Equal Pay and Facebook Warriors
A number of readers have asked me to say more about the 'Facebook warriors' who claim they are going to sue the trade unions in Glasgow City Council over their role in the long running equal pay dispute.
Now the first thing to explain is that the situation in Glasgow is very different to what happened in South Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire councils.
In South Lanarkshire it is true to say that the local Unison branch played a very negative role and actively discouraged union members from pursuing equal pay claims against the Council.
At another long-running Employment Tribunal, A4ES began to pull apart the Council's job evaluation scheme (JES) and over time it became clear we were going to succeed with our claim that South Lanarkshire's pay arrangements were discriminatory.
Seeing the writing on the wall, the unions changed their position and started to advise members to protect their interests by registering individual equal pay claims, but A4ES did all 'heavy lifting' and we were completely on our own when it came to challenging and overturning the Council's JES.
For example, I gave evidence (in 2012) in support of the SLC equal pay Claimants at the crucial Employment Tribunal hearing in Glasgow whereas the Unison branch secretary, Stephen Smellie (pronounced Smiley not Smelly) was called as a Management Side witness.
South Lanarkshire finally conceded defeat in 2014 after losing a landmark case in the UK Supreme Court which ruled in my favour over a Freedom of Information (FoI) request about the Council's previously 'highly secretive' pay arrangements.
A4ES also led the challenge to North Lanarkshire's pay scheme, but by this time the unions had learned their lesson and joined A4ES in the legal battle at the Employment Tribunal, which resulted in another major equal pay settlement in 2015.
Now it is also fair to say that the GMB's position in North Lanarkshire was compromised by a decision to restrict its members claims to the 'protection period' only which led to the union's lawyers being sacked and the GMB's regional secretary in Scotland being replaced.
But the 'new broom' brought in by the GMB to handle the North Lanarkshire crisis managed to turn things around by confronting the difficult issues head on, instead of just sweeping them under the carpet.
In Glasgow the problem was resolved via the single table settlement negotiations because A4ES, GMB, Unison and Unite all agreed to the principle of 'parity' which meant that all Claimants would be treated the same way.
The operative word being 'Claimants' because just like very other equal pay settlement in Scotland (or England for that matter) only employees who had registered an equal pay claim with the Employment Tribunals stood to benefit from the settlement negotiations - union members and a non-union members alike.
The issue now is whether the trade unions had a legal duty to ensure that every member understood the importance of registering individual equal pay claims to protect their interests which I doubt will hold up because of the old proverb 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.
As regular readers know, I have been campaigning on these issues for years - 'shouting from the rooftops' on an almost daily basis from my blog site in addition to all the equal pay publicity in the press and media highlighting A4ES and our achievements in a long list of Scottish councils, as well as at the Court of Session and the UK Supreme Court.
If you ask me, this explains why A4ES is the largest claimant organisation in Glasgow, by far - it's because of our high public profile and track record of success going all the way back to 2005 when A4ES first arrived on the scene and began explaining the big pay differences between male and female dominated council jobs.
So while I can understand the disappointment of people who failed to register an equal pay claim until very late in the day, I suspect it will be difficult for anyone to argue convincingly that the fight for equal pay completely passed them by.
In reality thousands of GCC employees got the message and it's pretty obvious that a big section of the workforce did so, otherwise A4ES would not be in the position we find ourselves in today.
Incredibly, there are still some who have still not registered an equal pay claim (I've received several in the past few days), but to blame this on someone else is stretching the limits of credulity and I suspect the reason most people failed to act is that they thought the Claimants would not succeed - until August 2017 when the Court of Session declared Glasgow's WPBR pay scheme to be 'unfit for purpose'.
The unions can speak for themselves and will do so, but my main concern is that these 'Facebook warriors' are trying to spread division by criticising the Claimants and slagging off the Glasgow settlement which A4ES and others worked so hard, for so long, to achieve.
Out of Control (21/06/19)
Anyone who is dumb enough to say, in public, on social media:
"To be honest I don't give a fuck about professionalism"
Has a big problem if you ask me and is drawing attention to the fact that they cannot control themselves.
For some reason I keep receiving infantile messages from these 'Facebook chancers' who tell me that they want to be taken seriously.
