South Lanarkshire Update
The Unison branch secretary in South Lanarkshire, Stephen Smellie, has had plenty to say about equal pay over the years, much of it spectacularly ill-informed in my view, such as the advice to union members not to pursue claims against the Council.
If you ask me the unions in South Lanarkshire will go down in history as being on the wrong side on all the big calls (the side of the bosses), when they should have been standing up and speaking out on behalf their members.
But have a look at this selection of posts from the blog site archive and decide for yourself whether the union should be remembered for 'weasel words' or 'words of wisdom'.
Weasel Words (30/06/2012)
The trade unions in South Lanarkshire, especially Unison, continue to get a pasting in the local press for their craven behaviour over equal pay.
Which is richly deserved in my opinion.
Here's an article from this week's Hamilton Advertiser which a kind reader brought to my attention with the wry observation that the union seems to be on the side of the council employer - not the council workers.
But there's little wonder that Unison is on the defensive, of course, because the union gave evidence in support of South Lanarkshire Council in the recent employment tribunal case which concluded that the council's job evaluation scheme (JES) does not comply with equal pay legislation and is therefore 'not fit to be relied upon'.
Now you would think this would give the unions some pause for thought - time for reflection even because they've been cosying up to South Lanarkshire Council for years instead of doing the right thing by their members.
Which is why - as in Glasgow City Council - the trade unions in South Lanarkshire have lost all credibility over equal pay - they've acted as little more than cheerleaders for the council and refused to look critically at the reasons for the big pay gap between male and female jobs.
The lack of transparency in South Lanarkshire's JES and its pay systems has been evident for years, but it's Action 4 Equality Scotland which has been challenging the council and asking all the awkward questions - not the trade unions.
Unison and Equal Pay Dispute
by Julie Gilbert (Hamilton Advertiser)
The union representing women fighting for equal pay at South Lanarkshire Council have defended their handling of the issue.
Unison came under criticism last week after the Glasgow Employment Tribunal ruled the council’s job evaluation scheme did not comply with the Equal Pay Act.
Thousands of female council workers who claim they are being paid less than men for doing equal amounts of work will now be able to have their cases assessed by the tribunal and could potentially recieve six years of back pay.
Solicitor Carol Fox, who is representing 2400 of the women with equal pay disputes at the tribunal, said that Unison owed their members an apology for initially telling women they had no case against the council.
Fox Cross Solicitors, together with Action4Equality, have been fighting the council since 2005 but Unison did not join the battle until just over a year ago.
However, Unison’s Lanarkshire Branch Secretary Stephen Smillie said that when the council’s job evaluation scheme was first set up the union believed it did comply with the Equal Pay Act.
They did not want to go to tribunal at that point. They said a fair and compliant job evaluation would be a defence against any equal pay claim.
However, as issues arose regarding the scheme’s transparency, the union made the decision to join the tribunal and they insist they have always had their members’ interests at heart.
Mr Smillie said: “The job evaluation scheme was first introduced in the late 1990s. There’s been a whole number of developments and different cases since then.
“We felt after these cases were held that clarity was needed on the point of transparency and that’s when we joined the tribunal case which was being led by Fox Cross.
"There was no evidence that the scheme was discriminatory – if it was we wouldn’t have been involved in it.
“It’s on the point of transparency that it fails.”
The transparency argument centres on the point that every worker has the right to look at the salary scale and understand how they are paid and why, and that every worker has the right to know how comparable workers are paid and why.
If those being represented by Unison win an equal pay claim, then they will only get pay backdated to when Unison joined the tribunal, whereas those being represented by other solicitors will get back pay to when they joined the tribunal, in some cases as long as six years ago.
However, Mr Smellie points out that unlike a no win, no fee lawyer, Unison will not be deducting a fee from any settlement employees win.
He is also keen to point out that no-one with an equal pay dispute is guaranteed money at this stage.
He said: “It’s been described as a victory. No-one has got their money yet, no-one is going to get any money at this stage, and no-one has won an equal pay case.
“One of the concerns I have is publishing how much money will be paid out and saying people are going to get it before Christmas.
“Not every one of these cases is going to win and I don’t want people to buy a new three-piece suite thinking they are going to be getting a big pay-out. Nobody actually knows whether a case will win or not.”
The trade unions in South Lanarkshire, especially Unison, continue to get a pasting in the local press for their craven behaviour over equal pay.
Which is richly deserved in my opinion.
Here's an article from this week's Hamilton Advertiser which a kind reader brought to my attention with the wry observation that the union seems to be on the side of the council employer - not the council workers.
But there's little wonder that Unison is on the defensive, of course, because the union gave evidence in support of South Lanarkshire Council in the recent employment tribunal case which concluded that the council's job evaluation scheme (JES) does not comply with equal pay legislation and is therefore 'not fit to be relied upon'.
