Well said L, Manchester. That seems to be the most common sense way but hey when have the city councilors had common sense. As for the unions, they have sold everyone down the river with their agreements made in smoke filled little dingy rooms. As a woman who works for Manchester City Council Job Evaluation team, some of the cuts that we are imposing, in agreement with Unison and T&G unions, is a total digrace. Out of all the evaluations that have taken place the biggest losers are middle tier men with families etc. This can only serve to widen the gap between women and men.

Concerned, Manchester,

i am a gardner for a council in manchester and have been forced to fill in a questionaire.to tell me what pay i will be getting in the near future or really how much will be deducted off me. i am a married man with one child please can any woman out there explain this to my honest lovely equal wife that we will probably not be able to pay are bills so thanks to all concerned. this is all been blindly put across as a project to me and other colleges other worda not explained just sheer bullie tactics on goverments behalf . i wish every woman in the uk was married to a male who is going to get a pay cut .so it would be equal hey .

a mcguinness, manchester lancs, uk

This will only serve to escalate the battle of the sexes!.
OK I agree that certain sections of women have been discriminated in the workplace when it comes to jobs like, catering/cleaning NHS staff and secretarial and management type posts are of a job of like work comparison to that of their male counterpart that is without doubt!. But to honestly say that Bin Men and Engineers Dock workers and road workers have a female comparator that can cut the mustard with men that do these extremely physical and often dirty and immensely physically tiering forms of employment is offensive and ludicrous!!. They would not be able to withstand this type of work in the long term if at all. Men are going to have to force the issue on this with their employers and trades unions to gain the obvious high ground and to express the injustice this will bring in terms of inequality in pension retirement to women who will live longer having not abused their bodies in quite the same way as these men have.

Gary, manchester,

I'm from another country and don't know the details. But just to get things straight: do I understand correctly that:
(1) Women in the high-paying jobs also stand to lose money, just as their male colleagues in the same position;
(2) Any man in the low-paying jobs also stands to gain money, just as their (more numerous) female colleages in the same position?
That's true, right? (Let it be true!) In that case at least it is not a real gender issue (i.e. not really discrimination against men in my view).
Thanks for your answer anyone!

DK, Amsterdam, Holland

if they want the same money as binmen then let them try doing the bin round, it wont work its a mans job and its damm hard work, its risky to putting your life on the line behind a bin truck with some nutters on the road 2 people i no have been crippled by cars ploughing into them. let alone losing money we should be on danger money, broken glass in bags syringes left in bags, all the hazards a binman faces from day 2 day an now they wanna take money its makes me sick

mick, birmingham, england

we can not believe that the unions are not willing to see women strike over the equal pay despute they dont mind taking our hard earned money every month.We only want what is right and no we dont want male workers to have to suffer pay cuts .The government has the money all right they just dont want to part with it !

I slington primary school, london,

It's incredile what's going on there. I'm afraid the same will happen in the whole EU. Stop it! Let people and the free market decide how much each person earns. Have you forgotten everything Maggie Thatcher told you? This is the direct way into serfdom. Please remember your liberal ideals and individual rights that made your country great. Leave EU and the PC countries.

Martin Macke, Wuerzburg, Germany

You are right lynn, women should earn the same as men. But it should also be the other way round! Why should men loose money now to cover these costs? There is no equality in this system neither and instead of discriminating women the same happens to men now. Where is the fairness in that?
Apart from that I only know hard working intelligent women and your perception of dinner party ladies is not up-to-date anymore. Apart from that women should stop blaming men on everything instead they should change their perception of themselves as well.

Philipp, London,

Hey James ... tell that to your non equal paid mom ...

What i dont quite understand about that is ... The Equal Paiment law is from 1970 !!! ... so why does it look as if nobody had time to prepare ? I mean come on ... they had 37 years to prepare for equal pay.

Christoph Pohanka, Vienna, Austria

Haha, I always knew your country sucked. You all are getting owned.

