Glasgow - Breath of Fresh Air
Susan Aitken has done what no other leader of Glasgow City Council has had the courage to do - speak with honesty, principle and integrity on the subject of equal pay.
For the past thirteen years Labour leaders of Scotland's largest local authority proclaimed their strong support for equality issues while presiding over pay arrangements in Glasgow that were manifestly discriminatory.
Ironically, the Labour groups backing these leaders were full of councillors who no doubt regarded themselves as proud socialists and good trade unionists - some still do, apparently.
But it has taken a woman council leader in Susan Aitken to do the right thing by calling a spade a spade and by recognising the value of the contribution made by low paid women council workers in delivering front-line services to Glasgow's citizens.
Now the job's not done till it's done, but what a welcome breath of fresh air if you ask me - the times they are a changing at long last.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/equal-pay-justice-for-women-is-worth-the-price-lv7ccb53l
Equal pay: Justice for women is worth the price
By Susan Aitken
After years of litigation Glasgow city council has unanimously backed the SNP position to end the legal action on equal pay and focus on resolving this often bitter dispute through negotiation.
The authority’s pay and grading scheme had been under pressure for some time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2016 found the council had failed to justify its pay protection arrangements and, a year later, the Court of Session agreed. In August last year, the Court of Session found that the council had not established that its pay and grading scheme was a valid job evaluation scheme and in December rejected Glasgow’s request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We also had to consider the council’s reputation and ability to engage in constructive industrial relations when voting to end litigation. In moving to negotiation, we also sent a clear message to our lower-paid women employees about the value we place on the crucial work they do
That the solution to this issue might be difficult for the council is no excuse for allowing inequality to go unchallenged. It is hard to escape the view that a political calculation was made in the past that undervaluing and underpaying female-dominated jobs was a price worth paying for not putting in place a just pay structure. Discrimination against women can never be a price I’m willing to pay.
Our officers have been instructed to explore all financial options. Other local authorities have been in this position and found solutions. However we meet the final costs, our commitment to protecting frontline jobs and services will be absolute. Whatever the bill, the cost of not negotiating a settlement, of not pursuing justice, and of undervaluing and discriminating against the women who deliver lifeline services to our citizens, is much greater.
Susan Aitken is leader of Glasgow city council
The Fight for Equal Pay in Glasgow (22/01/18)
Now here's something you don't see every day - a wonderfully spirited, honest and frank opinion piece on the subject of equal pay.
Catriona Stewart doesn't exactly pull her punches in The Herald as she points out that many of Glasgow's equal pay claimants have two and even three jobs to make ends meet; others work lots of overtime to boost their income and to add insult to injury they are then paid less than traditional male council workers for doing their additional hours.
So Catriona hits the nail on the head when she says that Glasgow's women must not be blackmailed into accepting less than they are due because of the cost to the City Council.
No one wants to see cuts to council services although Labour's Frank McAveety and the SNP's John Mason were both quick to raise this prospect as a way of 'qualifying' their support for righting this great wrong.
'I'm all in favour of equal pay. but not if it costs too much', has been a common refrain down the years often from people who regard themselves as good trade unionists and socialists.
As Catriona Stewart says, the City Council's lowest paid women workers have been fleeced once and they are not about to let that happen again.
'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me' as the old saying goes.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/15885203.Catriona_Stewart__Glasgow_s_equal_pay_women_must_not_be_asked_for_more_sacrifices/
Catriona Stewart: Glasgow's equal pay women must not be asked for more sacrifices
By Catriona Stewart @LadyCatHT - The Herald
The banners are defiant. Equal Pay or We Walk Away.
Of course, these women can't and won't walk away - and that is really at the heart of the issue.
On Wednesday a Glasgow City Council committee voted to end more than a decade of litigation over equal pay for low-paid, predominantly female staff, and move to negotiating a settlement instead. The council was making a decision on whether or not to appeal a Court of Session ruling allowing thousands of women to make claims against the authority to the tune of, well, a sum no one can accurately name although it is thought to be as much as £500 million.
More than 10,000 employees and former employees claim a workforce pay and benefits review (WPBR) in 2006 discriminated against those working in roles such as caring, cleaning and catering: predominantly female jobs. It was a deliberate disguising of the pay reassessment to look like equality while protecting salaries of male workers through bonuses and benefits not available to their female counterparts.
The previous Labour administration has daundered up, down and around instead of paying these women what they are owed, adding, according to the new SNP leader Susan Aitken, £20m a year to the final bill this council will face.
Labour leader Frank McAveety, who had the audacity or the chutzpah, depending on your stance, to congratulate the women following Thursday's vote, raised concerns in the meeting about the negative impact on jobs and services if the council pays out. He's right: the city is in a hole.
The SNP administration is already waving the victory in Labour's face, expecting us to be awed and humbled that they have enforced equality legislation passed nearly 50 years ago.
Listening to the women talk following the vote, the women who carry our city, who keep it running, there was a distinct air of excitement and anticipation. The payouts are coming, they hope, the changes to terms and conditions that will make their wages fair are on their way too.
No wonder there's excitement: some of these women are working two, even three, jobs to make ends meet.
There is an upbeat Erin Brockovich feel to the whole thing. Despite the excitement, the situation is far from over. What happens now is the lengthy and difficult process of negotiating how much workers are to get. To be clear, this is not extra cash. This is money that should have already been in the pockets of these women.
But if the women are paid in full it will severely impact council services. The losers will be the citizens of Glasgow - though we can hardly feel sorry for ourselves, having unfairly benefitted for years from the labour of underpaid women.
There may be cuts and redundancies to foot the bill. When 4000 women workers at Birmingham City Council won their equal pay claim in 2010, the city council skittered about making a settlement for a few years and then complained in 2014 it might have to sell off the NEC to cover the costs.
No one wants to see Glasgow City Council pawning its jewellery. But guilt must not be allowed to be a factor in the negotiations. It is not the responsibility of these women to take a hit and accept less than a full settlement in the interests of supporting the city.
It is so often the women who are asked to make sacrifices for the sake of the smooth running of families and of society. It is the women who pause their careers to take on childcare. It is the women who pause their lives to take on caring roles when a family member is ill or elderly.
What they will be asked to do now is to sacrifice money they are owed for the sake of the city. To be reasonable. Having been fleeced once while carrying the city on their backs, they will be asked to accept a second fleecing to ensure the services they already provide are safe.
Of course there is a balance to be struck. For many it will more important to have some money in their pockets now rather than a full payout years down the line. For others it will be the principle of the thing. For none must it be about making sacrifices.
They have made sacrifices. It is now up to the city to reward them fairly.
