Why supermarket workers should take a stand against unequal pay

Equal pay was never handed to workers as a gift. It had to be fought for.

In 1968, women sewing machinists at Ford's Dagenham plant went on strike after their skilled work was downgraded and undervalued. Their stand helped push equal pay into the national conversation and led directly to the Equal Pay Act 1970.

More than 50 years later, the same basic question remains: is work traditionally done by women still being undervalued?

Equal pay is a legal right

Equal pay law is built on a simple principle: equal pay for equal work.

That does not mean two jobs have to be identical. Different jobs can still be of equal value if they involve similar levels of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

The supermarket equal pay claims allege that mostly female shopfloor workers were paid less than mostly male warehouse or distribution centre workers, even though their work may have been of equal value.

Why shopfloor work may have been undervalued

For years, supermarket shopfloor work has often been treated as lower-value work.

But anyone who has done the job knows how demanding it can be. Store workers serve customers, handle stock, deal with complaints, cover busy shifts, work under pressure, and keep stores running.

We allege that this work was undervalued partly because it was traditionally seen as "women's work". Many store roles were offered part-time, making them more likely to be taken by women balancing paid work with childcare, caring responsibilities or other family commitments.

That does not make the work worth less. It often means those workers were carrying even more responsibility outside work too.

Supermarkets are major businesses

These claims are being brought against some of the UK's largest supermarket businesses.

Recent annual reports and public updates show that major supermarkets continue to generate very large revenues and, in some cases, profits or operating profits measured in hundreds of millions or more than £1 billion.

Against that backdrop, it is fair for workers to ask a simple question: if the business depended on store workers turning up every day, were those workers paid properly for the value they created?

Fair work deserves fair pay.

This is money workers may have already earned

If these claims succeed, compensation will be about correcting pay that workers say should have been received at the time.

Even a small hourly gap can add up. For someone working 25 hours a week, £1 to £3 per hour could mean roughly £7,800 to £23,400 over six years, before deductions, interest or other adjustments.

For many workers, that could mean money towards bills, debt, rent, childcare, savings or family life. It could also mean recognition that the work they did had real value.

Taking action helps future workers too

These claims are about individual workers recovering money they may be owed. But they are also about something bigger.

If one of the biggest group claims in British legal history succeeds, it will send a clear message to major employers: work mainly done by women cannot be quietly undervalued.

Large organisations should not be able to benefit from unfair pay. Equal pay laws exist for a reason. They protect workers and help challenge practices that may otherwise continue for years.

There is strength in numbers

One worker challenging a major supermarket can feel daunting.

Thousands of workers standing together is different.

Group claims give ordinary workers a practical way to use their legal rights, hold powerful employers to account, and protect others from being short-changed in the future.

Standing up for equal pay

Supermarket store workers helped build these businesses. They kept shops running, served customers, handled stock, worked through pressure and gave years of labour.

If that work was undervalued because it was mainly done by women, it should be challenged.

We should all demand equal pay for equal work.