Glasgow and Job Evaluation

A reader from Glasgow had some interesting things to say about my recent posts on the City Council's WPBR pay scheme which, as everyone knows, has been judged as 'unfit for purpose' by the Court of Session. Scotland's highest civil court.

"After reading Mark's post it’s easy to see how the WPBR scheme is stacked against women regarding certain types of payments (37 hours workers etc) now I believe that GCC will only try a tweak the things that they see as been unfair then dig their heels in to keep the scheme in place, now I did not work for GCC when this scheme came in and I don’t know anyone who knows how they arrived at the grade they came out at?! Which to me can not be right!! 

"The other scheme that most councils used, their staff would know how many points they scored for each factor. So for example if you came out a couple of points below the next grade and at some point in the future you where asked to take on more responsibility (eg giving out medication) then you could work it out yourself on how it would affect your point score to see if it took you to a higher above grade, which to me seems a much fairer way.

"So I for one would like to see the WPBR scheme disappear and start again with the one most councils used in Scotland. But whichever way this pans out at the end of it we need to know exactly how our grades are scored because changes always happen in our jobs therefore in the future if there is any other changes to our post we would have a better idea if this would affect our grades."

Now these comments are spot on if you ask me, because there's no doubt in my mind that the WPBR was designed to produce a particular outcome in Glasgow which 'stacked the odds' against female dominated jobs: carers, cooks, cleaners, catering workers, classroom assistants, clerical staff and so on.

As a matter of fact, the council employers (via COSLA) developed, in partnership with the national trade unions (Unison, GMB and Unite), a bespoke job evaluation scheme (JES) for use by Scotland's 32 councils back in 1999 - the so-called Gauge JES scheme.

The cost of developing the Gauge scheme was £250,000 at the time and the bill was shared between all the council employers including good old Glasgow City Council.

I put my 'deputy' on the COSLA Project Steering Group to ensure there was no nonsense and Unison, along with the other trade unions were happy to approve the Gauge scheme for use in Scotland having taking independent advice from our own JE expert advisers.

Unison consulted its 100,000 local government members in a Scotland wide ballot and recommended support for the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement on the basis that it was underpinned by a nationally approved Gauge JE scheme which was strongly supported by both the council employers and national trade unions.

So where the hell did the WPBR come from? - is the obvious question.

Why did it suddenly appear all those years later in 2006/07; why did Glasgow bring in a new external consultant (a chap called Steve Watson and Hays HR Consulting; why did Glasgow 'turn turtle' and reject the Gauge scheme; what was the cost involved and why was the council workforce not consulted?

After all the local government workforce were consulted by Unison in 1999 via a Scotland wide ballot and voted by a huge majority to support the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement underpinned by a nationally approved Gauge JES.  

Yet Glasgow's WPBR seems to have been introduced through the 'back door' which perhaps explains why Scotland's highest court judged the pay scheme to be 'unfit for purpose'. 

  

Glasgow's WPBR - Unfit for Purpose (07/12/17)

In the settlement discussions that are due to get underway with Glasgow City Council  today, one of the big issues that will need to be addressed is the WPBR (Workforce Pay and Benefits Review) pay scheme.

As regular readers know, the WPBR was judged to be 'unfit for purpose' in the recent appeal hearing at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.

So the big question is: Will Glasgow's WPBR be scrapped and replaced? 

Because if not, the City Council will find itself in a never ending series of challenges to this controversial, in-house job evaluation scheme (JES).   

If you ask me, the WPBR should be thrown on the scrapheap as it's a complete sham of a JE scheme which was designed to maintain the status quo - the historical pay differences between male and female jobs. 

In fact the WPBR is actually three different pay operations in one and the controversial scheme completely defies very important principles about job evaluation.

For a start Glasgow's WPBR is not 'open and transparent', but rather goes out of its way to obscure the differences between different jobs with a series of bizarre 'rules' which have been invented to benefit the interests (and pay) of traditional male jobs.

Job evaluation is supposed to be an objective process which assesses and rewards jobs on the basis of their skills and responsibilities which is what the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement was all about   

But the WPBR pay scheme has three separate elements which combine to determine how much an individual employee gets paid: WBPR, NSWP (Non Standard Working Pattern) and WCD (Working Context and Demands).