James King, Los Angeles, USA, CA

Some people think that men are the main bread winners, why is this? Some women have families to support as well. I blame the unions. Instead of accepting a small pay rise each year for the men, in order to bring the womens pay into line, did they, NO! They have, and still do fight conditions, and demands, for the male workers, and think that women will lie down, and take it. Well i have news for them, we have a voice now. No longer do women sit in a corner, looking pretty and smiling, at the dinner party - we work and we should get equal pay.

lynn, leeds, west yorkshire

I think a lot of people aren't clear on what this means. It does not refer to epople who do the same job but differnet jobs that someone has decided should get equal pay because they appear to be similar in responsibility/difficulty etc.

As an example a binman earns more than a dinner lady. It is decided that, actually, they are equal. The binman then has his pay reduced to the level of the dinner lady (I don't know if these have been equated to the same level but it serves as an example, not even sure any councils still employ binmen probably contracted out). Now, on this basis, if you were a binman would you not just quit and go for a job as a dinner lady instead (I know I would). Hey presto no binmen.

Rob, Birmingham, UK

Just to refute a common misconception that some commenters seem to have. It's not that men and women are being paid different rates of pay to do the same job in the public sector. Single Status is about management drawing parallels between different jobs and saying that both should receive the same rate of pay. The justification for these parallels is the Job Evaluation interview. Here specially selected people from each group of jobs are asked questions about their job which result in a score for the post, two post with the same score get the same pay and the higher the score the higher the pay. The biggest problem is that the weightings of the scores are such that someone who supervises a large team but doesn't need much knowledge or skills to do so (hands off all issues to HR to deal with) will score very highly (because they supervise a lot of people) whilst someone with a difficult, dangerous or stressful job will score low.

Just another way for managers to cut the pay bill.

Stephen Booth, Birmingham, England

Has anyone thought this through (with this government I suspect not)?

-Someone (man-A) has a salary cut of say £15000 just before he retires, presumably he loses a chunk of his final salary pension - despite paying higher contributions for years.
-Someone else (woman-B) gets a large rise just before she retires, and presumably boosts her pension despite NOT having paid the higher contributions, even on the years for which she gets back pay.

Sounds like a recipe for very rich lawyers!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

If I lost £15000 I'd lose my entire salary - so would my male partner

Karen Mutch, Exeter, UK

When I worked in local government a few years ago I knew of a good number of managers who earned disproportionately large salaries. Many of them didn't have to shoulder the responsibilities I did, they simply had the word 'Manager' after their job title.

I on the other hand was only allowed the briefest holidays because I administered a key financial system and if it went down there was no one else to fix it.
If someone is losing 15K off their salary they can afford it!

LSmith, Reading,

Having just gone through a job evaluation exercise, the lowest paid staff have gained a small amount, but others have lost up to £13,000.

Worse, a married couple working for the authority lost £16k out of their joint income.

JE has been used to downgrade junior managers and essential support staff, but senior managers are unaffected.

Personally I have lost around 15% of my income, and am really hacked off reading the rubbish being spouted about this being 'fair'.

I have spent years gaining skills and experience, but have now dropped back 3 grades, with no future career path as there are no developmental posts between myself and the next grade of management.

LAs will learn to their cost about how we feel about it, as staff are already leaving to work elsewhere. We will see that those who can, will leave, so we will be losing the capable staff we need.

David Weston, Exeter, UK

This is not about male or female. It's about central government's refusal to fund the single status agreement. There is no argument about whether there should be equal pay. The job evaluation exercise simply evaluates each post in the organisation, whether the post holder is male or female is irrelevant, and places a value on it. The problem is that when this is mapped onto a pay scale if there is no extra money put in then those that gain have be paid for by losses elsewhere. Some of the gainers will be male, some female - likewise the losers. This is what has happened in most councils. How the Trade Unions have allowed councils to implement these agreements when it has meant 30% pay cuts for thousands staff is hard to understand. They will lose many members as a result and the public sector will lose many staff who are now not being offered a living wage.

