Sunday Herald
An article on equal pay appeared in the Sunday Herald at the weekend - and it's certainly caused a stir. Here’s a case study written by Tom Gordon - the newspaper's Political Editor - about Helen Brownlie, one of the employees who attended Glasgow's ‘acceptance’ meetings.
“The meetings were billed by Glasgow City Council as helpful discussions with an ‘independent legal adviser’, but the reality was very different.
In November and December 2005, the authority arranged dozens of roadshows offering ‘compromise deals’ to around 11,000 female staff owed back pay after years of earning less than their male equivalents.
Dinner ladies, home carers, cleaners and nursery nurses were offered cheques of up to £9,000. The £40 million package represented just a fraction of what the women were owed, but the council and trade union Unison argued that pursuing the full amounts would lead to job cuts and service cuts.
At the time, a council spokesman insisted: “The advice given at the roadshows is supposed to be impartial, free and independent. It is the best deal for staff, consistent with us avoiding redundancies and cuts in services.”
Accusing the council of trying to use timeshare-style sales methods, the GMB union warned people not to sign, but hundreds did regardless.
Among them was Helen Brownlie, now 67, from Knightswood, a home carer for almost 30 years.
She had expected an orderly sit-down with a lawyer. Instead she found herself corralled with hundreds of fellow care workers in a council leisure centre.
She says she was then taken to a lawyer who witnessed her signature, but did not otherwise want to talk to her. She signed away most of her rights and money in a blur.
“We were all herded in like cattle. They just handed us papers and told us to sign and move on. There was a queue behind you, so you didn’t want to waste time."
“It was horrendous. We felt under pressure, we just signed. The rest of the lassies felt the same. I got £6,500 but I was due £19,500. I thought that if I did not accept it, I would not have another chance.”
Later she heard that workers who had refused to sign had received far higher payments, and took her case to Stefan Cross. She is now pursuing a claim against the council, arguing the compromise deal was flawed and that the ‘independent legal advice’ she received was just a sham.”
“The meetings were billed by Glasgow City Council as helpful discussions with an ‘independent legal adviser’, but the reality was very different.
In November and December 2005, the authority arranged dozens of roadshows offering ‘compromise deals’ to around 11,000 female staff owed back pay after years of earning less than their male equivalents.
Dinner ladies, home carers, cleaners and nursery nurses were offered cheques of up to £9,000. The £40 million package represented just a fraction of what the women were owed, but the council and trade union Unison argued that pursuing the full amounts would lead to job cuts and service cuts.
At the time, a council spokesman insisted: “The advice given at the roadshows is supposed to be impartial, free and independent. It is the best deal for staff, consistent with us avoiding redundancies and cuts in services.”
Accusing the council of trying to use timeshare-style sales methods, the GMB union warned people not to sign, but hundreds did regardless.
Among them was Helen Brownlie, now 67, from Knightswood, a home carer for almost 30 years.
She had expected an orderly sit-down with a lawyer. Instead she found herself corralled with hundreds of fellow care workers in a council leisure centre.
She says she was then taken to a lawyer who witnessed her signature, but did not otherwise want to talk to her. She signed away most of her rights and money in a blur.
“We were all herded in like cattle. They just handed us papers and told us to sign and move on. There was a queue behind you, so you didn’t want to waste time."
“It was horrendous. We felt under pressure, we just signed. The rest of the lassies felt the same. I got £6,500 but I was due £19,500. I thought that if I did not accept it, I would not have another chance.”
Later she heard that workers who had refused to sign had received far higher payments, and took her case to Stefan Cross. She is now pursuing a claim against the council, arguing the compromise deal was flawed and that the ‘independent legal advice’ she received was just a sham.”
