Are You Up For The Fight, Glasgow?
I didn't doubt the answer for a minute, but here are just some of the responses to my question about the future of the City Council's WPBR pay monster:
"Are your Up for the Fight, Glasgow?"
Yes. already sent emails to my local MSP and MP
F
Yip. A big apology and years of compensation. Even if the apology would be false. Bunch of no users.
B
Yes!
E
Yes, absolutely.
A
Yes!
M
Yes, count me in
C
Yes!
J
Yes, me and the rest of my army!
L
Defo!
D
Seems like the makings of an angry mob to me - and it will certainly do for starters.
As ever, many hands Make Light Work - so the more people who get involved the better it will be for all concerned!
Let's go, Glasgow!
Are You Up For The Fight, Glasgow? (17/02/18)
An angry, but peaceful mob is what we need to drive the WPBR pay monster out of town - are you up for the fight, Glasgow?
CAN WE SAY GOODBYE TO WPBR?
Mark has helpfully produced a letter to councillors and MSPs re a suggested motion to council to move on from WPBR.
We need this commitment. At the moment officers are hedging their bets on all issues.
Everyone needs to move on and draw a line under WPBR. We can then discuss a replacement.
Stefan Cross
Can we all send our local councillors a Wee email as well thanks Mark
F
A
Glasgow's WPBR Pay Monster (17/02/18)
Here is John Mason's response to my email regarding Glasgow City Council's WPBR pay scheme which, as regular readers know, has been condemned as 'unfit for purpose' by the highest civil court in Scotland.
Dear Mark
Thanks for your email.
I think we have gone over this ground before but I am happy to say again that any solution must be acceptable to the Council, its employees, the trades unions, etc. I do not believe it is possible for one party to impose its solution on the others.
It remains my opinion that Glasgow would struggle to find £500 million as a settlement which has been the suggested figure. So all sides need to compromise if a settlement is to be achieved. And going forward there needs to be a system in place which all parties will find acceptable.
Concerning a recent briefing on equal pay (9 February), I did try to confirm if this was still going ahead despite the recent announcements from the Council. I sent an email on 7 February (see below) but got no response, therefore, assumed it had been cancelled:
“Dear Karl/Stefan
Further to previous emails I have not heard any more from you about the possible meeting on equal pay this Friday. Therefore, I am assuming it has been cancelled because the Council has confirmed it is not pursuing a legal route but will negotiate.
My guess is that there will still be a challenge for the Council to find the necessary funding but hopefully if both sides compromise a bit then a solution can be found.
Yours sincerely
John”
Thanks anyway for being in touch about all of this.
Regards
John
Now John is looking at this issue through the wrong end of the telescope if you ask me, because the problem that needs to be put right is the way in which the council's largely female workforce has been treated for years.
Which is what I've said in my reply to John so I hope he reflects on his current position because just as it's impossible to be a 'little bit pregnant' - I fail to see what compromise there is over people's basic employment rights and entitlement to equal pay.
Dear John
Glasgow's WPBR
Many thanks for your prompt reply to my email.
I'm afraid it's wrong to say that we have gone over this ground previously, because this is the first time I have raised with you the specific issue of replacing Glasgow's 'unfit for purpose' WPBR with a new JES and pay arrangements which command the confidence of the City Council's largely female workforce.
Somewhat strangely, your response does not address the WPBR's discriminatory pay practices such as the indefensible 37 hour NSWP 'rule' which I highlighted in my original email.
Instead you talk about the need to avoid one party imposing its views on others while having nothing to say about the nature of the WPBR or the fact that the scheme has been treating women workers in Glasgow as second class citizens for the past 10 years.
If I remember correctly, you were a senior figure on Glasgow City Council from 2003 to 2008 which, of course, covers the period when the WPBR was introduced.
So can I ask you directly if you supported the introduction of the WPBR at the time and if so, do you now believe that this was a very costly mistake and one for which the council's lowest paid workers are now due an apology?
I would be happy to meet up to discuss the matter further, but I would urge you to focus upon the way in which the council's women workers have been treated for more than a decade and the role of senior council officials who have been defending the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR since it was first introduced in 2007.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
Because the scandal of 'unequal pay' was bad enough to begin with, but the council made things a great deal worse by bringing in its cockamamy WPBR scheme which repackaged the old discriminatory pay practices and gave them a better disguise - until the project finally came crashing down at the Court of Session.
I think it would be a good idea to re-run the A4ES briefing on equal pay and if we do so, let's hope there's a full turn out next time from Glasgow's MSPs and MPs.
Glasgow's MSPs and MP(19/12/17)
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about John Mason, the SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) for the Glasgow Shettleston constituency.
Now I knew that John had been a Glasgow councillor in a previous life, but I didn't realise that he was the Leader of the SNP Opposition Group between 1999 and 2008.
Which is very significant, of course, because this covers the period when the fight for equal pay first began in Glasgow in 2005 and the period that followed when the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme was introduced in 2006/07.