Suzanne, North Yorkshire,

Well, this is socialism. Don't complain. It's what you voted for, right? My prediction is that they won't have the guts to do the cuts, so will need a government bail-out (more taxes for everyone). Europeans love taxes, so, no worries.

greg fisher, lafayette, USA

Using a variety of job evaluation tools, I have had a lot of experience in placing jobs into a hierarchy or ‘pecking order’ in a just and fair way.

I don’t claim to be an ‘expert’ but amongst my 130 projects I have carried out 10 Equal Pay reviews. In each case the data used belongs to the clients concerned and in the interests of maintaining confidentiality it cannot be disclosed. However, if they were willing to share it with the wider public, then it would be possible for anyone who is interested to review the numbers and see if they arrived at the same conclusions as me.

Rob Kenwrick, Wokingham, Berkshire

Point of correction - it's not just the male council workers whose pay is at threat of being cut to fund increases for the lowest paid (generally female) council employees - a lot of female staff in professional and technical posts are also facing large pay cuts to help balance the books. These are the young women who've benefitted in the more recent past from improved education and career opportunities - many of us now wonder why we bothered making the effort to 'better ourselves' ...

Sue, Birmingham,

This isn`t quite the equalities crusade it first seems for some of us. I`m a woman working in a male dominated IT area within the UKs largest Council. Having worked hard to achieve my current technical role (getting there on my own merits, not as just the "token bird" to make the numbers up) and being paid at market rates, I`m now facing a possible £6000 cut in pay and the implication that I`ve been overpaid for the last 5 years. It sure doesn`t do much for your morale.

CheesedOff, Birmingham,

I cannot believe that any of this is up for discussion! Pay these women and get over it, no matter what the consequence. It is absolutely appalling that any person, Government minister or not, is thinking of doing anything less! The fact that they have been paid considerably less than men for thirty years, (not six), is bad enough. 'Can't afford', are words that shouldn't be heard on this one. Low paid women working for local councils have been subsidising your council tax for years. Pay up and shut up. If it had been men involved in this farce there wouldn't have been a problem. Thank goodness for blood sucking self interested lawyers, without them the gross discriimination that has had the Government's blessing for the last thirty years wouldn't have come to light. As for the unions, what did they do for us apart from sell us out?

judy, liverpool, england

I don't work for the council and this is just crazy to me. I work with someone of the same sex at the same level as them and get paid over £2,000 less. No reason, we were just hired 6-months apart and that was the deal on the table that we each had the option to take or leave.

Should I demand back pay??

DK, Cambridge,

The Unions have not traditionally represented female workers at all, much less fairly.
I work in the entertainment industry, the grades who get looked after are those universally male dominated if not exclusively male. The female dominated grades are wasting their subs.

Thaila, London,

Two answers say no before these cases reach court.
Say no when the case is in court.
Say no again after court.

It is also ridiculus the account balance of companies should not be bullied by court cases.

There is only a fixed resouce of money and not everybody is always equal.

James, Maidstone, UK

Women earn less because they accept lower paid jobs. East Europeans earn less for the same reasons. If you can claim discrimination and get back pay bacause you are a women the shouldn't East Europeans do the same. I have had low paid jobs in the past, can I claim some form of discrimination (I have a disability). No, I can only blame myself for accepting low paid work, and apply for better paid jobs in future.
As an economics graduate I know that there are reasons for women, East Europeans and others accepting low paid jobs that others would not, but one shouldn't blame the employer for offering a market rate.

John, Southampton, UK

Its enevitable. if you are a woman on low pay, particularly near your retirement age and you could make upwards of 10K more by going to a lawyer what would any rational person expect them to do?

if we were talking about stock brokers acting in their own interests no one would be surprised.

this is capitalism - rational self interest - get used to it.

