Scenario: Mugsy works in the kitchen of a cafeteria/restaurant at a motorway service station. He's done so for the last three years. It began as a casual job, when he couldn't get any other work, but now he's on the regular staff. His pay is 50p an hour more than the minimum wage. Though he's generally quite happy with what he has to do, he's becoming increasingly resentful at what he regards as unfair concessions to two of his women colleagues. One is a few years older than he - she's in her mid twenties. The other is a year younger than he - still only nineteen. Officially, they are all on the same rate of pay, but he's noticed that they seem to be able to 'work the system' to their advantage. The older one has two children who are at primary school. She gets priority in the allocation of the day-time shift. The younger one is five months pregnant; she's already had 'sickies' that involved his own shifts being changed at short notice. He's also overheard them talking about how she can have maximum time off, with maternity benefits, and still retain her job at the end of it.

Prince: As Paul says in the Bible "The worker earns his pay". I'm sure it's right that people should be properly paid for what they do. It's also right that men and women should receive the same rewards for the same work. For too long women have wrongly had worse pay and working conditions than men. However, it may be that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. According to the way we were created, women are the ones who biologically bear the children. From before their babies are born, they are therefore more physically intimate with them than the fathers can ever possibly be. I think that if the husband can't afford to give the wife a proper wage for staying at home to look after their children, then the state ought to do this. So many of the disturbed children and so much of the youth delinquency derives from family neglect. This is entirely the result of both parents going out to work and spending less and less time with their children, who spend more and more time being baby sat by the TV. The cost of paying mothers the minimum wage for doing this would be covered by the savings from the many consequences of crime reduction.

Free Floater: Mugsy should get a life! If he thinks the company is being unfair he should say so directly. If he's not happy with the response, he should change his job. It's unfair for him to criticise his female colleagues, when generally women have had such a raw deal throughout history. There may be exceptions, but even when women have jobs as well as young children, they end up still doing more of the housework and meal preparation than men. They are the ones who get up in the night or stay off work to look after sick children or aged relatives. I've decided I don't want to play that game. I've got the education and experience that allow me to get good temping jobs when I want them, but I'm not tied. I can almost travel when and where I want. I've got lots of friends. I can enjoy sex without any long term commitment. Contact with children, if I'm missing it, is there from my sister's kids. A family routine would just be too boring and so full of frustrations.

Sceptic Hank: The world just isn't fair. It's daft to expect it to be and even dafter to behave as though it is. Women are great con artists. They put is about that they are second class citizens, when in fact they are the ones who determine so much of family life and what men do. They are great manipulators. Why else for such a long time in this country would the age of retirement be fixed at 60 for women and 65 for men? It's well known that women have a longer life expectancy than men, yet they've been given this extra privilege. So many men when they've eventually retired have been dead within a few years. I know the law on this is changing, but women will continue to use their sexual power to their advantage in employment, as in other arenas. I certainly think that any maternity rights for women should be matched by paternity rights for men, with just the same allowances for men being late for work or missing it cos of child responsibilities as there are for women. But why should mums or dads be given extra privileges over those who don't have kids? - if they've wanted them, that should be their own reward.

Luvalot: It's difficult to be fair. If you're an employer or a manager, you'll want what's in the best interests of your company from all your employees. But you'll also want what's best for your employees individually. Knowing each of them and taking into account their professional competence and personal circumstances are part of good management. Men have sometimes seemed to have come out better than women; sometimes, however, it is the other way round. As a Christian, I recognise the importance of work. We can't do without it as a source of income to pay for the costs of living. Even in its more menial forms, it's also a source of self-respect and often of companionship. There are gender differences, but the differences between individual men and between individual women are just as significant. When Paul writing to the Galatians - now Turkey - speaks of people of different nationality, legal status or gender all being on the same footing (Gal 3:28), he's not denying human diversity. He's simply asserting that none of us matters individually more than any other. It's a sign of good employment law and good personnel practice that men and women are equally affirmed, and that there's flexibility for imaginative interpretation.