1. WPBR is the supposedly objective job evaluation part of the scheme and is used to award an initial grade  
2. NSWP has nothing to to with the content of a job, but is only concerned with when and how an employee's hours are worked.  
3. WCD is another 'topping-up' exercise which awards additional points and   

I'll have a lot more to say about the WPBR in the days ahead, but just reflect on the fact that the NSWP part of the scheme introduced a bogus 'rule' which meant that only those employees contracted to work for 37 hours a week benefited from a working hours payment.

Now this was, and is, completely outrageous and discriminatory because this invented 'rule' was designed to benefit the Gardeners, Gravediggers and Road Workers.

Yet, the GMB union kept its head down and didn't kick up absolute hell on behalf of Home Carers, for example, who were contracted to fewer than 37 hours and received no payment whatsoever, unlike their male colleagues.

The same is true of shift payments the 'rules' of which which tend to reward traditional male jobs for changing their shifts more than twice during a working week.

Yet thousands of Home carriers have been working split shifts - the most unpopular shift of all - but don't receive any recognition for having to be at work twice during the same day.

Stay tuned for more from the blog site about Glasgow's cockamamy WPBR pay scheme - and in the meantime share this post with your friends and co-workers.

Because when it comes to the fight for equal pay - knowledge is power.

  

Glasgow Pay Arrangements (06/04/17)

A Home Carer from Glasgow has been in touch to say that she (and many others) work a 50 hour week and a 20 hour week the week week, so why don't they qualify for a NSWP payment in Week 1 at least?

Now that's a good question because fairness and common sense would suggest that such a shift working arrangement would qualify for an NSWP payment at Level B for at least half the year, perhaps more if overtime hours were also taken into account.

But I'm pretty sure that Glasgow City Council interprets these 'cockamamy rules' in a way that is to the disadvantage of Home Carers by treating the 2 weeks as a 35-hour average so that the staff concerned receive no payment. 

My own view is that the NSWP working hours payment ought to be paid on a 'pro rata' basis like other pay related benefits such as sick, holiday pay and sick pay - that way all Home Carers on a 35 hour working week would receive 35/37ths (or 95%) of a Level B NSWP payment.

The trade unions should be on to this as well if you ask me, because you don't have to work 37 hours before becoming eligible to join a union or to take part in a union strike ballot.

The real problem is that Glasgow City Council has just invented these 'cockamamy rules' which are impossible to justify as they go against the spirit and letter of the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement which is based on equal treatment for part-time workers.

  

Cockamamy Council 'Rules' (05/04/17)

As regular readers know, Action 4 Equality Scotland is challenging various aspects of Glasgow's WPBR (Workforce Pay and Benefits Review) which the City Council introduced back in 2006/07.

One of the most controversial aspects of the WPBR scheme is over additional payments that are made under the heading of NSWP (Non Standard Working Pattern) payments.

I wrote previously on the blog site about how the Glasgow's predominantly female jobs seem to fare badly under the WPBR compared to their male colleagues, and this is also true when it comes to NSWP payments. 

Because one of the NSWP 'rules' is a requirement for employees to work 37 hours before they qualify for 7 'working hours' NSWP points.

Now points mean prizes under the WPBR and 7 NSWP points means that a 37 hour a week employee qualifies for Level B Payment which was worth £800 a year in 2006 - almost £10,000 over 12 years - and a whole lot more than people have been receiving in terms of annual pay increases, for example.

So who made up this barmy 'rule' and on what kind of twisted logic is this NSWP rule based?

Because it's completely crazy if you ask me - people don't have to work 37 hours to qualify for holiday pay, sick pay, or maternity pay - for example.

And can it really be a coincidence that the vast majority of Glasgow City Council employees who work less than 37 hours a week are women? 

Curiously all of Glasgow's hardworking Home Carers were placed on 35 hour a week contracts some years ago, so they miss out on a Level B Payment even though they work 95% of a 37 hour working week.

The 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement was supposed to ensure equal treatment for part-time workers, but that seems not to have happened in Glasgow where mysterious rules have been invented (by whom?) to exclude the council's lowest paid workers.

As far as I know the trade unions in Glasgow haven't called or even threatened a single strike to defend the rights of thousands of part-time workers affected by this cockamamy 'rule' which is a complete disgrace, if you ask me.