Michael C Fortune-Wood, Blaenau Ffestiniog, UK

I can assure those posting on this site who work in the private sector that the public sector is not overpaid, far from it. I am 37 and a qualified lawyer and I am earning less than half of what my private sector colleagues receive. This is true across the board, in fact some public sector workers are so poorly paid that they are in receipt of benefits from the Government. As for final salary pensions this has always been the quid quo pro for accepting low public sector salaries and few if any benefits, and you have to work for 30 years or more for the pension to have any real value.

This is a simple issue of fairness and legality; equality of pay for work of a like value has been a mandatory requirement for 36 years. Equal Opportunity DOES mean Equal Treatment; that is the entire point of the Act. The question that should be being asked is why local authorities have been allowed by HMG to ignore an Act of Parliament for over 3 decades without penalty.

Gladiatrix, London, England

Some of these views are appalling. If it was your pay that had subsidised the council tax for years would you be happy about it? Why do people feel that these women shouldn't be paid what is their due? If this had been a 'male' issue it would have been put to rights years ago. Unions have sold these women out and it is a good job that the blood sucking lawyers became involved. As for men losing pay, it doesn't have to be that way. Perhaps councils can use some of the millions of wasted pounds of fat cat executive pay for those on over £100,000, along with their advertising budgets and have a few efficiency drives and the pay can remain as it is. I don't believe a word of 'we can't afford it', I could find the money for this in just a couple of grossly inefficient council departments. We are all being told lies.

judy, liverpool, england

Perhaps if the unions advised their members what they were entitled to then the agreements on offer might be acceptable? Solicitors don't instruct themselves!

Anita, Warwickshire,

It is absolutely outrageous that there is this inequity of pay, if that means reducing men's pay to facilitate parity of the sexes, then that is what should happen.

Allie , Lincoln, Lincolnshire

The part of the article I find worrying is the quote from a (male) union member that "it only takes one woman to want more to break the whole agreement".
These women have been grossly underpaid for decades. If the unions had addressed this years ago, we wouldn't be in this position now. The principle of 'equal pay for work of equal value' is now being used to force down the pay of workers of all sexes. Instead of blaming women, working to gain fair pay for all would be more useful.
This makes me question why I bother to remain in the union.

FR, London, UK

How very typical! Instead of increasing the women's pay to match that of their male counterparts - they are decreasing the men's pay to match that of the underpaid female - this truly is a disgrace and flies in the face of the justice that those 'fighting the cause' were seeking. It is an insult to the women who have been underpaid for so long and equally disgraceful to the men who have worked up the ladder in line with pay scales. The correct way to deal with this situation would be to increase the female's salary to match the men and compensate them for the years they were underpaid. If there is not enough money to meet such equality then perhaps the government could pay for one less trident warhead.. that would free up some cash...

L, Manchester,

I live in Camden , if the local Council stopped allowing businesses to avoid business rates then they could afford to pay a decent working wage to all staff, regardless of gender, see:-

www.netribution.co.uk/2/content/view/957/182/

kathy, London,

It looks and sounds like the most vile attempt at anti-female propoganda since those against votes for women were vocal! Besides, if the 'aggresive' solicitors have managed to gain more for the women, who have been under-valued for far too long, good on them!!!!!!!!!

Sue Howard, Cleator Moor, Cumbria/UK

Mrs Bloggs and Mr Jones are accountants at Accountacy Corps, whilst Mr Bloggs and Mrs Jones work at Banking plc. Mrs Bloggs, seeing that Mr Jones is doing similar work to here, naturally tries to get herself an increase in salary. Mrs Jones does the same. You can't create money by magic, though for the first year the shareholders may fund the increase, eventually the mens' salaries will have to fall.
Both women have acted rationally and in the interests of their family, and neither is probably a militant feminist type. However next year Mrs Bloggs gets pregnant. So the Bloggs' income is halved instead of reduced by 40%, and they have to reschedule the mortgage. That is all equal pay can achieve.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

or they could do what staffordshire CC have done close all care homes day centre,s respite homes to save £19 million per year over three years and provide a very second rate care in the home facility

d.jones, stafford, uk

How about changing the headlne to: "Thousands look forward to an increase in pay"?

