Strike Action and Equal Pay
Stefan Cross makes a convincing argument for 'cooling the beans' over taking strike action in Glasgow's fight for equal pay - for now at least.
Now I agree with Stefan's analysis and he makes the same point as me which is that strikes are a very blunt instrument and deserve to be thought through very carefully.
Where I think there is a strong case for considering some form of industrial action is over the WPBR because six months on from the scheme being condemned as 'unfit for purpose' by Scotland highest civil court, the council's senior officials are still refusing to accept that it needs to be replaced.
Now there are other ways to achieve this result, of course, which is what I've been pursuing hard by lobbying and campaigning in recent weeks with Glasgow's councillors and the city's MSPs/MPs.
I've also drafted motion which has been widely circulated and is reproduced below for easy reference:
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.
Now the Green Group of councillors has apparently taken a decision that they have 'no faith' in the WPBR and that this should be replaced by a new pay system that is transparent, consistent and fair.
Which is great news for the council's women workers, if you ask me!
But the obvious question is: What is stopping the SNP Group or the Labour Group from taking a similar stand?
Because if they did so, there would be absolutely no reason for talking about possible strike action since GCC's senior officials would then be instructed that their thoroughly discredited WPBR finally has to go and be replaced by a new scheme which the workforce, claimants and their representatives can have confidence in.
Just the other day the Scottish Labour leader, Richard Leonard, said that Glasgow's equal pay claimants deserved an apology, but as far as I know this has not yet been followed up by any action on the part of the Labour Group in Glasgow City Council.
A Labour-controlled council introduced the WPBR though the best outcome would now be for the scheme to be shown the door on an all-party basis as this would help clear the way for the serious settlement negotiations which everyone hoped for, but which haven't yet got off the ground - up to and including Meeting Number 6.
If the City Council allows senior officials to keep defending their indefensible WPBR, then we all have a really big problem and I'll explain in a future blog post how I think industrial action might be able to play a part in breaking any such deadlock.
WHY NOT STRIKE NOW (emphasis on NOW)?
In my last post I expressed my personal view that calling for strike action was not the right call just yet. This is not an A4ES official position, just my personal view. My BFF Mark Irvine seems to have a different view.
Several folk have asked me to explain why I take that view. I hesitated as these are decisions for the claimant group and are a union issue. But I’ve been asked and it would be a bit cowardly to duck the question so here goes.
The simple answer is I don’t think it would speed up getting a settlement.
What would be your demands? If it was commit to replacing WPBR, I think there are other routes to that end, that can and are being pursued. If they fail then look at a strike.
If it’s - gives us what we are due? That begs Q - what are you due. Who is yr comparator? The tribunals have not yet agreed this. Which elements of pay? Council says only core pay. We say lots of elements.
It is difficult to explain how fiendishly complicated these issues are. There could be as many as 20 groups of issues still to be determined by a tribunal and there are at least 400 different claimant jobs and the answers could be different for each job. Not everyone works in home care or even in Cordia.
I know I’m not explaining this very well as So many claimants just say give us “our” money. This would suggest any old offer from the council would be good enough. This is exactly what we want to avoid. This is what a strike could produce, a poor offer just to end the strike. This is what happened to the ford Dagenham women. The strike produced an offer but they didn’t get their dues for another 16 years.
Or an offer good for some bad for others. It’s not like the jannys or cleansing where there are discrete issues for a defined group. Here we have masses of issues for a huge range of jobs and people. A strike could produce more winners and losers.
A strike would lead to a separate set of industrial negotiations from which a4es would be excluded. This could damage your equal pay cases.
Strikes lead to conflict between unions, which would break the current united front.
Not everyone on this group would support the strike and only about 10% of claimants are in this group (not all members are claimants) so it would divide the claimants too, especially without clear objectives/demands (pay us now is not a clear demand)
Striking would threaten the relationship with the political leadership. The current state of affairs is not brilliant but it’s a lot better than in the past. It’s too soon to abandon that. If the leadership eventually sides with officers that would change the position- but we are not there yet.
