Glasgow - Questions and Answers
Here's the first in a series of Questions and Answers on the fight for equal pay in Glasgow City Council - I plan to share this with all Glasgow councillors, MSPs and MPs.
Question
If the Court of Session decided the WPBR scheme was not fit for purpose and was discriminatory to female workers, why did they not explain their views on Overtime Working, NSWP, Holiday Pay etc
I would have thought after the court case this would have been much clearer than it appears to be.
A
Answer
The Court of Session did not go into specifics about the WPBR, but decided unanimously that the controversial scheme was 'unfit for purpose'. The judges were so sure of their decision that they refused (again unanimously) Glasgow City Council's application asking for 'leave to appeal' the Court of Session's judgment to the UK Supreme Court.
The many problems with the WPBR are all too obvious. For example, it does not take a genius (or a genius lawyer) to agree that the WPBR's completely invented 37 hour 'rule' blatantly discriminates against the Council's largely female workforce - and was designed to do so from the beginning.
A new union rep, a new councillor or a junior council official (never mind a senior official being paid big bucks) ought to be able to see that for themselves - since very few women council employees are contracted to work 37 hours or more.
In other words the WPBR 'rules' have been designed to favour traditional male jobs and to disadvantage jobs done predominantly by women.
The big problem is that senior officials are still trying to defend their scheme because they are frightened of being held to account over how the WPBR was commissioned and introduced, which is why they are refusing to answer my FOI requests.
Glasgow's elected councillors, MSPs and MPs should be 'on the case' if you ask me, and - these issues really ought to be common ground across all the parties (SNP, Labour, Greens and Conservatives), but so far none of the City's politicians have taken a stand and spoken out on behalf of their local constituents.
Answer
The Court of Session did not go into specifics about the WPBR, but decided unanimously that the controversial scheme was 'unfit for purpose'. The judges were so sure of their decision that they refused (again unanimously) Glasgow City Council's application asking for 'leave to appeal' the Court of Session's judgment to the UK Supreme Court.
The many problems with the WPBR are all too obvious. For example, it does not take a genius (or a genius lawyer) to agree that the WPBR's completely invented 37 hour 'rule' blatantly discriminates against the Council's largely female workforce - and was designed to do so from the beginning.
A new union rep, a new councillor or a junior council official (never mind a senior official being paid big bucks) ought to be able to see that for themselves - since very few women council employees are contracted to work 37 hours or more.
In other words the WPBR 'rules' have been designed to favour traditional male jobs and to disadvantage jobs done predominantly by women.
The big problem is that senior officials are still trying to defend their scheme because they are frightened of being held to account over how the WPBR was commissioned and introduced, which is why they are refusing to answer my FOI requests.
Glasgow's elected councillors, MSPs and MPs should be 'on the case' if you ask me, and - these issues really ought to be common ground across all the parties (SNP, Labour, Greens and Conservatives), but so far none of the City's politicians have taken a stand and spoken out on behalf of their local constituents.
Mark