Barry Edward Goode, Nairobi, Kenya

I wonder if NJ would feel so smug if his pay was reduced by up to £15,000 per year. As M Graham says, how does a large pay cut for men with children help women? Two wrongs don't make a right, and as another contributor said, many men will just move from the public sector to the private sector in order to support their families. Just for the record, I don't work in the public sector, although any man who does want to work in it after reading this article must need his head examined. How to create a male-free zone in one fell swoop, although given the behaviour of many local councils, they'll look on that as a bonus.

David Harris, London,

These women have been under paid for many years and have every right to be paid as much as their male collegues and as much right to campaign for such. The unions and councils were aware of this long before this came to light and have used, and continue to use bully tactics to discourage them from claiming and accepting unfair settlements. By implying that by persuing this they could then effect somone elses pay and again a knock on affect on Council Tax is another example of this.

I Smyth, Edinburgh,

Starling of Lanacaster. You seemed to have missed the point. The unfairness was not "that women got paid less than they should earn", but actually that they got paid less than male counterparts.

Fixed budgets for Councils mean precisely that. Instead of a across the board salary rise for women a process of salary levelling is required.

Alternatively everyone's Council Tax (which already rises greater than inflation) would have to rise considerably to raise the overall revenue. Add to that the fat final salary pension schemes that only the public sector seem to be able to maintain and this is why it is unaffordable to consider a sweeping rise.

Si, Reading,

What does this say about the role of the Unions in the process? Rather odd that the Unions should be agreeing to a salary reduction for anyone if private lawyers are getting a better deal! Maybe its time to cancel my Union subscription!

Matthews, London,

If some men will have to take a £15K pay cut presumably that means they have been paid £15K more than a woman doing the same job ! That is what we should be horrified at 30+ years and women still aren't getting equal pay...

Pat, Reading,

Starling, Lancaster....if we keep men's pay the same and increase yours, there'll be a shortfall. Whose going to make it up? It would be unfair to pass it onto the taxpayer as that hits all including those in private industry. You could lay-off an equivalent number of people in cash terms from city hall. But probably the best way is to lower the public employees pension expectations - either work longer, pay more contributions or jut except a smaller pension - as are many working in private industry right now.

Phil, Preston,

This is not an issue born of two colleagues doing the same job being paid differently, this is due to a wholesale change in how jobs were assessed. Thus some jobs i.e. binmen (or whatever we have to call them now) are classed the same as dinnerladies. Thus a period of adjustment is required to bring the levels to parity. The unions had tried to come to a phased agreement with the councils so as not to wipe out resources, but the lawyers have knackered the plan.

This is, of course, no help to the poor men and thier families who might now be unable to service their mortgages.

What we need is a Labour government to look after the workers. Ah, I see a small flaw in my plan.

John, Shrewsbury, Salop

A contract is a contract - take it or renegotiate. There is nothing else relevant here. To penalise one set of workers for the sake of another is just plain wrong. Equal Opportunities does NOT mean equal treatment.

peakcrew, Sheffield, UK

And the madness continues. I've no gripe about equal pay but how can you justify reducing someone's pay to give it to someone else? It's the male employee's fault ?

I'm glad I work in the private sector. However, beware, these control freaks are making noises about pay in this area. Remember quotes like "it is obscene" for city bankers to get big bonuses. Not, though, for Blair and his ilk to make millions from Autobiographies and directorships. No, silly me, we just don't understand do we?

We understand all too well.

Mark Duffin, Stratford Upon Avon, GB

Having been presonally affected by the job evaluation scheme undertaken by my authority this article is only the tip of the ice-berg. The way in which both the local authority and unions have handled the evaluation for equal pay is disgraceful. Skilled workers, those who have racked up huge university debts have been hit worst. And all because Tony Blair insisted that wegain a University education and not to worry as we would earn the money back quickly when we start working, because, after all, we had a university education. Well here I am, working for the local authority and I wished I had trained to be a plumber.