We need to see what the council is going to propose and they are not ready yet.
A strike would encourage a quick fix which would be a very bad thing. We are in this situation because of the last quick fix.
If,or when,the council makes what it says is it’s final offer which is not good enough, then a strike can force them to rethink. It’s generally a weapon of last resort and we are not desperate enough to need a last resort yet. Slow as it is, we need to let the negotiations play out for a while longer until they reach a clear dead end or are clearly going nowhere, AND we are ready for alternative strategies (which we’re not).
Strikes are a blunt instrument which isn’t the best way to address such complicated issues.
Obviously a well supported strike would demonstrate your dissatisfaction but would it bring about an acceptable resolution?
Of course, threatening a strike and balloting might be tactics in themselves but I return to the main question- what would you demand to call off the strike? If you go down that road you need an exit strategy. These require planning and thought. A strike now so soon after the decision not to go the Supreme Court could seem rushed, even a knee jerk reaction.
Bottom line is we need patience and you need to trust us. A strike would suggest you didn’t.
My assessment is we have the upper hand with the officers and a strike now would give that advantage away. Far from strengthening our hand we could easily end up weaker.
Anyway, these are just a quick rundown of some of my thoughts.
Stefan Cross
Strike Action and Equal Pay (23/02/18)
The possibility of strike action in Glasgow's fight for equal pay has generated lots of comment which is a good thing if you ask me.
Because it puts the council on notice that people are getting fed up to the back teeth with senior officials who refuse to accept that their WPBR pay scheme - which they have been resolutely defending for years - has been condemned as 'unfit for purpose' by the highest court in Scotland.
More to follow when I get the chance either later today or tomorrow.
Strike Action and Equal Pay (22/02/18)
The claimants are angry and frustrated and they have every right to be over the shabby way they've been treated for many years.
I've had plenty of experience of dealing with industrial action over the years and the fact is strikes are a very blunt instrument - not something to be entered into lightly.
What specific demands would be made to the City Council and what exactly would a strike aim to achieve?
For example, an industrial action ballot could be called over a demand that the City Council agrees to replace its 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme which the current crop of senior officials seem intent on defending at all costs.
So there's a lot of hard thinking to be done and the local trade unions (who would have to call and organise an industrial action ballot) would surely have to coordinate their plans and try to build as much support as possible.
But the aim of any industrial action ballot is not actually to end up going on strike - instead it's about getting an unreasonable, capricious employer to concede to your demands.
I can think of nothing more unreasonable than Glasgow City Council trying desperately to retain a WPBR pay scheme which has been branded as 'unfit for purpose' by the highest civil court in Scotland, the Court of Session.
Glasgow's 'Bride of Frankenstein' Pay Monster (21/02/18)
Stefan Cross posted a rather bleak assessment of the latest 'settlement' meeting with senior officials of Glasgow City Council.
Now speaking as Unison's former Head of Local Government (Scotland) and lead negotiator with COSLA on behalf of the joint trade unions, this doesn't seem much like a meeting of the minds to me - more like a case of 'heads we win, tails you lose'.
Reading between the lines, senior council officials are still trying to defend the WPBR pay monster they created in 2007 which has been since been characterised as 'unfit for purpose' in a damning judgment from the highest civil court in Scotland, the Court of Session.
Yet, incredibly, instead of apologising for this appalling mess and for the way the claimants have been treated for the past 10 years, senior officials seem to think they can tinker around with the WPBR, make some minor changes to the scheme and then everyone will manage to live happily ever after.
In other words, the 'Bride of Frankenstein' might just succeed where the original Pay Monster failed!
But this is nonsense if you ask me, because the WPBR has been condemned as 'unfit for purpose' by the highest court in the land and clearly has to be replaced by a completely new pay and JES scheme - one which is transparent, consistent and fair.
Unfortunately, this seems impossible to achieve if senior council officials are intent on defending their own indefensible pay scheme and past mistakes in Glasgow which have cost the claimants dearly.
If so, maybe the time has finally come to consider taking industrial action and bring these issues to a head.