Yet they keep slagging off the Glasgow Claimants for accepting equal pay settlements which have been the subject of a fierce battle, both in and out of court, for the past 12 years.
Here's another of their dumb Facebook comments:
"I would never take any settlement knowing my friends and colleagues were only getting 5 years money and £17,000 if they were lucky."
Now I have no idea what would drive someone to speak in such an arrogant and condescending manner, but it's embarrassing and unprofessional for sure.
The Facebook 'chancers' from DM Legal appear to be in full scale retreat after having so much to say about Glasgow's long fight for equal pay in recent days.
Instead, they now readily admit that these 'late arrivals' on the equal pay scene have played no role in the 12-year long battle to knock over the City Council's 'unfit for purpose WPBR - nor are they involved in developing a new, non-discriminatory job evaluation scheme (JES).
Yet that hasn't stopped them from having the bare-faced cheek to criticise the Claimants and their representatives (including A4ES) for negotiating an historic settlement agreement in Glasgow.
Here's a reminder of what the Facebook 'chancers' have been saying recently:
"I would never take any settlement knowing my friends and colleagues were only getting 5 years money and £17,000 if they were lucky."
"No morals to stand in fake solidarity then when it comes to the crunch take the money"
"Shocking distribution of public funds!!!..this £500 million is given out like a lottery.
I thought I would share some more of the more unhinged comments on social media about the Glasgow equal pay settlement - along with my own observations which are in bold.
"I got an anonymous email to say a group of workers at a Glasgow school got £180,000 each!!!!"
Complete fantasy - never happened
"Are you unhappy with the Glasgow Equal Pay Settlement Offer?
I'm afraid that's confidential and none of your business.
"We are not suing the unions over the 5 year rule!!!!!!"
In which case what are you doing?
"I would never take any settlement knowing my friends and colleagues were only getting 5 years money and £17,000 if they were lucky."
Imagine having the arrogance and ignorance to criticise Claimants for accepting settlement offers after their 12-year long fight.
"No morals to stand in fake solidarity then when it comes to the crunch take the money"
Stop slagging off people who've been fighting for equal pay for years - without any help from the likes of you!
"Listen I don't need to explain my business model to the likes of you..."
I think it's fair to ask why you require £100 up front and charge 20% plus VAT (ie 24%) of any settlement.
"To be honest I don't give a fuck about professionalism"
Sadly, this is all too obvious to anyone reading your comments on social media.
Far from being the 'lucky ones' the Glasgow Claimants are finally getting what they've been fighting for - a fair settlement of their equal pay claims up to 2018.
The 'new arrivals' on the scene have contributed nothing to this fight up until now - and are not involved in the development of a new job evaluation scheme to replace the WPBR.
The good old Glasgow word 'chancers' springs to mind, as a fair description of what's been going on, so here's a bottle of Brasso to go with their brass neck.
Here's a sample of what these 'no nothing' critics have been claiming in recent days:
Yet they keep slagging off the Glasgow Claimants for accepting equal pay settlements which have been the subject of a fierce battle, both in and out of court, for the past 12 years.
Here's another of their dumb Facebook comments:
"I would never take any settlement knowing my friends and colleagues were only getting 5 years money and £17,000 if they were lucky."
Now I have no idea what would drive someone to speak in such an arrogant and condescending manner, but it's embarrassing and unprofessional for sure.
Barking Up The Wrong Tree (19/06/19)
The Facebook 'chancers' from DM Legal appear to be in full scale retreat after having so much to say about Glasgow's long fight for equal pay in recent days.
Instead, they now readily admit that these 'late arrivals' on the equal pay scene have played no role in the 12-year long battle to knock over the City Council's 'unfit for purpose WPBR - nor are they involved in developing a new, non-discriminatory job evaluation scheme (JES).
Yet that hasn't stopped them from having the bare-faced cheek to criticise the Claimants and their representatives (including A4ES) for negotiating an historic settlement agreement in Glasgow.
Here's a reminder of what the Facebook 'chancers' have been saying recently:
"I would never take any settlement knowing my friends and colleagues were only getting 5 years money and £17,000 if they were lucky."
"No morals to stand in fake solidarity then when it comes to the crunch take the money"
"Shocking distribution of public funds!!!..this £500 million is given out like a lottery.
