Glasgow - The Pay Gap Explained (2)
Here's a whole bunch of information regarding the pay gap in Glasgow City Council which I first published on the blog in September 2017.
The key point to note is that the Claimant jobs were all on either the same grade, or on even higher grades, than their male Comparators prior to the WPBR pay scheme being introduced in January 2007.
But the Comparators all received big bonus payments which meant they ended up earning much more than their female council colleagues who were excluded from receiving bonus payments.
The Comparator jobs took these much higher earnings into the 'new' WPBR pay scheme and the Council gave a guarantee that the earnings of the male Comparator jobs would be maintained into the future.
If you imagine Equal Pay as a game of Snakes and Ladders - all of the female Claimants somehow ended up on a Snake while all the male Comparator jobs ended up on a Ladder!
To this day the male Comparator jobs all enjoy much higher earnings that the female Claimant jobs - even though this makes no sense in terms of the principle of 'equal pay for work of equal value'.
The Council achieved this in a variety of ways - for example by manipulating NSWP part of the WPBR scheme and introducing blatantly discriminatory pay practices such as the notorious 37 hour 'rule'.
In August 2017 the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court, reached a unanimous decision that the WPBR pay scheme was 'unfit for purpose'.
In December 2017 the Court of Session refused Glasgow City Council's request to appeal this decision to the UK Supreme Court - this second decision was unanimous as well.
The request seeking 'leave to appeal' to the UK Supreme Court was supported by the same senior officials who are now leading for the Council Side in the equal pay settlement 'negotiations' which have been getting nowhere fast for the past 8 months.
As a result of the Council's failure to negotiate in good faith, all of the outstanding equal pay claims are heading back to the Glasgow Employment Tribunal and the trade unions (GMB and Unison) are balloting their members on industrial action.
Glasgow - Pay Gap Explained 1 (25/09/17)
Here is a selection of female dominated former 'Manual Worker' jobs in Glasgow City Council and the salaries they were paid back in 2007 - before the Council introduced new pay arrangements through its controversial Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR).
The WPBR was preceded by a compensation scheme which capped compensation payments at a maximum of just £9,000 and excluded many groups of staff with perfectly valid claims: former APT and C Clerical Workers and School Janitors, for example.
Before the WPBR came into operation a Home Carer, for example, was on Manual Worker Grade 5 which meant that the Home Carer had an irresistible case for equal pay with a MW Grade 4 Gravedigger.
Because while the Home Carer's job was on a higher grade (MW5 compared to MW4) she was actually paid thousands of pounds a year less - £11,456.57 compared to £20,594.57 which illustrates the extent to which women's jobs had been cheated and robbed of their right to equal pay for years.
Many other female dominated jobs were in a similar position: a Roadworker on Grade MW1 was on the same £10,938.53 salary as an MW1 Council Cleaner, but the male job received a big bonus of £5,576.60 every year taking his total pay to £16,515.13
The list goes on and on: for example a Catering Supervisor on Grade MW4 being paid a total of £12,063.77 left far behind the earnings of a more lowly graded Refuse Collector on Grade MW2 whose £5,940.11 bonus took his salary to £17,247.81.
I am planning to publish other examples in the next few days which will include details about:
- More bonus earning male jobs
- Former APT and C staff such as Clerical Workers
- Non bonus earning male jobs such as School Janitors and Special Needs Drivers
A4ES took up cases on behalf of the former APT&C staff and non bonus earning male jobs while the local trade unions in Glasgow told these members they had no right to equal pay.
So watch this space.
Former Manual Worker Jobs - prior to the WPBR
Home Carer MW5
Annual Salary - £11,456.57
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £11,456.57
Cook MW 5
Annual Salary - £12,438.68
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £12,438.68
Catering Supervisor MW4
Annual Salary - £12,063.77
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £12,063.77
Escort (Bus) MW3
Annual Salary - £11,062.63
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £11,062.63
Assistant Cook (MW2)
Annual Salary - £11,307.70
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £11,307.70
Cleaner MW2
Annual Salary - £11,307.70
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £11,307.70
Domestic (Cleaner) MW1
Annual Salary - £10,938.53
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £10,938.53
Breaking News! (22/09/17)
Glasgow - Pay Gap Explained 2 (26/09/17)
Here are some more Glasgow City Council Manual Worker jobs which all received handsome bonuses before the WPBR pay scheme was introduced back in 2007.
Just compare the much higher pay of these male jobs to the list I published yesterday of female dominated jobs on the same or even higher grade: Home Carer, Cook, Catering Supervisor, Bus Escort/Classroom Assistant, Cleaner.
