Glasgow - Councillors, MSPs and MPs
Equal pay claimants in Glasgow will be asked to take part in wide range of campaign activities in the weeks ahead, as the GMB and Unison strike ballot get underway and as all the outstanding cases return to the Glasgow Employment Tribunal.
One of the key tasks is for people to contact their local Councillors, MSPs and MPs to ask where they stand on the Council's refusal to negotiate key issues which have still not been addressed after 8 months and 18 separate settlement meetings, e.g. the male comparator jobs to be used in calculating offers of compensation.
Now I know that the response of at least some politicians will be to try and fob such enquiries off with a bog standard reply which just regurgitates the Council's official position - that all is well and a 'deal' will be reached by the end of the year.
But don't be put off by this kind of behaviour and instead use the information on the blog site and from the unions to challenge what these politicians are saying, for example by asking:
- Where do they stand on the WPBR - do they accept that the Council's scheme is 'unfit for purpose' and blatantly discriminatory?
- Where do they stand on the 37 hour rule - do they agree that key part of the WPBR was designed to favour male jobs and disadvantage female dominated jobs?
- What do they have to say about the prospect of industrial action - do they believe the trade unions are just picking a fight or do they accept there is a justified sense of grievance over the way settlement negotiations have been conducted?
Better still ask for a meeting with your local Councillors, MSPs and MPs so that you can discuss these issues face-to-face in a civilised fashion, perhaps over a nice cup of tea or coffee.
One of the best known Glasgow claimants (Frances S) has already sprung into action with the following email to the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, which is a great example of how to proceed.
Hi Nicola
Can myself and a couple of my work colleagues have a meeting with you regarding our equal pay as GCC have left us no option but to come out on strike they have had 18 meetings with our representatives and not one thing has been negotiated yet.
We feel this has been going on long enough now and just want it resolved, that was another one of our colleges young woman at 51 that has passed away waiting on her payout how many more of us will have passed away waiting on our claim getting settled.
Thanks
Frances
Thanks
Frances
So be friendly, reasonable and on your best behaviour at all times - ask for a meeting with other local claimants (i.e. friends or co-workers) who live in the same area and make the case that Glasgow City Council can't go on in this fashion.
Because the senior officials who have been defending the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme for years are the same senior officials who are now leading the settlement talks on the Council's behalf which is why, after 8 months and 18 separate meetings, serious negotiations have still not got off the ground.
Glasgow, Chief Execs and Cockatoos (08/04/18)
Glasgow's chief executive, Annemarie O'Donnell, has been 'parroting' the same old nonsense for weeks about the City Council's discredited WPBR pay arrangements, making the laughable claim that:
"acting in good faith, officers and the council sought to put in place arrangements which they believed removed discrimination from the council’s pay arrangements."
Now this is nonsense on stilts, if you ask me.
Because no one can argue, while keeping a straight face at least, that the WPBR's cockamamy '37 hour rule' was not deliberately designed to 'disadvantage' the City Council's largely female workforce, the vast majority of whom are (surprise, surprise) contracted to work for less than 37 hours a week.
It's as plain as the nose on your face and as Judge Judy would say:
"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true."
In my view, it is simply ridiculous that Scotland highest paid local government official should be defending this indefensible nonsense (see post below dated 22 March 2018).
In fact, it's about as crazy as this Cockatoo getting all shook up to Elvis Presley and 'Don't Be Cruel' - though not quite as funny, I have to admit.
So I hereby challenge Annemarie to a public debate where she can defend her claim that the WPBR was put in place 'in good faith' - because it's high time the City Council's senior officials were put on the spot to explain their actions.
Glasgow - Equal Pay Update (22/03/18)
Now I am quite astonished, I have too say, that such a poor letter can be written by the highest paid local government official in the whole of Scotland (more on this issue to follow soon).
So I have pasted a copy of the original letter on the blog, first of all, followed by a second version into which I have inserted my own comments in bold (setting the record straight) where Annemarie O'Donnell is putting forward a point of view that needs to be challenged.
Dear XXXX,
EQUAL PAY FOR GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL WORKERS
Thank you for writing to me about the current Equal Pay negotiations and specifically the future of the current WPBR pay and grading scheme.
I’m afraid that I cannot agree with you that there is a lack of progress being made. These are extremely complex discussions and it was the claimants’ representatives who took the view that a year would be required to resolve issues. This was based on their experience of similar negotiations with other councils in Scotland and across the UK. Senior officers are meeting the claimants’ representatives every fortnight and progress is being made. In particular the council is developing an approach to the processing of payments for pay protection.
