logo
Private sector wages should not be the business of Government

Private sector wages should not be the business of Government

Yahoo2 days ago

For far too long, British politicians have created laws and systems that outsource decisions to the courts. All of this has been done with the best intentions, but too little consideration has been given to the unintended consequences, and the outcomes have been perverse.
Thanks to a spate of absurd rulings, including the Albanian criminal allowed to stay in the UK partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets, many are aware of the impact on efforts to control our borders. But the problem is much broader, impacting everything from planning to energy. Increasingly, tribunal judgments are even telling businesses what they should pay their workers.
If that sounds crazy, it's because it is.
All jobs are different; all people are different too. In theory, setting pay is hard, because the pros and cons of different roles depend on individual preferences. In practice it's easy. You don't have to sit down and work out a weighted aggregate of a job's different pros and cons to different people; the market does that for you. You can start hiring, and you'll find out pretty quickly how much you need to pay to fill a role.
This is so obvious that it almost isn't worth saying. But it's not what our laws say. The Equality Act, passed in 2010, mandates 'equal pay for equal work', doubling down on the Equal Pay Act of 1970. But what is 'equal work'? According to the Equality Act, it isn't where two people do the same job. It's not even where two people do similar jobs.
In fact, the Equality Act says, the only way to tell if two jobs are 'equal' is to conduct a 'job evaluation study'. Rather than letting the job market determine fair pay, bureaucrats and judges use a host of arbitrary criteria to decide what a role is worth.
What does that look like in practice? Last August, a six-year case concluded against the retailer Next. The company was sued by three women, current and former workers, who insisted that store staff (mostly women) should be paid as much as warehouse workers (slight majority male).
Any of the store staff could have moved to the warehouse if they wanted more money. In fact, Next were desperate for them to – the company had a recruitment drive for the warehouse among store employees.
But very few people wanted those roles because working on the shop floor was pleasant and working in the warehouse was not. One of the women who brought the case admitted that she would only have considered moving to the warehouse for 'a lot more money.'
Incredibly, Next lost. The court decided the two roles should be paid the same. The same thing is happening to Asda. And Birmingham council was effectively bankrupted by an equal pay claim brought by (mostly female) cleaners complaining they weren't paid as much as the (mostly male) binmen.
We should be grateful anyone is willing to do work that's backbreaking, dirty or dangerous. They deserve to be paid fairly; often more than people who don't want to do that. But now bureaucrats have come in to fix what isn't broken and insist that what is fair is actually unfair. This undermines our economy and it needs to stop.
Katie Lam is the Conservative MP for Weald of Kent
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid
Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid

A federal judge sided with Mahmoud Khalil, an anti-Israel ringleader detained by the Trump administration, blocking the government from continuing to hold him on "foreign policy" grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction preventing the government from detaining or removing Khalil, 30, based on a memorandum issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The memo asserted that Khalil's presence "compromises a compelling foreign policy interest." "The government cannot claim an interest in enforcing what appears to be an unconstitutional law," Farbiarz wrote, adding that the threat to free speech raised serious First Amendment concerns. The ruling is a significant legal setback for the administration's efforts to deport Khalil, who has been held at a detention facility in Louisiana following his involvement in anti-Israel demonstrations at Columbia University. Federal Judge Says Attempted Deportation Of Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil May Be Unconstitutional While the ruling grants a preliminary injunction against Khalil's removal, it stops short of ordering his release. Read On The Fox News App The court's decision will remain on hold until Friday morning, giving the government time to appeal. READ THE RULING – APP USERS, Click Here Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil's Free Speech Lawsuit Against Us Government Must Be Heard: Judge Khalil, a green card holder, was arrested after leading student protests on the Ivy League campus. He has argued that his free speech rights were being "eroded" by the Trump administration. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys have argued that Khalil's free speech claims were a "red herring," saying that the 30-year-old lied on his visa applications. Khalil, they said, willfully failed to disclose his employment with the Syrian office in the British Embassy in Beirut when he applied for permanent U.S. residency. The agency also accused Khalil of failing to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees and membership in Columbia University Apartheid Divest. Rubio has cited a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil's removal from the U.S. The provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary determines their presence in the U.S. "would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Rubio accused Khalil of participating in "antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which foster a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States." "Condoning antisemitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective," Rubio wrote. Khalil has Algerian citizenship through his mother, but was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. As of Wednesday evening, no further hearings are scheduled in Khalil's immigration case. "We're just waiting for the judge to issue her ruling," Johnny Sinodis, a partner at Van Der Hout LLP who is representing Mahmoud Khalil in immigration proceedings, said during a press conference following the hearing. Meanwhile, the federal court's preliminary injunction will prevent Khalil's removal until at least article source: Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid

Trump says US personnel moved as Iran tensions mount
Trump says US personnel moved as Iran tensions mount

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says US personnel moved as Iran tensions mount