I plan to do the same exercise for other Glasgow MSPs and MPs to check on who else may have a background in local government.
Because anyone with experience as a local councillor has no excuse if you ask me, for not being 'up to speed' and understanding all the important issues surrounding equal pay.
Councillor
Mason has lived in the East End of Glasgow for the past 20 years, and was elected as the councillorfor the Garrowhill ward in Glasgow City Council at a by-election in 1998, and was re-elected in 1999 and 2003.[3]
He rose to become the Leader of the Opposition in Glasgow City Council, and led the SNP Council Group on the majority Labour-run Council between 1999 and 2008. He was the SNP's longest serving Glasgow councillor, and during his term, he led many protests against Labour's moves to weaken effective opposition by altering the council committee system.[3]
In his ward, he attended a wide variety of community groups, including Garrowhill and SwintonCommunity Councils, local school boards, tenants association, and Garrowhill Action Partnership. He was also on the management committee of Tenant Controlled Housing, which aims to give local tenants control of their housing, in place of Glasgow Housing Association (GHA).[4]
Glasgow - Insulting and Ridiculous (18/12/17)
I circulated a copy of yesterday's post about John Mason's comments on the fight for equal pay with Glasgow City Council - to all Glasgow MSPs, MPs and local councillors along with the following Twitter message:
"John Mason's suggestion that equal pay claimants in Glasgow should 'pay' for their own rights to be upheld is insulting, ridiculous and a complete non-starter"
I don't think I need to add anything further at this stage, but watch this space for more news because there's a lot going on at the moment.
Glasgow - Breaking News (17/12/17)
A kind reader has just shared this email from John Mason MSP which, if you ask me, is ill-judged, patronising and insulting because of the strange way John qualifies his 'support' for equal pay.
John's suggestion is that the Glasgow claimants who have been cheated and robbed of their rights to equal pay for years should come up with a solution themselves and consider accepting less than they are entitled to given the potential impact on jobs and services.
Thanks for your email.
Yes, I do agree with you that this dispute should be settled as soon as possible.
The problem is how much money it will cost and where that money will come from. Figures up to £500 million have been mentioned and Glasgow does not have that money. Labour should have made cuts to pay for the equal pay.
Do you think the SNP should cut jobs and services in order to pay the equal pay claim? Or should the workers who are entitled to the money take less so their colleagues can keep their jobs?
Happy to hear any ideas you have about where the money should come from.
Sincerely
John Mason
(MSP for Glasgow Shettleston)
Now I didn't hear Nicola Sturgeon qualify her support back in October when she said at an SNP conference in Glasgow in October 2017:
"The injustice suffered by low paid women in this city will be put right.
"Equal pay for equal work, denied for too long, will be delivered by the SNP."
Nor have I heard SNP MPs at Westminster say that the pension rights of the 'WASPI' women should be restored so long as they come up with proposals for making cuts in other areas of public spending!
I must check on this point with Ian Blackford, the SNP leader in the House of Commons, and Mhairi Black, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire, who has been very vocal in support of the WASPI campaign, but I'll eat my hat is that is the stance being taken by the SNP in Westminster.
And while I agree with John that previous Labour-led administrations in Glasgow have a lot to answer for, if I remember correctly, John was a Glasgow councillor at the time the City Council approved its 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay arrangements back in 2006/07.
So John trying to 'wash his hands' of the whole affair simply won't do although I'd be happy to sit down and discuss how the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government might help Glasgow City Council find a way out of the huge mess it finds itself in today.
But what do the claimants in Glasgow think of John's email?
Let me know and I'll see if we can find a way of bringing Glasgow's MSPs and MPs together for a constructive discussion with some of the claimants in the New Year.
Glasgow - Breaking News! (15/02/18)
Here's a letter regarding Glasgow's 'unfit for purpose' WPBR which I have sent to my local city councillors - there are actually four in my ward of Glasgow Calton:
Jennifer Layden (SNP)
Cecilia O'Lone (Labour)
Greg Hepburn (SNP)
Robert Connelly (Conservative)
A separate letter to my local MSP and MP will follow later today or tomorrow, and I will share details of all the replies I receive on the blog site - including any 'nil'responses.
The more people who get involved in this particular campaign, the better it will be for all concerned because the WPBR is a major obstacle to finding a just settlement of all the outstanding equal pay claims.
So go to it Glasgow - and don't forget include your home address, post code and contact phone number!
Dear Jennifer, Cecilia, Greg and Robert
Glasgow's WPBR
I refer to the following post from my blog site and draft motion on Glasgow's WPBR pay scheme.
As my local councillor, I would be grateful to know if you accept the Court of Session's judgment that the WPBR is 'unfit for purpose' and whether you agree that the WPBR needs to be replaced with a new job evaluation scheme which commands the support and confidence of the City Council's largely female workforce?