Now you would think this would give the unions some pause for thought - time for reflection even because they've been cosying up to South Lanarkshire Council for years instead of doing the right thing by their members.
Which is why - as in Glasgow City Council - the trade unions in South Lanarkshire have lost all credibility over equal pay - they've acted as little more than cheerleaders for the council and refused to look critically at the reasons for the big pay gap between male and female jobs.
The lack of transparency in South Lanarkshire's JES and its pay systems has been evident for years, but it's Action 4 Equality Scotland which has been challenging the council and asking all the awkward questions - not the trade unions.
The union representing women fighting for equal pay at South Lanarkshire Council have defended their handling of the issue.
Unison came under criticism last week after the Glasgow Employment Tribunal ruled the council’s job evaluation scheme did not comply with the Equal Pay Act.
Thousands of female council workers who claim they are being paid less than men for doing equal amounts of work will now be able to have their cases assessed by the tribunal and could potentially recieve six years of back pay.
Solicitor Carol Fox, who is representing 2400 of the women with equal pay disputes at the tribunal, said that Unison owed their members an apology for initially telling women they had no case against the council.
Fox Cross Solicitors, together with Action4Equality, have been fighting the council since 2005 but Unison did not join the battle until just over a year ago.
However, Unison’s Lanarkshire Branch Secretary Stephen Smillie said that when the council’s job evaluation scheme was first set up the union believed it did comply with the Equal Pay Act.
They did not want to go to tribunal at that point. They said a fair and compliant job evaluation would be a defence against any equal pay claim.
However, as issues arose regarding the scheme’s transparency, the union made the decision to join the tribunal and they insist they have always had their members’ interests at heart.
Mr Smillie said: “The job evaluation scheme was first introduced in the late 1990s. There’s been a whole number of developments and different cases since then.
“We felt after these cases were held that clarity was needed on the point of transparency and that’s when we joined the tribunal case which was being led by Fox Cross.
"There was no evidence that the scheme was discriminatory – if it was we wouldn’t have been involved in it.
“It’s on the point of transparency that it fails.”
The transparency argument centres on the point that every worker has the right to look at the salary scale and understand how they are paid and why, and that every worker has the right to know how comparable workers are paid and why.
If those being represented by Unison win an equal pay claim, then they will only get pay backdated to when Unison joined the tribunal, whereas those being represented by other solicitors will get back pay to when they joined the tribunal, in some cases as long as six years ago.
However, Mr Smellie points out that unlike a no win, no fee lawyer, Unison will not be deducting a fee from any settlement employees win.
He is also keen to point out that no-one with an equal pay dispute is guaranteed money at this stage.
He said: “It’s been described as a victory. No-one has got their money yet, no-one is going to get any money at this stage, and no-one has won an equal pay case.
“One of the concerns I have is publishing how much money will be paid out and saying people are going to get it before Christmas.
“Not every one of these cases is going to win and I don’t want people to buy a new three-piece suite thinking they are going to be getting a big pay-out. Nobody actually knows whether a case will win or not.”
Foot And Mouth (1 July 2012)
A number of readers from South Lanarkshire have been in touch to voice their outrage at the comments made to the Hamilton Advertiser - by the local unison branch secretary, Stephen Smellie.
See yesterday's post dated 30 June 2012 - 'Weasel Words' - in which the following quote is attributed to the local union rep:
“Not every one of these cases is going to win and I don’t want people to buy a new three-piece suite thinking they are going to be getting a big pay-out. Nobody actually knows whether a case will win or not.”
Now I can see what the readers are driving at because Stephen has form in this area and has commented previously on people's shopping habits and how women should spend their money, on shoes and sofas it would seem.
Witness the following quote from the Hamilton Advertiser in May 2012 in which Unison is giving further helpful advice in relation to the so-called 'living wage':
"Stephen Smellie, secretary of Unison’s South Lanarkshire Branch said the MSP was failing to note the hugely positive impact which the Living Wage had on the families who will gain from its introduction.
He explained: “It is primarily low-paid women who have benefited from the Living Wage. They will now be better able to buy a spare pair of shoes or a winter coat for their kids.
Now the sums of money involved in the council's 'living wage' policy are peanuts - compared to what's at stake over equal pay.
So I can identify with the readers who have contacted me to say that they find these Unison comments offensive and patronising in the extreme.
Shoes and Feet (11 March 2012)
'Do I know the identity of the person concerned?', these readers asked, as well as expressing their surprise that a union rep could make such a comment.
Well, yes I do as a matter of fact - and here's a slightly longer quote from the original article which appeared in the local newspaper - the Hamilton Advertiser:
"Stephen Smellie, secretary of Unison’s South Lanarkshire Branch said the MSP was failing to note the hugely positive impact which the Living Wage had on the families who will gain from its introduction.
He explained: “It is primarily low-paid women who have benefited from the Living Wage. They will now be better able to buy a spare pair of shoes or a winter coat for their kids.
