I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition Group on Glasgow City Council, Cllr Susan Aitken, a little while back and here's what I had to say.
Dear Councillor Aitken
Glasgow and Equal Pay
I have been in touch with Glasgow's MSPs and MPs in recent days regarding the ongoing fight for equal pay with Glasgow City Council.
I have also written to Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, given her public comments last year about the need for the Scottish Government to 'get tough' with council bosses over pay equality for women workers.
Glasgow is now the only major council in Scotland not to have reached a settlement over their post-job evaluation pay arrangements and I intend to make this a big public issue in the run-up to the local council elections in May 2017.
So I think it would be appropriate, at this stage, to arrange a discussion to brief you on the details of this long-running pay dispute, as the Leader of the Opposition within the City Council.
I would be accompanied by my colleague from Action 4 Equality Scotland, Stefan Cross QC, and perhaps a few of the individual claimants. I suspect it may also be helpful to invite other councillors from the Opposition Group, as well as the various MSPs and MPs who represent Glasgow constituencies.
Perhaps we could gave a quick word over the phone to discuss possible arrangements for such a meeting which I presume you would be happy to host in the City Chambers?
I will give you a ring during the week.
I am pleased to say that I have since had a useful and constructive discussion with Cllr Aitken in Glasgow City Chambers
My understanding is that the SNP will make a commitment to resolving outstanding equal pay claims in the party's manifesto for the local council elections in May.
Now I would welcome that for obvious reasons, but the key question is how these claims will be resolved and on what timescale?
Not least because the long-suffering claimants in Glasgow have been on the receiving end of the City Council's foot-dragging behaviour for years.
If the outstanding claims in Glasgow are to be settled on a fair and equitable basis, the City Council officials need to be open and transparent about the pay arrangements which were put in place following the introduction of the WPBR in 2006/07.
Especially those covering the former bonus earning, traditional male jobs including Council Gardeners, Refuse Workers, Gravediggers and Road Workers.
Up until now the City Council has been the exact opposite of open and transparent - and unless things change soon we are in for another big freedom of information fight simply to get at the truth.
If you ask me, Glasgow's elected politicians ought to demand that their senior officials 'open the books' and explain how these pay arrangements operated instead of desperately trying to cover things up.
The truth will come out sooner or later, as it did in Labour-run North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire Councils.
So if the SNP in Glasgow can get behind that 'honest broker' position, they will have earned my respect and support.
Weasel Words from Glasgow (08/02/17)
A kind reader has shared a response she received from Glasgow City Council after writing to its Labour leader, Councillor Frank McAveety.
Now Frank's been around the track once or twice so he must surely be embarrassed by the 'weasel words' which have been written on his behalf.
For a start, Glasgow City Council is now the only council in Scotland not to have dealt with the so-called protection and pay assimilation period which followed the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review in 2007.
Neighbouring councils in North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire both recently resolved this issue, so there is no 'best use of public funds' or 'wider community interest' at stake here.
Which means that Glasgow is on the hook just like other councils, except Glasgow is 10 years late after refusing to deal with the issue at the time, i.e. back in 2007.
So there is no dispute about whether or not a further 2nd Wave payment is required, the only issues are how much and over which time period?
A4ES says the pay of the women's jobs should have been levelled up to the same as the men before the WPBR came into force in 2007 - in which case the women are entitled to the same level of pay protection as the men.
Not just that, of course, since the WPBR has not been given a clean bill of health and Glasgow's local job evaluation scheme (the City Council refused to use the nationally approved scheme) forms part of the appeal to the Court of Session.
The other glaring point Frank fails to mention is that thousands of low paid workers in Glasgow were made very poor offers of settlement in the run-up to Christmas 2005.
Everyone caught up in that exercise (not the A4ES claimants) feel cheated and angry at the way they were treated - here's an extract from a recent post from the blog site (from 1 Feb) which explains the background and why people are so determined that they 'won't be fooled again'.
Council 'buy-outs' - Christmas 2005
The role of the trade unions
The Council's response also says that both sides are 'talking' which is technically correct although Glasgow is dragging its feet quite shamelessly.
For example, at the last meeting with A4ES on 19 January 2017 the Council claimed they were unable to provide pay information because of ongoing industrial action in their IT section.
Embarrassingly, the industrial action ended that same day (19 Jan) which the Council clearly knew at the time, but still used this as a ridiculous excuse for not providing information which they had been promising to release for months.
So if you ask me, it seems as if we are dealing with some cynical people who use weasel words when what's needed is some straight talking and a commitment to get the job done.
Cllr McAveety thanks you for your recent enquiry and has asked me to respond on his behalf.
A number of colleagues have written in about equal pay and have been asking when the Council will settle. In fact the Council settled equal pay in 2006. Unlike a good many other Councils all of these cases are now settled and the Council has had a pay and grading system in place that ensures equal treatment. This system has been tested twice in Court and has been approved each time.
The Council did not have a robust system of equal pay in place before 2006. It settled, quite rightly, those claims and put in place a robust system that made sure that this could not happen again. What is currently at issue is whether the Council should have put in place 3 years pay protection in 2006 for those whose income was due to fall. One Court supported this while another did not.
Both sides have appealed but they are also talking to each other. This is a complex issue and because public funds are at stake the Council does need to act in the best interest of the entire community. I hope, however, that before too long one of the first Councils to resolve the source issue will be able to resolve this final point.
I hope that this answers your enquiry.
Head of Human Resources
Glasgow City Council
40 John Street