... None of that changes, it just means claims have to be based on women not getting paid as much as that is the problem I think we're all united on trying to fix. I'm in Wellington Friday afternoon so won't be there but I wish you all the best. Thanks. (Facebook post from Tim Costley)
May 8, 2025 at 5:36 AM
... None of that changes, it just means claims have to be based on women not getting paid as much as that is the problem I think we're all united on trying to fix. I'm in Wellington Friday afternoon so won't be there but I wish you all the best. Thanks. (Facebook post from Tim Costley)
. It's the pay we need to fix. Existing claims can still go ahead under the new rules. As an example, the first claim which started this in 2012 would still go ahead under these rules. None of that changes, it just means claims have to be based on women not getting paid as /cont
May 8, 2025 at 5:35 AM
. It's the pay we need to fix. Existing claims can still go ahead under the new rules. As an example, the first claim which started this in 2012 would still go ahead under these rules. None of that changes, it just means claims have to be based on women not getting paid as /cont
...That should be the focus of pay equity. The changes Labour made in Government meant that claims were comparing 90 different sectors all at once and an admin clerk was compared with a fisheries officer, and they include things like CPI and the price of goods, not the actual pay. /cont.
May 8, 2025 at 5:34 AM
...That should be the focus of pay equity. The changes Labour made in Government meant that claims were comparing 90 different sectors all at once and an admin clerk was compared with a fisheries officer, and they include things like CPI and the price of goods, not the actual pay. /cont.