Because if points are to be awarded for hours worked, they should be pro-rated just like all other payments and benefits - not deliberately designed in such a way that treats women workers much less favourably than their male colleagues. 

No wonder the Labour leader of Glasgow City Council can't defend his party's position over equal pay, but readers are invited to drop Frank McAveety a note by email or Twitter and let him know what you think.

Email - frank.mcaveety@glasgow.gov.uk
Twitter - @FMcAveety

  

Glasgow's Pay Arrangements (02/04/17)

The workforce at Glasgow City Council is predominantly female - around 70% of its 27,000 or so employees are women.

So, all things being equal, you would expect women to occupy around 70% or of each job category and for women to be involved in 70% or so of all work related issues - from sickness absence and disciplinary hearings to interviews for a promoted post.

Unless, of course, there's a gender based explanation such as maternity or paternity leave - or there's some other factor at play such as discrimination, for example.

Here's an interesting table which shines a light on the payments Glasgow City Council staff receive for doing shift work - the Non-Standard Working Pattern (NSWP) part of Glasgow's Workforce Pay and Benefits review (WPBR). 

NSWP Percentage breakdown Grade 1 to 7
Grade	Male	Female	Totals	% of Males by grade in receipt of NSWP	% of females by grade in receipt of NSWP
0	3293	15441	18734	39.71%	81.07%
A	347	888	1235	4.18%	4.66%
B	2528	1382	3910	30.49%	7.26%
C	566	681	1247	6.83%	3.58%
D	1213	210	1423	14.63%	1.10%
E	20	43	63	0.24%	0.23%
F	325	402	727	3.92%	2.11%
TOTALS	8292	19047	27339	100.00%	100.00%
	In receipt of NSWP
Gender	yes	no	Grand Total	% of All employees	% of employees in receipt of NSWP by gender	% of Gender in receipt of NSWP
Female	3606	15441	19047	69.67%	41.91%	18.93%
Male	4999	3293	8292	30.33%	58.09%	60.29%
TOTALS	8605	18734	27339	100.00%	100.00%	79.22%
					Example: Total Female in receipt of NSWP divided by the overall total of both men and Woman in receipt of NSWP	Example: Total percentage of Female in receipt of NSWP divided by the total number of females employed

The figures are based on the WPBR in 2007 and number of things jump straight out to me:

• Over 80% of women don't qualify for a NSWP payment because they score zero (0) points on the City Council's scoring system 
• Far fewer women (19%) than men (60%) qualify for an NSWP payment even though women make up a big 70% majority of the City Council's workforce
• Over 50% of male workers receive an NSWP payment at the higher paying B, C and D bands
• Yet only 12% of women fall into the B,C and D bands.

Now I don't know who made up Glasgow's cockamamy scoring system, but if you ask me they have made up the rules in a way that punishes and discriminates against the jobs done by women. 

In the next few days I'll publish more information about the NSWP 'rules' and scoring system which I imagine will be of great interest to lots of readers in Glasgow.

As far as I know the unions in Glasgow have not called any strikes or even threatened industrial action over the operation of the NSWP scheme.

  

Glasgow - 'Defending the Indefensible' (07/12/17)

Not surprisingly, there's been lots of interest in yesterday's post about settlement negotiations getting underway with Glasgow City Council, at long last.

"About time!", "Well done!", "Good luckI" - are among the many comments I have received in the past few days, but a word of caution is required as well because this was just a brief two hour meeting which did not tackle any of the big, outstanding issues.

So while the political leadership of the City Council has reaffirmed its commitment to 'fix' Glasgow's equal pay problems and ensure that the claimants 'get what they are due' the process is still being driven by the council's senior officials and advisers.

The point being that many of these senior officials and advisers are responsible for getting the City Council into this mess in the first place and only a short time ago they were trying everything they could to justify Glasgow's discredited WPBR pay scheme which, if you ask me, is the root of the problem.

Local politicians seem to be doing their best to 'rise above' the settlement process, as if senior officials can relied upon to come up with a quick fix, while Glasgow's MSPs, MPs and elected councillors try not to get too involved.

I've heard reports of local politicians claiming that they can't comment on the ongoing Glasgow dispute or offer any support because equal pay is not their area of expertise or responsibility.

Now this is disingenuous, to put it mildly.

