Glasgow's WPBR Pay Monster

I'm pleased to say that my local MSP John Mason has listened to what I had to say and to the views of Glasgow's claimants regarding the future of the City Council's WPBR.

Here's what John had to say along with my reply - so I think it's fair to say we are making progress.

Keep up the good work, everyone!

Thanks Mark

I accept that we have not gone over all these details before but I think we have gone over the main principles.  The key points are:

·         Men and women should be paid the same for equivalent jobs;

·         Going forward there needs to be a system in place which is negotiated and fair to all;

·         Compensation should be negotiated for past losses which women have suffered.

I have to say I am not very familiar with terms like NSWP, WPBR and JES.  When I was in the Council I do not think opposition councillors got into that level of detail concerning staff pay.  I have no idea if Labour councillors did get into that level of detail or if that was left to officers.

I totally agree that there should not be discriminatory pay practices.  I am happy to meet you if you want but I would be dealing with the main principles rather than the detail.  If people in the past did things wrong, it is they who should be apologising.

Sincerely

John

Dear John

Glasgow's WPBR

Well, I think that's a very positive basis on which to move things forward.

I also think it would be useful to meet up, not least because I haven't clapped eyes on you in a while - next thing you know we'll be getting on like a house on fire!

Kind regards

Mark

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

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