I look forward to hearing from you soon and if you would like to discuss the matter before responding, please give me a ring on my mobile - 12345 678910
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
Home address and post code
I have just sent my WPBR blog post to all Glasgow MSPs and MPs with the following Twitter message:
Glasgow's WPBR pay scheme is monstrously unfair and 'unfit for purpose' according to the highest civl court in Scotland - it has to go!
I also plan to write to my own local councillor, MSP and MP later today.
Glasgow's WPBR pay scheme is monstrously unfair and 'unfit for purpose' according to the highest civl court in Scotland - it has to go!
I also plan to write to my own local councillor, MSP and MP later today.
Dear Councillor
Glasgow's WPBR Pay Scheme
I have drafted the following motion to focus attention on Glasgow City Council's WPBR pay scheme which, as you know, has been judged to be 'unfit for purpose' by a unanimous decision of the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.
If Glasgow City Council is to build credible pay arrangements for the future, it stands to reason that the WPBR must be replaced by a job evaluation scheme (JES) which commands the confidence of the council's largely female workforce, who have effectively been treated as second class citizens by the WPBR for the past 10 years.
As things stand, the WPBR is riddled with discriminatory pay practices from top to bottom.
For example, the WPBR has a bizarre and completely invented 'rule' which awards a significant NSWP payment worth £1,000 our annum only to employees contracted to work a minimum of 37 hours a week. The vast majority of GCC employees contracted to work fewer that 37 hours a week are, of course, women.
If you ask me, it should not have taken a 10 year battle and Scotland's highest civil court to get this point across, especially as no other work related benefits - holiday pay, sick pay, maternity leave or paternity leave - operate in this discriminatory way.
Astonishingly, the City Council's senior officials are unable (or unwilling) to explain how the WPBR was commissioned back in 2005/06/07 or how much this ill-judged project cost the public purse.
I would be delighted to discuss the terms of the motion further with individual councillors and/or I can arrange to provide party groups with a briefing on the powerful case for replacing the WPBR as a matter of urgency.
If you would like to take up this offer, please contact me at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
Glasgow's 'Unfit For Purpose' WPBR
"Glasgow City Council accepts with the unanimous judgment of the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court, that its Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) is 'unfit for purpose'.
"Council therefore instructs senior officials to replace the WPBR scheme, as a matter of urgency, to bring to an end discriminatory practices which treat its low paid women workers as second class citizens.
"Council further instructs senior officials to draw up plans for using the Gauge job evaluation scheme (JES) as a replacement for the WPBR.
"Council notes that the Gauge JES was originally recommended for use by the Scottish council employers via COSLA and the national trade unions (GMB, Unison and Unite), as part of the landmark 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement."
Glasgow - The Next Big Step (12/02/18)
Glasgow's 'Unfit For Purpose' WPBR.
"Glasgow City Council accepts with the unanimous judgment of the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court, that its Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) is 'unfit for purpose'.
"Council therefore instructs senior officials to replace the WPBR scheme, as a matter of urgency, to bring to an end discriminatory practices which treat its low paid women workers as second class citizens.
"Council further instructs senior officials to draw up plans for using the Gauge job evaluation scheme (JES) as a replacement for the WPBR.
"Council notes that the Gauge JES was originally recommended for use by the Scottish council employers via COSLA and the national trade unions (GMB, Unison and Unite), as part of the landmark 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement."
The next big step in the fight for equal pay in Glasgow is for the city to face up to the terrible mess that senior council officials have made of equal pay.
Now I've neem a very senior official myself, in my times, for example as Unison's Head of Local Government and the unions' chief negotiator with COSLA, the Scottish employers' umbrella organisation.
I realise that this is not easy for the people concerned because it requires them to eat a large serving of 'humble pie'.
But the evidence is now overwhelming that Glasgow City Council bought a 'pig-in-a-poke' when its senior officials commissioned the WPBR which has since been judged to be 'unfit for purpose' by the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.
So my draft motion about replacing the WPBR is an idea whose time has come and I am going to circulate this to all local Glasgow councillors as well as the city's MSPs and MPs.
In my view, it's time the city's elected representatives and appointed officials were forced to discuss and debate these issues publicly instead of stitching things up behind closed doors which is what has been what's happening for years.
Claimants in Glasgow can help by writing directly to their local councillors, MSPs and MPs because as we have been witnessing in recent weeks - People Power really works.
In the meantime here is a list of email addresses for the Glasgow MSPs and MPs who were invited to a recent briefing on equal pay - only three turned up on the day (those marked with an asterisk).
Not one of Glasgow's eight constituency MSPs could find the time to come along which is rather odd, if you ask me.
I will let readers know via the blog site when I have circulated the draft motion to Glasgow councillors, MSPs and MPs.
Equal pay claimants may then wish to drop their own local representatives an email - to ask where they stand on this vitally important issue.
Not one of Glasgow's eight constituency MSPs could find the time to come along which is rather odd, if you ask me.
I will let readers know via the blog site when I have circulated the draft motion to Glasgow councillors, MSPs and MPs.
Equal pay claimants may then wish to drop their own local representatives an email - to ask where they stand on this vitally important issue.
