Mark Irvine - Blogger, Campaigner, Organiser

The case put forward on behalf of equal pay claimants in Glasgow is that the Council introduced a pay scheme (WPBR) which was designed to favour traditional male jobs by maintaining all the old pay hierarchies and pay differences. Now this was achieved by manipulating various elements of the WPBR, to the disadvantage of female dominated jobs, for example the NSWP (Non Standard Working Pattern) part of the scheme which focuses on an employee's hours of work and shift patterns. What happened, in essence, is that the Council invented new 'rules' for the NSWP in order to maintain the much higher, bonus-related earnings of traditional male jobs which are highlighted in the post below 'Why Glasgow's WPBR Sucks (3)'.  The outcome is that many more men in the Council workforce receive significant NSWP payments than their female colleagues - even though women make up a big majority (70%) of the workforce in Glasgow. What this means is that there are huge and un

Bear with me, but later today I plan to publish information which will help to explain: the 'Pay Gap' in Glasgow City Council, i.e. the huge WPBR-inspired pay differences between traditional male and female council jobs  examples of the potential male comparators that could be used to calculate offers of settlement to the equal pay claimants And believe me none of this is 'rocket science' and if Glasgow City Council was really serious about finding a solution to this long-running pay dispute - it is pretty obvious that meaningful negotiations over the Pay Gap and Comparator Jobs would have got underway   long before now.     

Here is a copy of Annemarie O'Donnell's latest email to the Glasgow 'Council Family' along with my own thoughts (in caps and bold) on some of the key issues involved and what's really happening behind the scenes.     Subject: Equal pay: message from Annemarie O'Donnell, Chief Executive In the last week you may have read coverage of the council’s position on equal pay. THE CITY COUNCIL IS RATTLED BY THE SUCCESS OF THE CLAIMANTS' EQUAL PAY CAMPAIGN This coverage was prompted in part by the publication of the Accounts Commission’s Best Value Report into GCC, and in part by the decision by UNISON and the GMB to move towards industrial action. THE COUNCIL AND ITS SENIOR OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN GETTING A VERY BAD PRESS OF LATE - AND RIGHTLY SO I am concerned that some of the public discussion about this may have given you an inaccurate impression of the work we are doing to settle these disputes and so the purpose of this note is to provide clarity. I AM

Bog standard replies are never a good look for senior officials or politicians for that matter, and here's a good example from the blog site archive to prove the point. Of course, it just adds insult to injury if the person responding fails to answer the direct question they've been asked, in this case: "Do you accept with the Court of Session's judgment that the Council's WPBR is 'unfit for purpose' and that the scheme discriminates against the Council's largely female workforce?"     Glasgow - Bog Standard Replies (21/05/18) The daughter of one of Glasgow's equal pay claimants wrote a very personal and passionate letter to the leader of the Council about her mum's long fight for equal pay - and here's what Susan Aitken had to say in reply.  This is the response my daughter has been given by Susan Aiken I have been very consistent in saying from the outset of this process that settling an issue that has existed

A Glasgow equal pay claimant shares her Unison ballot paper and YES vote on Facebook.    

Signed Sealed  And delivered Yet another Glasgow claimant gets behind a YES vote in the equal pay strike ballot.    

Stefan Cross posted some comments on Facebook in response to the latest 'Council Family' email from Annemarie O'Donnell. I'll be sharing my own thoughts on Annemarie's missive when I get a minute either later today or tomorrow. In the meantime be in no doubt that the Council is rattled by the success of the Claimants' Equal Pay campaign, the trade union strike ballots that are now underway and the prospect of all the outstanding cases returning to the Glasgow Employment Tribunal on 25 September 2018. As ever - actions peak louder than words. SUDDENLY THEY WANT TO COMMUNICATE  By now many of you will have received several emails First, there has been a flurry of cllrs sending letters that are word for word the same as the one from SNP “Ritchie” last week, not that they were coordinated or anything. All the same mistakes and no clearer. And now we have the Word from On High, with the email from the chief executive, Annmarie O’Donnell. This is a good sign as it me

Glasgow's top official, Annemarie O'Donnell, is fond of referring to the 'Council Family' and is always inviting family members to ask her questions about equal pay. So here's one that an enterprising claimant put to Annemarie just the other day - a very fair question, if you ask me, about whether or not the Council's chief executive agrees (with senior elected councillors and the Court of Session) that Glasgow's WPBR pay scheme is 'unfit for purpose'.    Dear Annemarie Thank you for your email dated 28 August 2018. I note the points you have made which go lots of detail without answering directly the question I raised which was: Do you as the Council's chief executive  accept the judgement of the Court of Session that the WPBR is 'unfit for purpose' and that the scheme discriminates against the Council's largely female workforce? I think that Home Carers and other staff are entitled to a straight answer to a straigh