IMGpapers

Newspapers of the International Marxist Group and its forerunners, 1968–1988

This Act is a fraud

Red Weekly No. 167, 1976 · p. 12 of the scan · 241 words

The scan: rw-no167-sep-23-1976.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 1-2 of 5; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 12 of the scan

It says much about the Equal Opporhas the official designation of 'chairman" of that esteemed body. Ms Lockwood herself has recently written an articie for The Times in which she pleads: To our critics we say - let us all get on with the job.' Taking these words to heart, the monthly journal Labour Research has recently examined the workings of Comthe enforcement of the Equal Pay Act. The findings serve as a warning to all those who place their faith in the judgements of arbitrators, and stand as a vindication of those such as the striking Trico women who refuse to have anything to do with Equal Pay tribunals.

One of the case histories they cite illustrates the dangers involved in even applying to a Trib nal. Two clerical women workers in E verfordwest who did just that were sac ed within two days. Eus sacking was er juagea to be unTaur by tne irioun 1 - yer 1 also ruied that the women ha not been victimised. This rather peculiar example of fairness acompanied by a rejection of the equal pay claim itsell, on the ground: that similar men's work was more responsible'.

So although there was absolutely no diference in the quality or quantity of the work the man or woman did. the the woman got paid less because the judgement acocnaca not on what was actual happening but on what the employers wanted to happen.

← SUPREMACYPeculiar →

Something wrong on this page?