpts from the legal text. Typical BBC leading the reader.

they cited the law. why would they include it's contents. you can look up the contents.

If you are going to reference it and explain it...why not quote it as well? Or at least paraphrase text? Which lends more credence to an argument, my opinion or specific text from a cited source? Yet that is just one of many flaws. This is typical, lazy, opinionated, drivel.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

From the linked article:

^^^^ If this is correct and those women have been paid less than the men even though the value of the work is comparable, then that is wrong and they should be paid the money, of course there must be care taken that some do not abuse this situation.

abuse the situation how?

Well in situations where extra money is involved there are always some who try it on, so if x woman or z woman says that she was working for this company between y year and w year then it needs to be looked at to see that what she states is accurate and that she is not saying this in the hope she can get some extra money, I mean things like this can be abused.

 

[jillian]

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

Correction...it will cost the customers a lot of money.

This article lends nothing to fact other than emotive platitude...worthless drivel. They reference a 1984 law without actually providing excerpts from the legal text. Typical BBC leading the reader.

they cited the law. why would they include it's contents. you can look up the contents.

If you are going to reference it and explain it...why not quote it as well? Or at least paraphrase text? Which lends more credence to an argument, my opinion or specific text from a cited source? Yet that is just one of many flaws. This is typical, lazy, opinionated, drivel.

they did explain it. they just didn't quote the statute. that isn't how journalism works. they referenced the statute. that is sufficient.

is your problem that you think they're lying about the statute? if you think that, go look it up.

 

[jillian]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

From the linked article:

^^^^ If this is correct and those women have been paid less than the men even though the value of the work is comparable, then that is wrong and they should be paid the money, of course there must be care taken that some do not abuse this situation.

abuse the situation how?

Well in situations where extra money is involved there are always some who try it on, so if x woman or z woman says that she was working for this company between y year and w year then it needs to be looked at to see that what she states is accurate and that she is not saying this in the hope she can get some extra money, I mean things like this can be abused.

I would think it would go without saying that the information would have to be accurate. but I think that's a non-issue since no one is alleging women lie about how long they're working. the company knows how long they're working.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

Correction...it will cost the customers a lot of money.

This article lends nothing to fact other than emotive platitude...worthless drivel. They reference a 1984 law without actually providing excerpts from the legal text. Typical BBC leading the reader.

they cited the law. why would they include it's contents. you can look up the contents.

If you are going to reference it and explain it...why not quote it as well? Or at least paraphrase text? Which lends more credence to an argument, my opinion or specific text from a cited source? Yet that is just one of many flaws. This is typical, lazy, opinionated, drivel.

they did explain it. they just didn't quote the statute. that isn't how journalism works. they referenced the statute. that is sufficient.

is your problem that you think they're lying about the statute? if you think that, go look it up.

Which is lazy and evasive. Well obviously they referenced it, otherwise we wouldn't be typing about it. Sufficient? For you maybe. Yet, you and I both read the text. Obviously, both parties are not content. This is nothing more than a feminist echo chamber disguised as journalism. Nothing more.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

Correction...it will cost the customers a lot of money.

This article lends nothing to fact other than emotive platitude...worthless drivel. They reference a 1984 law without actually providing excerpts from the legal text. Typical BBC leading the reader.

"Correction...it will cost the customers a lot of money."

You are correct the cost will be the company will make the customers pay by increase in cost of products.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Tesco faces £4bn equal pay claim

Women are still treated as inferior even today.

These girls are being paid a lot less than men doing work of equal value.

This is going to cost the supermarket chain a lot of money.

I cant understand why something like this is still an issue.

#Youtoo?

You were groped by Harvey Weinstein too?

you are aware it isn't' just about harvery Weinstein, right?

why does the subject bother you so much that you felt the need to troll it?

I'm wondering because it seems to me that one thing we should all agree on, since we are all either wives and daughters and mothers and sisters, or have wives and daughters and mothers and sisters...

THAT IT IS NOT OK to put your hands on a woman without her consent. that should be a no brainer, no matter what the genital grabber in chief says/does.

it should also be a no brainer that if a man and woman are in the same job, they should get the same pay for the same work.

you agree with those two things, right?

Hillary famously got busted pretending to represent women and paid them less than the men.

 

[RealDave]

If women get paid less then men , why don't companies hire all women?

Managers hate it when their employees out work them & out think them.