Glasgow - The Pay Gap Explained
The case put forward on behalf of equal pay claimants in Glasgow is that the Council introduced a pay scheme (WPBR) which was designed to favour traditional male jobs by maintaining all the old pay hierarchies and pay differences.
Now this was achieved by manipulating various elements of the WPBR, to the disadvantage of female dominated jobs, for example the NSWP (Non Standard Working Pattern) part of the scheme which focuses on an employee's hours of work and shift patterns.
What happened, in essence, is that the Council invented new 'rules' for the NSWP in order to maintain the much higher, bonus-related earnings of traditional male jobs which are highlighted in the post below 'Why Glasgow's WPBR Sucks (3)'.
The outcome is that many more men in the Council workforce receive significant NSWP payments than their female colleagues - even though women make up a big majority (70%) of the workforce in Glasgow.
What this means is that there are huge and unjustified differences in the way that male and female jobs are paid and in his recent interview with the BBC's Good Morning Scotland (GMS) programme, Stefan Cross explained the impact of the notorious 37 hour 'rule'.
The 37 hour 'rule' was introduced as part of the WPBR in January 2007 and resulted in a significant NSWP payment but only to staff contracted to work 37 hours or more - which conveniently excluded the vast majority of women employees, almost all of whom are contracted to 35 hours a week or less.
Many female council employees work more than 35 hours, of course, but the WPBR has been designed in such a way as to ensure that women workers, such as Home Carers, lose out big time compared to their male colleagues.
If a Home Carer was paid on the same basis as an equivalent (full-time) male comparator, such as Road Worker 4, the Home Carer would be around £4,000 a year better off.
So it doesn't take a genius to work out that thousands of women workers have lost out very substantially over the past 12 years.
The 37 hour 'rule' and the NSWP is just one part of the WPBR pay scheme, other issues are in dispute as well and require to be put right although it should be emphasised that senior council officials have been defending the WPBR for the past 12 years.
Regular readers will recall that the Court of Session, the highest civil court in Scotland, agreed with the Claimants and judged the WPBR to be 'unfit for purpose' in August 2017.
So agreeing the size of the 'pay gap' and which male comparators to use in calculating offers of compensation are absolutely crucial to a fair settlement of all the outstanding equal pay claims.
Yet after 8 long months and 18 separate meetings with Council officials, there have been no meaningful negotiations to address these issues which is why strike action is on the cards and all of the outstanding equal pay claims are now heading back to the Employment Tribunals.
Why Glasgow's WPBR Sucks (4) (22/02/18)
Here are some remarkable facts and figures about Glasgow's WPBR Pay Monster which was supposed to tackle the problem of widespread pay discrimination and unequal pay in the City Council's pre-WPBR pay arrangements.
- 60.29% of men receive NSWP payments.
- But only 18.93% of women receive NSWP payments
- Yet women make up the great majority of Glasgow City Council's workforce - 69.5% - let's just call that 70% for the sake of simplicity.
- Quite unbelievably more than three times as many men (60.29%) receive NSWP payments compared to women 18.93%).
- But all things being 'equal' you would expect women to receive 70% of NSWP payments - in line with their share of the workforce.
- 70% of the total number of workers receiving NSWP = 60.29% + 18.93% = 79.22% x 70% = 55.45%.
- Yet instead of 55.45% of women being paid NSWP only 18.93% of the female workforce receive these payments.
- Again if all things were 'equal' the council's male workers would receive 30% of all NSWP payments or 60.29% + 18.93% = 79.22% x 30% = 23.77%.
- Yet instead of 23.77% of men being paid NSWP an eye watering 60.29% of the male workforce receive these payments.
If you ask me, the invented 'rules' of the WPBR have been deliberately designed to favour traditional male jobs which is why the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court, judged the pay scheme to be 'unfit for purpose'.
Surely it is indefensible for Glasgow City Council's most senior officials to continue backing this cockamamy scheme.
Why Glasgow's WPBR Sucks (3)
Just in case anyone thought that a Glasgow Road Worker enjoyed some great good fortune at the hands of the City Council's 'unfit for purpose' WPBR scheme - which resulted in a pay package worth more than £24,000 a year.
Here are several other traditional male jobs that were previously placed on a lower grade than a Home Carer, but which all leapfrogged over the Home Carers (who had previously been on a higher grade) as a result of the new, 'improved' and allegedly fairer WPBR pay arrangements.
The following examples are based on 2009 figures at the end of the WPBR protection period although the fact of the matter is that the higher pay of traditional male jobs continues to this day, i.e. into 2018.
Gardener 1 - £18,032
Home Carer - £16,300
Pay Difference - £1,732
General Labourer - £18,324
Home Carer - £16,300
Pay Difference - £2,024
Gravedigger - £21,201
Home Carer - £16,300
Pay Difference - £4,901
Gardener 4 - £21,803
Home Carer - £16,300
Pay Difference - £5,503
Road Worker - £24,208
Home Carer - £16,300
Pay Difference - £7,908
So what senior officials in Glasgow are inviting employees (and the public) to believe is that a whole raft of traditional, unskilled male dominated jobs which require no qualifications, all of a sudden fared a great deal better under a new 'improved' WPBR pay scheme - than the city's Home Carers.
Always remembering that the WPBR was introduced, supposedly, to address the problem of 'unequal pay' and the widespread pay discrimination in Glasgow City Council's pre-WPBR pay structures.
Does your head button up the back, Glasgow?
Does the council workforce have any confidence in the senior officials responsible for overseeing the WPBR process?
I suspect the answer to both of these questions is a resounding 'NO', but tune in again soon for - Why Glasgow's WPBR Sucks (4)