Turning to your view that the WPBR requires to be replaced with the Red Book Scheme, I can advise you that the meeting of officers and claimant representatives, last week, agreed to set up a separate work stream to review the current scheme and take whatever action is necessary, based on that review. The working group is composed of council officers but also representatives of the trade unions whose members would be affected by any new or substantially revised pay and grading scheme, together with a representative of A4E (Action for Equality).
I believe that we must give the working group the space to do their work and then consider their recommendations when these are presented.
In terms of your request that the council should offer an apology, that implies that senior officers and the council at the time consciously set out to discriminate against female workers. I simply do not accept that. Instead I believe that acting in good faith, officers and the council sought to put in place arrangements which they believed removed discrimination from the council’s pay arrangements. If through the ongoing discussion and analysis that benefit is found to be erroneous the council is fully prepared to take steps to rectify this.
Yours sincerely,
ANNEMARIE O’DONNELL CHIEF EXECUTIVE
cc Robert Anderson, Executive HR Manager
Chief Executive
Annemarie O’Donnell LLB DipLP
Chief Executive’s Office
Glasgow City Council
City Chambers
George Square
Glasgow G2 1DU
Email: annemarie.odonnell@glasgow.gov.uk
Dear Xxxxxx,
EQUAL PAY FOR GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL WORKERS
Thank you for writing to me about the current Equal Pay negotiations and specifically the future of the current WPBR pay and grading scheme.
I’m afraid that I cannot agree with you that there is a lack of progress being made. These are extremely complex discussions and it was the claimants’ representatives who took the view that a year would be required to resolve issues. This was based on their experience of similar negotiations with other councils in Scotland and across the UK. Senior officers are meeting the claimants’ representatives every fortnight and progress is being made. In particular the council is developing an approach to the processing of payments for pay protection.
1) According to the latest update posted by Stefan Cross "no real negotiations yet. We've not even received a considered response to our protection period figures which we presented to the council in January."
2) The claimants' representatives have never suggested that settlement negotiations will take a year - a point which has been made repeatedly to councillors and council officials
3) GCC officials have previously threatened to 'impose' a payment for the protection period which the claimants' representatives have warned the council against - a piecemeal settlement is simply not acceptable after all this time.
Turning to your view that the WPBR requires to be replaced with the Red Book Scheme, I can advise you that the meeting of officers and claimant representatives, last week, agreed to set up a separate work stream to review the current scheme and take whatever action is necessary, based on that review. The working group is composed of council officers but also representatives of the trade unions whose members would be affected by any new or substantially revised pay and grading scheme, together with a representative of A4E (Action for Equality).
4) GCC officials insisted on removing the words 'replace the WPBR' from the Terms of Reference of the Working Group.
5) In reality the senior council officials who have been defending the WPBR for years are trying desperately to retain the scheme or elements of the scheme - despite the WPBR being condemned as 'unfit for purpose' by the Court of Session, the highest civil court in Scotland.
I believe that we must give the working group the space to do their work and then consider their recommendations when these are presented.
6) Significantly, no clear timescale is given for the working group to complete its task or present its recommendations.
In terms of your request that the council should offer an apology, that implies that senior officers and the council at the time consciously set out to discriminate against female workers. I simply do not accept that. Instead I believe that acting in good faith, officers and the council sought to put in place arrangements which they believed removed discrimination from the council’s pay arrangements. If through the ongoing discussion and analysis that benefit is found to be erroneous the council is fully prepared to take steps to rectify this.
7) The WPBR has been deliberately designed to favour traditional male jobs - hence the blatantly discriminatory 37 hour 'rule' which treats women workers as second class citizens and punishes the council's largely female workforce.
8) The cockamamy 'rules' of the WPBR were drawn up by an external consultant working in association with and under the direction of senior council officials who now say they cannot find the WPBR's original Terms of Reference.
9) How could any knowledgeable person (never mind the highest paid council official in Scotland) believe that the introduction of a 37 hour 'rule' under the WPBR was intended to 'remove discrimination from the council's pay arrangements' in 2007?
10) The Court of Session's 'unfit for purpose' decision speaks volumes about the poor judgment of the senior officials in Glasgow who introduced the WPBR pay scheme and who fought tooth and nail to defend its operation for 10 long years.
Yours sincerely,
ANNEMARIE O’DONNELL CHIEF EXECUTIVE
cc Robert Anderson, Executive HR Manager