Because it doesn't take a job evaluation (JE) expert to say that Glasgow's WPBR pay scheme is full of arbitrary, completely invented 'rules' which are designed to favour traditional male jobs - while discriminating against the jobs done by carers, cooks, cleaners, catering workers, clerical staff, classroom assistants and so on.

For example, as explained in the post below, the WPBR (NSWP) rewards employees who have a contract to work 37 hours a week or more - but everyone who is contracted to less than 37 hours every week (i.e. most women workers) gets a fat, big NOTHING for their efforts.

In other words it doesn't require a rocket scientist or a JE specialist to agree that the WPBR is blatantly discriminatory because it's as plain as the nose on your face, to anyone who is prepared to listen to the evidence and come to a reasoned judgment.

Which explains, of course, why three senior judges in the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court, decided unanimously that Glasgow City Council's WPBR pay scheme is 'unfit for purpose'.

So why would Glasgow's politicians have any difficulty in coming off the fence and stating where they stand on an issue of such importance to their local constituents who have been cheated of their rights to 'equal pay for work of equal value' for the past 10 years.

I have been keeping MSPs and MPs up to date on developments in Glasgow by circulating regular posts from the blog site and I've also offered to provide any further information they require.

Let's see what next Monday's 'second' meeting brings - hopefully an intent on both sides to get down to business and an acceptance from council officials that trying to justify the WPBR is akin to 'defending the indefensible'. 

  

Glasgow - Foxes and Hen Houses (07/12/17)

Stefan Cross QC shares his thoughts on the fight for equal pay in Glasgow after the first 'settlement discussion' meeting with the SNP Leader, Susan Aitken, and senior council officials.

If you ask me, the City Council's approach is akin to putting a 'fox in charge of the hen house' because the people who have cheated a largely female workforce out of its right to equal pay for the past 10 years are now handed the responsibility to put things right.

"Ha, ha, ha", I thought to myself - except this is really serious rather than funny.

For example, the new leadership brought in an outside, independent body (in the shape of the Improvement Service) to review Glasgow's decision-making processes with the aim of transforming the City Council into a 'world leader' in terms of transparency and openness.

The logical conclusion being that existing council officials could not be trusted to 'mark their own homework' when it comes to openness and transparency.

Yet for some peculiar and unexplained reason senior officials are being allowed to mark their own homework on the much bigger and, arguably, far more significant issue of equal pay.

Let's see what happens at next Monday's second settlement discussion meeting, but so far I'm less than impressed. 

   

LOOKING THEM IN THE EYE

As you know we had our first meeting with the council yesterday and once again it proves that negotiations are always different when you actually get into the same room with the other side. You can learn a lot just by peoples attitude and body language in addition to what is actually said on the subject of the discussions.

Although I was disappointed that Susan Aitken has taken the decision to have a back seat in the negotiations, she was at least honest and clear and open with us. I also believe that she was genuine in her desire to see a resolution to these cases.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the officers. My impression was that there was still a concern on their part in protecting their reputations and decisions they were involved in in the past rather than looking forward and do what’s best for the council and the staff. They also appear to still have a completely different view of the effect of the Court of session decisions and its implications to us. This is potentially a major stumbling block.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the approach to WPBR. Our view is that it should be scrapped and a new pay structure implemented as soon as possible. This will draw a line under the scheme and the litigation and enable everybody to move forward. Unfortunately the officers seem to think that this will be an admission they got it wrong and their approach is to simply try and find fixes to the scheme to enable it to continue but with some minor modifications.

Despite all the litigation they still can’t see what’s wrong with the scheme! They have asked us to prepare a paper setting out what’s wrong with it! We will do this but it shouldn’t be necessary and is going to cause delay.

In any event doesn’t matter if we are right, what matters is what this reveals about the officers attitude. Rather than fresh eyes and a fresh approach it’s a desire to preserve the past as much as possible.

This is going to be a long uphill battle if it stays like this.

We did make progress on their demand for secrecy. It was agreed that base line would be openness but items would be flagged up as confidential in the minutes. This means there might be delay in reporting back to you after meetings whilst minutes are circulated but it’s a good step forward.

We also agreed twice monthly meetings. So not all bad yesterday. There’s going to be a lot of work but good that there’s a commitment to that as well.

Hope all that helps.

Stefan Cross