The idea that this is a cost neutral process is daft. If we have two years payment protection for those who have dropped, then for two years more money is needed. Simple maths really!

DCH, Yorkshire, Yorkshire

There is nothing "new" about equality law. Your article is no more than a rehash of information which has been in the public domain for many months. One must ask, therefore, why you have included the article on your front page today?

G. Pennel, Edinburgh,

Gosh, I'm really astounded by the bias in this article - the very first paragraph of this article, and the title, alone shows where the Times' priorties lie. How can you possibly spin an extremely overdue shift to equality for women as an attack on men? Shame on you.

Sarah, London, UK

A large chunk of public sector workers are overpaid anyway. If the overpaid men have to take a pay cut to bring female counterparts wages in line then so be it.

Maybe the goverment should look at plugging the gaps in the NHS and it's IT spending. It WASTES billions a year on I.T. and on the NHS (Have you seen the film Money Pit?) There is plenty of cash to go around just stop bloody wasting it!

Luke, Robin Hood's Bay, North Yorkshire

Surely the taxpayer should have redress against the Council managers who since 1970 'flouted' the law by agreeing with the Unions these compromise agreements that undermined or circumvented its enactment?

That they may be mostly well paid and well pensioned should make a reasonable target for no-win no-fee lawyers.

All too often the taxpayer has to pick up the bill of Government incompetence, negligence and in this case what appears to be breaking the law.

DMM, Eastbourne, UK

Hi Desmond -

I fear you got carried away with your quote marks there. Even after factoring in transatlantic variations, it is not in fact correct to write "employee's".

I agree that the notion of 'comparable worth' can sometimes be treacherous. But please do consider what you have just proven. A smaller paycheque inevitably implies that its recipient is less capable. Should someone have implied through a reduced paycheque that I (a woman) am less capable than you (a man) in the same job (writing comments with due attention to detail and to proper use of your raw materials), they would, as you have just proven, be wrong.

Zoe Marie Bullingham, London,

We see what he Sex discrimination act is all about; it means discrimination against men. We should repel it.

James, London,

Further proof of 'The Law of Unintended Consequences'! One day someone within this mendacious, socially engineering Government just may follow an idea through to its natural conclusion.

There again perhaps not!

Alan F Mannion, Shavington, Cheshire

A number of people seem to think that it is a good thing that men are having a pay cut, as if they are responsible for the inequality that has existed. This is patently not the case. Employers employ staff at whatever rate of pay is offered. Should it then be decided later that this is a 'bad thing' it is for the employer to make up the difference, not the staff. And for those that feel the public sector is blaoted, inefficient and overpayed, then I suggest that they all apply for the jobs that we do. However, don't come running to me afterwards when the reality of the situation kicks in, when you find that there is no paid overtime, you have to work Christmas day and you don't get bonuses or share options......... oh, and the pay isn't that good either.

Concerned, Scotland, Scotland

Yay for the ambulance chasers, the meek shall inherit the earth, not unless the legal eagles get there first!

Rob B, Derby,

I am sure that when the councils and unions agree these deals the council doesn't really care what each individual's salary is, it is the total bill they are interested in. Surely then our Council Tax should remain unaffected if we simply spread the pre-agreed total wage bill equally across all the employees in a given category. This will naturally mean that the campaigning women find that the "equalised" salary is a lower figure than they were hoping for but it would be demonstrably "fair".

Robert, Reading,

The part of the article that I take exception to is the suggestion that the Unions have been trying to get a fair deal for both men and women. The reason that the no win no fee lawyers have been able to get a foothold is because the Unions have not been doing their jobs.

For years they have been taking money from women (equal to the amount they get from men) and still women have not recieved a fair pay deal. None of the Unions wanted to strike for equal pay for women or supported women in their individual claims.