"I am pleased for you all getting £500 million but it should have been split amongst ALL the Glasgow workers not just the lucky ones"
"Shocking!!!....let's take £500 million pounds and give some people over £120,000 then others get £17,000"
"the distribution of the £500 million settlement deal has been shocking!!!!"
In other words, if these social media warriors had their way there would be no equal pay settlement in Glasgow which is barking mad, if you ask me.
Siren Calls - Robbing Peter to Pay Paul (3)
I thought I would share some more of the more unhinged comments on social media about the Glasgow equal pay settlement - along with my own observations which are in bold.
"I got an anonymous email to say a group of workers at a Glasgow school got £180,000 each!!!!"
Complete fantasy - never happened
"Are you unhappy with the Glasgow Equal Pay Settlement Offer?
I'm afraid that's confidential and none of your business.
In which case what are you doing?
"I would never take any settlement knowing my friends and colleagues were only getting 5 years money and £17,000 if they were lucky."
Imagine having the arrogance and ignorance to criticise Claimants for accepting settlement offers after their 12-year long fight.
"No morals to stand in fake solidarity then when it comes to the crunch take the money"
Stop slagging off people who've been fighting for equal pay for years - without any help from the likes of you!
"Listen I don't need to explain my business model to the likes of you..."
I think it's fair to ask why you require £100 up front and charge 20% plus VAT (ie 24%) of any settlement.
"To be honest I don't give a fuck about professionalism"
Sadly, this is all too obvious to anyone reading your comments on social media.
Far from being the 'lucky ones' the Glasgow Claimants are finally getting what they've been fighting for - a fair settlement of their equal pay claims up to 2018.
The 'new arrivals' on the scene have contributed nothing to this fight up until now - and are not involved in the development of a new job evaluation scheme to replace the WPBR.
The good old Glasgow word 'chancers' springs to mind, as a fair description of what's been going on, so here's a bottle of Brasso to go with their brass neck.
Siren Calls - Robbing Peter To Pay Paul 2 (13/06/19)
I know lots of people were shocked by yesterday's post about, but what's even more shocking is the language and behaviour of these 'new faces' on social media.
Here's a sample of what these 'no nothing' critics have been claiming in recent days:
"Shocking distribution of public funds!!!..this £500 million is given out like a lottery.
"I am pleased for you all getting £500 million but it should have been split amongst ALL the Glasgow workers not just the lucky ones"
Here are a few of the readers' comments I've received in response to yesterday's post about 'Siren Calls and Noises Off'.
Well said Mark and A4ES xx
T
It's really shameful to try and divide the workforce with the suggestion that some Glasgow Claimants are benefiting at the expense of others.
A
Go A4ES great advice xxxx
H
The Claimants know A4ES has been on their side from Day 1 of this fight
R
Now the 'new faces' that have arrived on the scene in Glasgow know nothing of the agreement reached with the City Council because they were not involved in the 13 month long settlement negotiations - nor in the 10 year court battle which finally brought down the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme.
Yet they snipe from the sidelines by suggesting that many Claimants are receiving much more than they're due while others are receiving much less.
Which is not only ill-informed and poisonous - it's a load of old baloney from start to finish because the unspoken message is all about 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.
I've been catching up with the claims being made on Facebook that the trade unions in Glasgow are to be sued for negligence over their handling of certain members' equal pay claims.
Now who this may affect and what the basis of any action might be has never been explained and, so far at least, the 'discussion' has focused on wild stories, anonymous claims and ill-informed speculation.
So if I were a Glasgow Claimant attracted by this offer of help, I would ask some pointed questions such as:
1) What is the basis of any claim for negligence against my trade union and how do you assess my chances of success?
2) Have you previously made similar claims for negligence in the past, have any of these claims been successful and can you kindly share the details?
3) Are you advising me not to accept my offer of settlement with Glasgow City Council?
4) Are you prepared to indemnify and compensate me if the amount recovered by your organisation is worth less than my current offer of settlement from Glasgow City Council?
5) How long do you estimate the legal process will take and how do you justify such a high success fee of 20% plus VAT (or 24%) of any future settlement?
6) Will your advice be issued to me in writing?
7) Will this advice be issued by a fully qualified solicitor who is recognised by the Law Society of Scotland?
The reason I would ask these questions is that Action 4 Equality Scotland (A4ES) and Stefan Cross have been here before and I think it's fair to say that the position in Glasgow in 2019 is very different to what has gone in the past.