Studies have shown that introducing the Living Wage leads to a better motivated staff and an improvement in service delivery.
This is why it is supported by, amongst many others, Tory Boris Johnson, Mayor of London."
Stephen Smellie (which is pronounced 'Smiley' not 'Smelly' by the way) has been the Unison branch secretary in South Lanarkshire for several years, maybe even ten or more.
Stephen gave evidence in a recent equal pay hearing involving South Lanarkshire Council, as a council side witness it has to be said, not on behalf of the women claimants.
I first met Stephen many years ago and as I recall he was a supporter of Militant - the 'entryist' organisation which operated inside the Labour party in the 1980s until it was tackled and effectively driven out under Neil Kinnock's leadership.
In Scotland Militant went on to become the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) which eventually self-destructed under Tommy Sheridan's leadership.
Some of the SSP members have since joined the Labour party, whether Stephen is now in the Labour party, or any political party, I don't know for sure.
But it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Because the great majority of union reps in Scotland are still card carrying members of the Labour party these days, despite the much more mixed political views of ordinary trade union members.
Living Wage (10/03/12)
A reader from South Lanarkshire has kindly drawn my attention to an article in a local newspaper - about South Lanarkshire Council's 'living wage'.
The piece contained the following quote from a union spokesperson:
“It is primarily low-paid women who have benefited from the Living Wage. They will now be better able to buy a spare pair of shoes or a winter coat for their kids."
What a patronising and idiotic thing to say.
Especially as the trade unions' failure to act over equal pay has led to all of these female dominated council jobs - being underpaid and undervalued for many years.
Here's an article I came across recently from the burdzeyeview - which puts the whole issue of a living wage in Scottish councils into a proper perspective.
What this campaign is really all about is covering the tracks of the trade unions and big Labour councils - who decided to look the other way and not to stand up for equal pay for women council workers.
At a time when council budgets in Scotland were doubling in size - between 1997 and 2007.
And the amount of money that many thousands of low paid women council workers lost during that period - was worth a hell of a lot more than a pair of shoes.
http://www.burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/.wordpress.com
Labour’s living wage hypocrisy
Sep 29 2010
Posted by burdzeyeview
There’s nothing worse than hypocrisy. Except maybe, election fuelled hypocrisy.
Eager to steal a march on the SNP, Iain Gray announced that Scottish Labour would introduce a living wage if elected to government in 2011. As he told delegates at the UK Labour conference: “..those at the bottom of the pay scales must be protected. That is why I will introduce a Scottish Living wage, of over £7 per hour….beginning in the public sector but building out from there, through partnership, and procurement we will create a movement, a campaign against poverty pay.”
Fair enough. Or is it?
The announcement conveniently ignores the fact that Scottish Labour, either while running the Scottish Executive between 1999 and 2007, or through its trade union partners, or worst of all, through the councils it controls, has failed to support or implement measures that would have removed poverty pay from the public sector years ago.
The truth is that no man in the public sector currently earns below £7 an hour. The only people earning below that threshold are women. Because they are still waiting for settlement of their equal pay claims, some of which now stretch back years.
The burdz instinct told her all this but I consulted a man who would know to get the low down. Mark Irvine, former head of local government in Unison in Scotland and now a consultant and founder of the campaign Action 4 Equality Scotland. His blog supports and highlights equal pay claims and he posted on this very issue earlier this week:
“…does it mean that the Scottish Labour leader now accepts that many women’s jobs in the public services have been undervalued and underpaid for years? If so, where has he been all this time, when the fight for equal pay has been the single biggest issue facing councils in Scotland, many of them Labour controlled? If we assume that Iain Gray is a new convert to the cause of equal pay, presumably we can also assume that he supports thousands of women workers being compensated properly for the losses they’ve incurred for years.”
The scandal is that for years, trade unions kept their women members in the dark about the differential pay scales in operation. They then ignored their women members’ requests for support and refused to represent them in their claims. I know this because I know several women who tried to get their union to take up their case in the earliest days and were ignored. Several of them have only recently had their claims settled.
Indeed, only this week, employment tribunals have been held against South Lanarkshire council to settle outstanding claims. South Lanarkshire, of course, is a bastion of Labour control and can proudly claim never to have settled a single equal pay claim willingly and timeously.
If Iain Gray and his Holyrood colleagues had supported women workers and put pressure on their political allies through the offices of government, there would in fact be no need for a public sector living wage campaign. Everyone in the public sector would be earning at least £7 an hour.
Instead, for years, all actors in the Scottish Labour movement, have colluded in a conspiracy of silence to deny some of the most lowly paid women in our society – who incidentally do some of the most important jobs as home carers, classroom assistants and cooks – their entitlement to a decent living wage.
“In a 21st Century Scotland no one who does a fair day’s work should receive less than a fair day’s pay.”
The burd agrees, Mr Gray. Shame you didn’t believe this before an election was looming.
