Mickey Mouse and Equal Pay

I put this post up on the blog site back in June 2013 - before the FOI appeal involving South Lanarkshire Council reached the UK Supreme Court in London on 8 July 2013.

The subsequent decision of the UK Supreme Court has forced South Lanarkshire to release certain pay information which - in my view - demonstrates that the Council was operating a 'two tier' workforce in which traditional male jobs were more favourably treated than their women colleagues.

I think this matter should now be reported to the Accounts Commission for Scotland - the public spending 'watchdog' for all Scottish Councils.

So watch this space. 

Mickey Mouse and Equal Pay (19 June 2013)

Here's what I said about South Lanarkshire Council's 'Mickey Mouse' job evaluation scheme - back on 16 January 2008.

Four years later these words have been vindicated - with the Employment Tribunal in Glasgow deciding that the South Lanarkshire Council scheme does not comply with the terms of the 1970 Equal Pay Act.

What a shocker for the leadership of this increasingly ridiculous council - but what a victory for the thousands of low paid women - who have been fighting for equal pay all these years.

I will have more to say in the days ahead - for the moment what I had to say in 2008 will suffice - although it's worth pointing out that Action 4 Equality Scotland now represents more than 2,400 clients in South Lanarkshire.

South Lanarkshire Council should hang its head in shame - if you ask me, its behaviour has been a total embarrassment and disgrace.
  

Mickey Mouse, South Lanarkshire and Job Evaluation

South Lanarkshire Council has asked Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross to explain the basis of our challenge to its Job Evaluation Scheme (JES).

We're delighted to do so. In fact, so delighted, we've decided to give them what they really deserve - both barrels.

So, here's what we've said on behalf of our 1500 South Lanarkshire clients.

1 The history of single status is that the pre-2003 pay arrangements were widely accepted as discriminatory - by both the employers and unions - so any scheme that simply reproduces the old pay differentials (between male and female groups) is itself discriminatory and unfair

2 The council failed to use a recognised and professionally approved scheme - instead they used a Mickey Mouse scheme dreamed up by a handful of senior councillors and council officials - a scheme that no one can now explain or defend.

3 The JES is completely subjective and does not measure the day-to-day demands of people's jobs - which is what's supposed to happen with a professionally approved scheme.

4 A variety of posts have been amalgamated into single job categories and given the same grade - even though the content and demands of these posts are very different.

5 The grading exercise was done by job families which are segregated along gender lines and so are tainted with sex bias - e.g. almost all Land Services employees are men and they're paid better (surprise, surprise) than the female groups.

6 The grading exercise was carried out by different people and on a different basis for each job family - so the scheme is not consistent or fair.

7 The grading exercise was carried out by line managers who were not independent or qualified to do such work - management lackeys in other words.

8 The council is concealing how all the jobs were assessed and scored - job profiles contain no information about Factor Headings, Factor Levels, Factor Weighting and individual Job Scores.

9 The underlying purpose of the exercise was really to maintain the status quo - i.e. the higher pay of the traditional male jobs - see post dated 14 November 2007.

10 Pay and grading were done together - so that past pay was taken into account - which is very, very naughty and against all JES rules.

11 Actual pay bears no relation to the score of a post - e.g. a Band 2 female post does not receive the same pay as a Band 2 male post. Why?

12 The JES process is not transparent, open and user friendly - as required. Key information is still being withheld to conceal the fact that many traditional male jobs continue to earn much more than their female colleagues.

13 The grading exercise was undertaken in 2003, but was not subject to an independent Equal Pay Audit until two years later - predictably the details of the independent audit have been kept secret as well. Wonder why?

14 Bonus payments in South Lanarkshire have not really disappeared - they've simply been consolidated into much higher salaries for the men.

Now all of this is very well know to the senior councillors and managers who negotiated South Lanarkshire's single status scheme in 2003 - along with Unison and GMB officials.

And while Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross want the facts to come out into the open - the council and the unions want to keep the workforce in the dark.

Who's kidding who?