Aberdeen City Council
News reports this morning suggest that Aberdeen's lump sum payment proposals have run into problems - apparently the unions have come out against the idea. Here's what we had to say on the matter back in January - so it's good to see others now agree with us, even if it's a bit late in the day.
Post from 14 January 2009
Aberdeen City Council is issuing new contracts of employment to all staff – having failed to reach a collective agreement with the trade unions over Single Status and Equal Pay.
The council says that it can’t achieve a collective agreement because of recent case law – i.e. the Allen V GMB case where low paid GMB members successfully sued their own union.
But the council is wrong – the Allen v GMB case does not stop trade unions negotiating collective agreements – all it does is prevent them from negotiating deals that discriminate against their own women members.
So, Aberdeen is now pursuing a voluntary sign up campaign - staff are being asked to accept new contracts on a voluntary basis by 30 January 2009 - those that do so will receive an incentive Equal Pay and Modernisation (EPM) payment.
Details of the EPM payment will be estimated and issued to staff along with their new contracts in January - and the new contracts are due to take effect on 1 May 2009
Staff who do not accept the new contracts voluntarily with be given 12 weeks notice - and invited to sign again on 1 May 2009 - if they refuse at that stage they will be dismissed.
The EPM payment replaces any backdating of money from the JE review - so lots of people will be furious at the trade unions and management – for making such a mess of the Job Evaluation (JE) process.
Incredibly, the EPM payment applies to only two categories of staff: those who end up in pay protection as a result of the JE scheme (i.e. the traditional male, bonus earning jobs) - and the 'winners' from the JE scheme (i.e. those whose pay increases).
Both groups will get a lump sum – the logic of paying the ‘winners’ a lump sum is clear – it’s because the council is going back on its commitment to backdate the outcome of the JE scheme – the ‘winners’ are receiving partial compensation for their loss of back pay.
But there is no logic at all for giving a lump sum to male workers on pay protection – because their pay is being protected and they’re not losing anything – yet the female dominated groups are not being offered the same ‘incentive’ to sign up.
Male workers on pay protection will also receive a final ‘parachute’ payment when pay protection comes to an end in April 2012 – another payment withheld from female groups.
What is clear is that the Aberdeen package favours traditional male jobs – and because of this ongoing discrimination and differences in treatment - the council’s actions will simply enhance the claims of its women workers.
More to follow – watch this space.
Post from 14 January 2009
Aberdeen City Council is issuing new contracts of employment to all staff – having failed to reach a collective agreement with the trade unions over Single Status and Equal Pay.
The council says that it can’t achieve a collective agreement because of recent case law – i.e. the Allen V GMB case where low paid GMB members successfully sued their own union.
But the council is wrong – the Allen v GMB case does not stop trade unions negotiating collective agreements – all it does is prevent them from negotiating deals that discriminate against their own women members.
So, Aberdeen is now pursuing a voluntary sign up campaign - staff are being asked to accept new contracts on a voluntary basis by 30 January 2009 - those that do so will receive an incentive Equal Pay and Modernisation (EPM) payment.
Details of the EPM payment will be estimated and issued to staff along with their new contracts in January - and the new contracts are due to take effect on 1 May 2009
Staff who do not accept the new contracts voluntarily with be given 12 weeks notice - and invited to sign again on 1 May 2009 - if they refuse at that stage they will be dismissed.
The EPM payment replaces any backdating of money from the JE review - so lots of people will be furious at the trade unions and management – for making such a mess of the Job Evaluation (JE) process.
Incredibly, the EPM payment applies to only two categories of staff: those who end up in pay protection as a result of the JE scheme (i.e. the traditional male, bonus earning jobs) - and the 'winners' from the JE scheme (i.e. those whose pay increases).
Both groups will get a lump sum – the logic of paying the ‘winners’ a lump sum is clear – it’s because the council is going back on its commitment to backdate the outcome of the JE scheme – the ‘winners’ are receiving partial compensation for their loss of back pay.
But there is no logic at all for giving a lump sum to male workers on pay protection – because their pay is being protected and they’re not losing anything – yet the female dominated groups are not being offered the same ‘incentive’ to sign up.
Male workers on pay protection will also receive a final ‘parachute’ payment when pay protection comes to an end in April 2012 – another payment withheld from female groups.
What is clear is that the Aberdeen package favours traditional male jobs – and because of this ongoing discrimination and differences in treatment - the council’s actions will simply enhance the claims of its women workers.
More to follow – watch this space.