The next thing we will be seeing is some of these women suing the Unions for back membership fees. The Unions will learn the hard way that you cannot represent people on differing sides of the arguement in a fair and equitable manner.

JLP, Cambridge, UK

I cannot believe The Times took this approach to this story. These women are seeking what they were legally entitled to - claiming for money they should have been paid after legislation was introduced. Never mind the fact that morally women have always been entitled to equal pay.

To spin this story into a supposed attack on the male work force rather than a celebration of justice for women shows the newspaper as being very out of touch with the public, and a readership of which surely a very large percentage are female.

As a member of the male gender I wish to voice my support and say, ladies, I stand with you!

NJ, Edinburgh, UK

Is it April 1 already?

John, Canberra , Australia.

So, the Equal Pay Act came in in 1970, and the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, but to date people have still flouted both of them? Surely if this had been addressed systematically over time from the inception of this legislation, it would have all been dealt with fairly by now. As usual the system is being ruined by unprincipled lawyers - no surprise there, a large number of politicians are from legal backgrounds, it's in their interests to keep the legal gravy train running. You cannot take this amount of money from people who have learned to live to that standard, it's grossly unfair to penalise them for others mistakes in this way, especially when they themselves are not at fault. And they wonder why so many of us are leaving.............

Sheila Fellows, Khartoum, Sudan

Equality is the most unnatural concept there is

Andras Szucs, Birmingham,

Only in Britain ...

Dear government, the unfairness of it was that women got paid less than they should earn. The solution would therefore be to pay the women MORE, not the men LESS.

Starling, Lancaster,

What's all this about a 'new' equality law? Public sector organisations have had since 1979 when this 'new' law was brought in to sort themselves out, they're just lucky that they have a chance now to actually make agreements with the women workers instead of every one of them taking them to court over it. There's every chance that some male workers, not to mention tax payers, will lose out now but that is purely the fault of these organisations living in a bubble for almost thirty years and refusing to take responsibility for the undervaluing of jobs that women do.

Carol, Glasgow,

The first step on the road to privatising all councils. As staff, disgusted by pay cuts, leave to find jobs in the private sector, the numbers will drop in a sector where recruitment is poor anyway- people will not be able to be replaced, so more sections of council services will be "outsourced". Anyone who thinks this will lead to a reduction in council tax bills, just consider the relative cost of your utilities bills compared with pre-privatisation.
Not to condone lesser pay for anyone, but people should be satisfied with what they negotiate at their job interview. If you don't think that the pay is fair, don't take the job. Slashing pay for some civil servants would be heartily acceptable, but unfortunately it'll be the "thin end of the wedge" who are affected- those at the lowest levels and not those such as the thousands of do-nothing spin merchants recruited by the government since 1997.

Pete North, manchester,

It is unacceptable that trade unions have negotiated deals that result in their female members receiving less than the Law demands. It is a classic example of a conflict of interest - active union membership is largely male, so deals are struck that get a little more for the sisterhood without upsetting the boys. Once again, lawyers have had to come to the rescue of the underdog.

Gerald Elvidge, Guildford, UK

The public sector is bloated, inefficient and ineffectual for the most part. The public sector accounts for more than 20% of the working population. This is unsustainable particularly when there is no leadership, understanding of how to improve standards, or anyone with the courage to overhaul radically the sector. The problems with in the public sector will just get worse and this government is not able to do anything about it. The problem that we have is that with tax payers having to donate more of their income to the government, they do not have to be as efficient as the private sector. Also, let's destroy the myth here and now. Public sector workers are paid at least the equivalent of the private sector - minus the gold-plated public sector final salary pension. And in many cases, the public sector is paid more.

Karen, Macclesfield, UK

So if a married man with a family working in the public sector gets a 15000 pound per year pay cut that helps women!! Strange logic. Oh well - what's the point of marriage these days anyway!!