Now I don't have any problem with council Gardeners, Road Workers, Refuse Workers Gravediggers earning a good - not least because I represented these groups as a full-time union official and in my former role as Unison's Head of Local Government in Scotland.
But the original intention of the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement was to increase the very low pay of tens of thousands of women workers whose jobs had been underpaid and undervalued for years: carers, cooks, catering staff, cleaners, clerical workers, classroom assistants and so on.
So the upshot is that the pay gap which existed before the WPBR was introduced in 2007 remains in place today although senior officials in Glasgow City Council are reluctant to explain exactly what happened to the pay of the Gardeners, Road Workers, Refuse Workers and Gravediggers.
Little wonder then that Court of Session concluded that the interests of the men were 'looked after' under the WPBR - a damning and unanimous judgment from Scotland's highest civil court.
Visit the blog site again tomorrow for more revelations about the pay of Glasgow's former APT and C staff who were told by the City Council that they did not 'qualify' for equal pay - which was a load of old baloney, of course.
Bonus Earning Former Manual Worker Jobs - prior to the WPBR
Roadworkers can be out in all weathers, but so are Home Carers as they move between one client and another, so what explains an MW1 Roadworker receiving a whopping big bonus - while a Home Carer received no bonus at all?
Post of Roadworker 1 - prior to the WPBR
Pre-WPBR Grade - MW 1
Pre-WPBR Contracted Pay - £10,938.53
Bonus Pay - £5,576.60
Total Pay - £16,515.13
And remember readers these big pay differences still exist - they have just been repackaged and disguised under Glasgow's WPBR which the Court of Session has judged to be 'unfit for purpose'.
I've met with a lot of Refuse Collectors in my time and represented their interests with employers, but the job does not demand anything like the level skill or responsibility of a Home Care worker at grade MW5 - which explains why they were graded at MW2.
Yet in Glasgow a refuse collector attracted a bonus of almost £6,000 a year.
Post of Refuse Collector (Wheelie Bins) - prior to the WPBR
Pre-WPBR Grade - MW 2
Pre-WPBR Contracted Pay - £11,307.70
Bonus Pay - £5,940.11
Total Pay - £17,247.81
The next post up is a real doozy - that of a Gardener (MW1) the lowest MW grade yet this still attracted a whopping big bonus which meant a Gardener was being paid thousands of pounds a year more than thousands of low paid women workers on the same or a higher grade.
Post of Gardener 1 - prior to the WPBR
Pre-WPBR Grade - MW 1
Pre-WPBR Contracted Pay - £10,938.53
Bonus Pay - £6,224.75
Total Pay - £17,163.28
The next post to be put under the equal pay spotlight in Glasgow is that of a Vehicle Workshop Operative/Driver which was grade at a lower level (MW3) than a Gravedigger, but still received a very healthy bonus.
None of the female dominated jobs received bonuses, of course.
Post of Vehicle Workshop Operative/Driver 1 - prior to the WPBR
Pre-WPBR Grade - MW 3
Pre-WPBR Contracted Pay - £11,694.60
Bonus Pay - £4,383.90
Total Pay - £16,078.50
Glasgow - Pay Gap Explained (3)
Here is a selection of former APT and C jobs in Glasgow City Council and the salaries they were paid prior to the introduction of the WPBR pay scheme in 2007.
Now most of these jobs demanded significant qualifications and they all required high levels of skill or responsibility, yet they were all paid substantially less than unskilled male council jobs.
Just compare the salaries of the women's jobs to those of the men's jobs and no one in their right mind if you ask me, could say that a Clerical Officer's job, for example, was not of 'equal value' to the job of a Council Gravedigger who was being paid £20,594.57.
Or the job of a Pupil Support Assistant for that matter.
Never mind a highly qualified Child Development Officer who lagged far behind a Garage Engineer's salary of £31,653.74.
Yet the local trade unions in Glasgow City Council either ignored these former APT&C groups or told them, quite wrongly, that they didn't have a valid 'equal pay for work of equal value' pay claim.
Only A4ES took up equal pay claims on behalf of the former APT and C workers and on behalf of the non-bonus earning male groups - on which more will follow tomorrow.
Former APT and C Jobs - prior to the WPBR
Clerical Assistant (SCP 13 - 15)
Annual Salary - £15,441.06
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £11,307.70
Child Development Officer (SCP 16 - 24)
Annual Salary - £19,440.03
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £19,440.03
Annual Salary - £12,175.84
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £12,175.84
Library Assistant (SCP 15 - 18)
Annual Salary - £16,517.94
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £16,517.94
Clerical Officer (SCP 13 - 15)
Annual Salary - £15,441.06
Bonus - Nil
Total Pay - £15,441.06
Glasgow - The Pay Gap Explained 1 ((31/08/18)
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)