President Donald Trump said US personnel were being moved from the potentially "dangerous" Middle East on Wednesday as nuclear talks with Iran faltered and fears grew of a regional conflict. Trump also reiterated that he would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, amid mounting speculation that Israel could strike Tehran's facilities. Iran threatened Wednesday to target US military bases in the region if conflict breaks out. A US official had earlier said that staff levels at the embassy in Iraq were being reduced over security concerns, while there were reports that personnel were also being moved from Kuwait and Bahrain. "Well they are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place," Trump told reporters in Washington when asked about the reports of personnel being moved. "We've given notice to move out and we'll see what happens." Trump then added: "They can't have a nuclear weapon, very simple. We're not going to allow that." Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. The two sides were due to meet again in coming days. Trump had until recently expressed optimism about the talks, but said in an interview published Wednesday that he was "less confident" about reaching a nuclear deal. Since returning to office in January, Trump has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran, backing nuclear diplomacy but warning of military action if it fails. The US president says he has pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off striking Iran's nuclear facilities to give the talks a chance, but has increasingly signaled that he is losing patience. Iran however warned it would respond to any attack. "All its bases are within our reach, we have access to them, and without hesitation we will target all of them in the host countries," Iran's Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said in response to US threats of military action if the talks fail. - 'Suffer more losses' - "God willing, things won't reach that point, and the talks will succeed," the minister said, adding that the US side "will suffer more losses" if it came to conflict. The United States has multiple bases in the Middle East, with the largest located in Qatar. In January 2020, Iran fired missiles at bases in Iraq housing American troops in retaliation for the US strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani days before at the Baghdad airport. Dozens of US soldiers suffered traumatic brain injuries. Amid the escalating tensions, the UK Maritime Trade Operations, run by the British navy, also advised ships to transit the Gulf with caution. Iran and the United States have recently been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington calling it a "red line." Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Western countries have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Last week, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said enrichment is "key" to Iran's nuclear program and that Washington "cannot have a say" on the issue. During an interview with the New York Post's podcast "Pod Force One," which was recorded on Monday, Trump said he was losing hope a deal could be reached. "I don't know. I did think so, and I'm getting more and more -- less confident about it. They seem to be delaying and I think that's a shame. I am less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago," he said. Iran has said it will present a counter-proposal to the latest draft from Washington, which it had criticised for failing to offer relief from sanctions -- a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years. burs-dk/jgc

Trump administration reviewing Biden-era submarine pact with Australia, UK
Trump administration reviewing Biden-era submarine pact with Australia, UK

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump administration reviewing Biden-era submarine pact with Australia, UK

US President Donald Trump's administration has launched a formal review of former President Joe Biden's AUKUS defense pact with Australia and Britain to allow Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, a US defense official said. Australia, which sees the submarines as critical to its own defense as tensions grow over China's expansive military buildup, said it remained committed to the project and looked forward to working closely with the US on the review. As well as causing alarm in Australia, the review could also throw a wrench in Britain's defense planning. AUKUS, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, is at the center of a planned expansion of Britain's submarine fleet. 'We are reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda,' the US official said of the review, first reported by Financial Times. 'Any changes to the administration's approach for AUKUS will be communicated through official channels, when appropriate.' AUKUS was formed in 2021 to address worries about China's growing power. It envisages Australia acquiring up to five US Virginia-class submarines from 2032. Then, Britain and Australia would design and build a new class of submarine, with US assistance. The UK would take first delivery in the late 2030s, with delivery to Australia in the early 2040s. Before that, the US and Britain would start forward rotations of their submarines in 2027 out of an Australian naval base in Western Australia. Vocal skeptics among Trump's senior policy officials include Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's top policy adviser, who cautioned last year that submarines were a scarce, critical commodity, and US industry could not produce enough to meet American demand. Submarines would be central to US military strategy in any confrontation with China centered in the First Island Chain, running from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines and on to Borneo, enclosing China's coastal seas. 'My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it,' Colby said last year. Only six countries operate nuclear-powered submarines: the US, the UK, Russia, China, France and India. A spokesperson for Australia Defense Minister Richard Marles said the US had informed Australia and the UK of the review. 'AUKUS will grow both US and Australian defense industry as well as generating thousands of new manufacturing jobs,' the spokesperson said. A British government spokesperson called AUKUS 'one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades' that also produces 'jobs and economic growth in communities across all three nations.' 'It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year,' the official said, adding that Britain will 'continue to work closely with the US and Australia … to maximize the benefits and opportunities' of AUKUS. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but one official told Reuters the Trump administration 'is regularly reviewing foreign agreements to ensure they align with the American people's interests – especially those initiated under the failed Biden foreign policy agenda.' US Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said AUKUS was 'critical to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific' and the administration should work to strengthen it and the US submarine industrial base. 'Anything less would play directly into China's hand,' said Kaine, who represents Virginia, where US submarines are built. AUKUS is Australia's biggest-ever defense project, with Canberra committing to spend A$368 billion ($240 billion) over three decades to the program, which includes billions of dollars of investment in the U.S. production base. On Tuesday, Britain announced plans to invest billions of pounds to upgrade its submarine industry, including at BAE Systems in Barrow and Rolls-Royce Submarines in Derby, to boost submarine production as announced in Britain's Strategic Defence Review. Under this, it will build up to 12 next-generation attack submarines of the model intended to be jointly developed by the UK, US and Australia under AUKUS. In the US Congress on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said 'we're having honest conversations with our allies' and added in reference to Australia: 'We want to make sure those capabilities are part of how they use them with their submarines, but also how they integrate with us as allies.' Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who signed a previous agreement to acquire French submarines shelved in favor of AUKUS, told CNBC last week it was 'more likely than not that Australia will not end up with any submarines at all, but instead, simply provide a large base in Western Australia for the American Navy and maintenance facilities there.' AUKUS expert John Lee at Washington's conservative Hudson Institute think tank said the Pentagon review was aimed at determining whether it could afford to sell up to five submarines when it was not meeting its own production targets. Kathryn Paik, a Biden White House official now at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, said providing submarines to Australia would not sacrifice US readiness but instead boost collective deterrence. 'This review most definitely makes our allies in Canberra and London concerned, and could cause them to doubt US reliability as an ally and partner,' she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store