I have had more experience than most people of organising industrial action, and it's not a 'magic bullet' for achieving a settlement to this long-running equal pay dispute, but there does come a time when people have got to make a stand.
My own view is that the prospect of industrial action in Glasgow will ensure that the city's elected politicians start to take the fight for equal pay a whole lot more seriously than they have done up until now.
“BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD”
Meeting 6 with the council. This is the council officers own description of where they are - back to the drawing board.
No progress. No decisions, no responses no proposals.
They are obsessed with process. Don’t get me wrong process is important but it’s chicken and egg. The decisions inform the process. We have provided “terms of reference » but these are not yet agreed.
Meeting 6 with the council. This is the council officers own description of where they are - back to the drawing board.
No progress. No decisions, no responses no proposals.
They are obsessed with process. Don’t get me wrong process is important but it’s chicken and egg. The decisions inform the process. We have provided “terms of reference » but these are not yet agreed.
We are to be joined by a new officer, or even two. A project manager and someone from finance. But they haven’t yet sorted out what resources they are going to devote to the project, let alone settlement.
They seem to work on the basis that we’ve booked 12 months of meetings so we are going to use them all. If we’d booked 2 years of meetings I think they’d plan to use all of them too! The council officers have no urgency. If I’m being charitable I think the budget process is taking priority but that’s a false sense of priorities. It’s short term thinking all the time.
We have a psychology barrier to progress. The officers think they only lost on a technicality and still want us to “prove” who has been discriminated against. They also are afraid to take decisions unless there is certainty. They are afraid someone could come along and tell them they got it wrong and paid too much. They don’t seem to understand compromise at all. Unfortunately Susan Aitken says she has full confidence in these officers. It’s not a confidence I share.
Strangely the atmosphere at the meeting was better than meeting 5. And there was some progress in that threats of imposing solutions on us were withdrawn.
I should also say it’s not all bad. The council officers may be going back to the drawing board but the claimant team has not wasted these 10 weeks. We have, for the first time ever, been working as one group.
They seem to work on the basis that we’ve booked 12 months of meetings so we are going to use them all. If we’d booked 2 years of meetings I think they’d plan to use all of them too! The council officers have no urgency. If I’m being charitable I think the budget process is taking priority but that’s a false sense of priorities. It’s short term thinking all the time.
We have a psychology barrier to progress. The officers think they only lost on a technicality and still want us to “prove” who has been discriminated against. They also are afraid to take decisions unless there is certainty. They are afraid someone could come along and tell them they got it wrong and paid too much. They don’t seem to understand compromise at all. Unfortunately Susan Aitken says she has full confidence in these officers. It’s not a confidence I share.
Strangely the atmosphere at the meeting was better than meeting 5. And there was some progress in that threats of imposing solutions on us were withdrawn.
I should also say it’s not all bad. The council officers may be going back to the drawing board but the claimant team has not wasted these 10 weeks. We have, for the first time ever, been working as one group.
Action4Equality and both unions UNISON and GMB, ONE VOICE in front of the council. This has already paid dividends as the council has tried to split us, but so far without success.
We are also not waiting for the council. We are preparing to go back to tribunal if necessary and we have arranged a joint meeting of the barristers for all three claimant groups tomorrow. Again the first time ever.
I have said many times - this will be a long hard slog. It’s enormously frustrating but we need to be patient. FWIW (For what it's worth) I don’t think strike action is the right call yet.
Negotiations are not a linear process. It can be slog slog slog and then a tipping point happens. It’s impossible to predict when that might be, but I still have hope.
We are also not waiting for the council. We are preparing to go back to tribunal if necessary and we have arranged a joint meeting of the barristers for all three claimant groups tomorrow. Again the first time ever.
I have said many times - this will be a long hard slog. It’s enormously frustrating but we need to be patient. FWIW (For what it's worth) I don’t think strike action is the right call yet.
Negotiations are not a linear process. It can be slog slog slog and then a tipping point happens. It’s impossible to predict when that might be, but I still have hope.
