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 Karl/Stefan
Regards
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
And while I'm on the subject let me repeat that the council's lowest paid workers are due a humble apology over the way this whole affair has been handled for years.
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]
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.
I said in a post the other day that Glasgow's MSPs and MPs have been strangely quiet during the long fight for equal pay with Glasgow City Council.
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)
"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.
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.
