Glasgow - Equal Pay Update

A real head of steam is building up amongst the equal pay claimants in Glasgow and the reason, in my view, is that people have lost all confidence in the Council's senior officials.

The handling of equal pay in Glasgow is a major national scandal though you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise as the council carries on as if it's still 'business as usual'.

And it's not just the cost involved, but the way in which senior officials in rejected the nationally recommended 'Gauge' job evaluation scheme and went on to introduce an untried, untested WPBR pay scheme which was later judged to be 'unfit for purpose' by the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.

The same group of chief officials now claim that this was done in good faith and that the blatantly discriminatory 37 hour 'rule', for example, was not designed to disadvantage the thousands of female dominated jobs which make up the majority of the Council's workforce.

No one has been held to account for this scandal: no one has apologised, no one has resigned and the affair has been allowed to drag on for so long that GCC employees are dying on a regular basis waiting for their claims to be settled.

Yet the senior officials who created this mess and who defended the WPBR 'tooth and nail' for 10 years are still representing the council's interests, while showing no sign of being any less arrogant than in 2005/06/07 when they trampled all over the employment rights of Glasgow's lowest paid workers.

If you ask me, it makes about as much sense as putting Count Dracula in charge of the local blood bank.

  

I think it is time for us to discuss balloting for strike action now as we have waited long enough for them to start negotiating with our representatives.

We will give them up until the end of April to see if we get this meeting as promised once again with Susan and if not I will organise a meeting for us in the Dixon Halls and invite our unions to discuss strike action as at this rate god knows when we will get settled x

F

Totally agree the council aren’t wanting to pay us our money anytime soon more excuses 😡

G

Totally agree disgrace council is shocking. People need that money and their wages sorted xxxx

M

Sounds like a good plan Frances can’t go on any longer xx

T

Yes I’m in 👏👏👏

J

Defo -  there you go with the article this morning they are defo no intention of paying us out anytime soon because they are more concerned about having no staff instead of giving us what we are due to keep the staff they have yip strike it is 👏🏼

L

Count me in too

M

Here here

D

I'm for it - their just holding back x

S

Agree F how many have to die waiting xx

L

Exactly - we've all just had enough now x

F

I agree but not with company any more I took not well when working for cordia health deteriorated but back you all the way 

T

Totally agree xxx

M

Totally agree we really have to do something that's definitely a plan that we'd need to stick with xManage
J

Just hope it comes off this time n we don't listen to false promises again x

F

Definitely we have gave them long enough needs 2 be strike for them 2 take notice x

R

Well said - think gcc r trying to wangle out off paying us xxx

P

Well said - taking the piss strike only way

R

Agree it needs to be done 🤔

M

Totally agree time to strike xx

H

I’m all for that if they don’t give us what we want we need to ballot for strike action enough is enough time to take action !

E


Am in x

M

I totally agree time to strike x

A

Total agree time to strike x

F

Why wait till April you have to give 90?? days notice to strike so why not start the action now so wen IF you get the meeting in April they know we not just sitting waiting on them yet again

P

Exactly - why wait till April x

R

Next meeting is the 12th April at Unison office bell st .

T

100% maybe if they see we are willing to strike they might move there fat arses feel like a f***kin begger waiting on OUR own money

L

Yep agree 👍x

L

Definitely x

M

Agreed

R

Definitely agree

P

I’m in F x

A

Totally agree

C

Totally agree

L

Totally agree Francis Enough is Enough Im 100% for strike xxx

N

Yes I agree

L

AGREE 👍👍👍

S

Definitely agree xx

K

To have everyone at meeting it should be Bell St demanding a ballot

T

Precisely, it’s alright sitting typing “let’s strike “ the only way to get the message across IF you’re serious is to show face xManage

C

Aye most can’t even come to the meetings was talking to billy today about it and his words were if enough turn up and ask for ballot then ballot it is.. But it’s Bell st the meeting are held not Dixon halls x

T

Total agree

L

Totally agree xx

C

We need to make sure as many people as possible turn up for this meeting if it goes ahead Frances Mowat Stojilkovic It’s alright everyone commenting and agreeing to it via this page , but IF it’s going to happen then EVERYONE has to turn up at the meet...

C

Definitely Claire 👍

M

 I agree time to strike x

T

Agree 100%

E

Agree 100%

L

Can we not ballot now x. Give notice

R

Agree need to get meeting in bell street for meeting strike strike

A

Need meeting in bell street demanding a Ballot xx

A

About time as you said had long enough 👍x

T

Totally agree ppl getting really pissed off now can it not get brought up at the meeting this sunday

M

We need to get everone to Bell street for a meeting xx

A

I wouldn’t even give them to end of April - its all talk nothing going to change you know it and so do we all it’s ridiculous now it’s been out of court long enough 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡strike all the way !!!!!!!!

K

Its beyond a joke now
Its time for action after all what is it they say Action speaks louder than words

E

Thank God it's the only way 😠

S

Totally agree x

A

Should have done it before now

S

Am up for that 👍

B

Strike all the way NOW

J

Glasgow - Equal Pay Update (22/03/18)

Here's the letter I mentioned on the blog yesterday from Glasgow City Council's chief executive Annemarie O'Donnell.

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