The recent settlement agreement reached with Glasgow City Council has been led by Stefan Cross and A4ES - and is not part of some old-fashioned, union stitch-up.
Sadly, it's not unusual for other organisations to turn up late in the day when all the 'heavy lifting' over equal pay has been done - claiming they will do a better job.
The thing that needs to be challenged, however, is the poisonous message criticising the agreement which has been reached and tries to sow disunity by setting one group of Claimants against another.
Because that really is a load of old baloney.
"I'm hearing some workers got £120,000...are your fu*king kidding me!!!!! The Glasgow unions should be hanging their heads in shame!"
"Shocking!!!....let's take £500 million pounds and give some people over £120,000 then others get £17,000"
"the distribution of the £500 million settlement deal has been shocking!!!!"
"To be honest I don't give a fuck about professionalism"
Now as I said the other day the individuals making these wild statements damn themselves with their own words - because they are just trying to stoke jealously and resentment.
Whereas the reality is that the settlement in Glasgow is based on the length of people's equal pay claims, the jobs they do (or did) and their hours work - which is what has happened in every other council in Scotland.
So the Glasgow Claimants are not 'lucky' - they're finally getting what they've been fighting for which lots of them have been doing for over 12 years.
So the Glasgow Claimants are not 'lucky' - they're finally getting what they've been fighting for which lots of them have been doing for over 12 years.
As regular readers know, Action 4 Equality Scotland is the largest Claimant organisation, by far, and has taken the lead in settlement negotiations - having led the fight for equal pay in Glasgow from Day One.
Siren Calls - Robbing Peter to Pay Paul (12/06/19)
Here are a few of the readers' comments I've received in response to yesterday's post about 'Siren Calls and Noises Off'.
Well said Mark and A4ES xx
T
It's really shameful to try and divide the workforce with the suggestion that some Glasgow Claimants are benefiting at the expense of others.
A
Go A4ES great advice xxxx
H
The Claimants know A4ES has been on their side from Day 1 of this fight
R
Now the 'new faces' that have arrived on the scene in Glasgow know nothing of the agreement reached with the City Council because they were not involved in the 13 month long settlement negotiations - nor in the 10 year court battle which finally brought down the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme.
Yet they snipe from the sidelines by suggesting that many Claimants are receiving much more than they're due while others are receiving much less.
Which is not only ill-informed and poisonous - it's a load of old baloney from start to finish because the unspoken message is all about 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.
Siren Calls and Noises Off (11/06/19)
I've been catching up with the claims being made on Facebook that the trade unions in Glasgow are to be sued for negligence over their handling of certain members' equal pay claims.
Now who this may affect and what the basis of any action might be has never been explained and, so far at least, the 'discussion' has focused on wild stories, anonymous claims and ill-informed speculation.
So if I were a Glasgow Claimant attracted by this offer of help, I would ask some pointed questions such as:
1) What is the basis of any claim for negligence against my trade union and how do you assess my chances of success?
2) Have you previously made similar claims for negligence in the past, have any of these claims been successful and can you kindly share the details?
3) Are you advising me not to accept my offer of settlement with Glasgow City Council?
4) Are you prepared to indemnify and compensate me if the amount recovered by your organisation is worth less than my current offer of settlement from Glasgow City Council?
5) How long do you estimate the legal process will take and how do you justify such a high success fee of 20% plus VAT (or 24%) of any future settlement?
6) Will your advice be issued to me in writing?
7) Will this advice be issued by a fully qualified solicitor who is recognised by the Law Society of Scotland?
The reason I would ask these questions is that Action 4 Equality Scotland (A4ES) and Stefan Cross have been here before and I think it's fair to say that the position in Glasgow in 2019 is very different to what has gone in the past.
The recent settlement agreement reached with Glasgow City Council has been led by Stefan Cross and A4ES - and is not part of some old-fashioned, union stitch-up.
Sadly, it's not unusual for other organisations to turn up late in the day when all the 'heavy lifting' over equal pay has been done - claiming they will do a better job.
The thing that needs to be challenged, however, is the poisonous message criticising the agreement which has been reached and tries to sow disunity by setting one group of Claimants against another.
Because that really is a load of old baloney.