M Graham, Penang, England

The same will happen to the Civil Service as happened to Education. Large numbers of men will bail out into commerce and industry. In our primary schools and lower parts of secondary schools you find few men. Maths and Science are understaffed due to this.
The methodology of equalisation is also crude by comparison with older strategies whereby men were given smaller rises than women over several years.

William Shepherd, zoeterwoude,

Like most "good" ideas, equal pay for equal value work is a no brainer in terms of principles. Unequal pay has its roots in the past where men were the main breadwinners and women brought up the children and were expected to resign when they got married . Few now would defend that as a social system. The issue today is that we seem to have developed the concept of "men's" and "women's" work which are no more than roles with a predominance of one sex working in them. If women's work is lower paid then then there is a possibility of a legal challenge (although curiously it rarely works the other way around). The problem is of course how to determine whether two different jobs are of equal value and the answer is Job Evaluation which is not a precise science so mistakes will be made. Another issue is who pays for it. The answer, it seems, is the taxpayer because many of these people are low paid and reducing pay will simply put them into benefits. Who wins? The lawyers as ever!!

Dave West, Croydon,

At last true justice for women. The "no fee no win" solicitors are doing what the government is afraid to do and that is to ensure that equality means just that. A great day for British justice.

Marek, London,

This is great, it should increase the council tax by over 30% next year, so it is the happy tax payer that gets hit again

Michael Rudd, Barking, Essex

That 'social policy vision which has just germinated' is ending centuries of a completely unwarranted pay distinction. I tool feel sorry for these poor employees, but not half as sorry as I do for the women who have been working for less money than men for the same job with the same hours for years. This new anti-discrimination legislation is finally starting to break down the male dominance of law. Until we break down the gender inequalities in our law we can never expect to break down the gender inequalities in society. And as for the empirical data that Desmond is questioning, I don't think there is anything so complicated in statistics which show that women get higher grades throughout their education, throughout university and tend to be more successful in the workplace. Thank God we're starting to be paid an equal wage for that higher standard.

Emma Harling-Phillips, London, England

Sorry, waht did people expect? A few years ago when there was a case about state pension, which women could get at 60 and men had to wait until they were 65 for, the pension age for everybody was raised to 65. Now that we have pay 'equality' everybody gets brought down to the lowest common demoninator. My own employer has just threatened that anybody who refuses to vote 'yes' for the latest suggestion as to 'single status' (as it is known) will be sacked and re-instated on the new deal. And all you people in the private sector thought it only happened to you!

Concerned, Scotland, Scotland

This is what happens when the 'vision' wins. Just like 'comparable' worth. Also a fiction. Has anyone, other than the'experts' who conducted all the gobbledegook that leads to their conclusions ever had their results questioned.? These so-called 'experts' invent there own figures to justify their 'vision'. If anyone asks what empirical data they used you will be told it is too complicated to explain to someone who is not in field of expertise. As they invented their methodoligy it is impossible to disprove. Or you are too 'simplistic' to understand. I guarantee that someone who used the Governments own data, there would be a different result. It happens all the time. Most people are frightened of asking simple questions. Remember if it sounds stupid and daft, it probably is. Also 'experts' should be on tap, not on top. I feel sorry for these employee's, but they can take comfort knowing that someone's social policy vision has just germinated.

Desmond Taylor, Houston, TX

Welcome to the joys of "single status" As someone who works in Local Government, when I applied for my job my employer stated the salary I was to be paid and gave me a contract of employment. Now, because my employer (and hundreds of others across the Country) broke the law by not paying female workers on par with their male colleagues who were doing work of a similar nature and level of reponsibility, I have to bail them out by taking a pay cut.

My question would be: Who is being punished here for their incompentence, mis-management and general disregard for the law.

It's interesting to note the Chief Executive of my council (i.e. the chap to whom the buck metaphorically stops) is NOT part of the single status fiasco and will NOT have his pay cut to pay for the policies that his office and officer put in place. As usual it's those on £20 - £30k a year who suffer, not those on £100k+

Good old Blighty.

Daniel, Gateshead,