Gleeful old biddies celebrating equal pay for easier work after the inept council brought the city to its knees (in Birmingham’s case)
aredddit on
I wouldn’t want to tar all the claims with the same brush but some of them are utter nonsense. For example, I can fully understand why a bin man would be paid more than someone doing office admin.
Commercial-Silver472 on
Suprised they are happy to show their faces publicly like this after essentially robbing all their neighbours of funding for public services.
Deadliftdeadlife on
Genuinely, why do any of the jobs if they’re paid the same?
Good luck getting bin men now when loads realise the easier more comfortable jobs pay the same
GBParragon on
It’s a hard one…
I don’t think you can compare teaching assistants and Mobile Waste collection and Management technicians (dustmen).
Teaching assistants are really valuable roles, playing a key part in educating our children with a good TA being as valueable as a good teacher, they have generally good working conditions, with teen time contracts, start times that work around child care.
Refuse collection is also vital to society and has generally awful working conditions. Physically demanding, out in all weathers, highly repetitive
chaircardigan on
Am I misunderstanding this?
There are different jobs. Those different jobs get paid different amounts, depending how how physically demanding, dangerous or otherwise unappealing those jobs are.
Some people applied for and accepted jobs that were not very dangerous, physically demanding or otherwise unappealing and got paid for doing them.
But now they are getting back paid as if they applied for and did physically demanding, dangerous and unappealing jobs?
Is that right?
shevbo on
How do you judge that two jobs have equal value…when the jobs are different?
arncl on
At this point I’m genuinely convinced some of you are intentionally misunderstanding this situation to try and stir up hatred.
Nobody is saying that heavy manual jobs shouldn’t be paid more than simpler less manual jobs. Unfortunately, when the various employers set their pay structures, rather than recognising this basic fact, they instead chose to give each job the same basic rate, and then top-up the pay of manual jobs with extra overtime rates and bonuses. This extra money wasn’t available to those with the less manual jobs, despite them – on paper – doing a job of equivalence to the more manual jobs.
The blame here doesn’t sit with these women, they are entitled to ask for fairness under the rules that existed at the time. The blame lies with the employers who wrote the crappy rules to try and cut corners.
inebriatedWeasel on
For me, you have to pay me more to be a TA or a cleaner than a dustman so good on them!
Witty_Entry9120 on
You have to admit – this farce will result in councils fortifying themselves to avoid this happening again.
And no, that doesn’t mean paying everyone the bonus just incase.
xParesh on
They should have a rota of duties so everyone on the same band gets one day to work outside and empty bin while those who were doing the bins get to work in a cosy office. It shouldn’t be a problem for those wanting the equal pay if they consider to the work be to of equal value and effort.
Due-Somewhere-1790 on
The courts decide peoples salaries now instead of employers. We are so fucked.
hellopo9 on
I said this ages ago so i’ve copied an old comment.
The council rated them as equivalent to allow for bonuses based on performance (i.e. completing the route quickly). Driving a dustbin lorry requires an HGV license (the newer staff work to get it over time) which can get you a lot of money elsewhere for better hours and conditions but no bonus pay. It was just an accounting thing done in the 90s to allow for part of the pay to be bonus-based.
But of course, [lawyers](https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/01/stefan-cross-female-pay-birmingham) saw this and realized it was technically discriminatory. The council’s hands were tied and they either had to pay binmen basically minimum wage with no bonuses (Which would mean stikes and eventually no binmen – why work with rubbish when Tescos pays twice as much to drive their trucks). Or pay everyone the bonuses that would mean take-home pay of 35-40k for every cleaner and receptionist in the council. They of course couldn’t change the skill/work grading during the court cases. The council fought and lost, and so had to give backdated bonus pay of over £100,000 to admin assistants and cleaners which has cost the city billions (of which the lawyers get 25%). Not even to mention the council’s legal fees which will be absurdly high. The council is now bankrupt. I think the main lawyer drives Ferraris whilst claiming he’s an equality champion.
I used to live in Brum it was getting a lot of international investment and finally revitalizing itself. I suspect with a bankrupt council a lot of that investment will stop. The city will become poorer, many will lose their jobs. The council has sold off many assets like buildings to giant holding companies (to pay for this mess) which it rents back from them costing them even more. This case isn’t a much-needed win for equal pay, it’s a £multi-billion cash grab pushed by lawyers that will kill a city.
An analogy someone gave to me was teaching bonuses. There is a shortage of physics teachers and not of art and English teachers. There is also a gender imbalance in these jobs. If in order to attract and retain physics teachers a school gave them bonuses (like the ones they get for doing a PGCE) this would be illegal because it’s mostly one gender teaching the subject and it’s graded as the same work as other teachers. If a school did this they’d then have to give retroactive bonuses to every other teacher which would bankrupt the school. Add in a physics teachers strike and threats to leave and the school would feel forced to keep them and fight to pay the bonuses. This then drags out and further bankrupts the school.
Hedgehopper25 on
Obviously a part time school cleaner in a dry warm environment should be paid the same rate as a refuse collector driving an HGV clearing the city’s shite in snow, hail rain and wind.
Practical-Purchase-9 on
So a group largely of women get compo based the authority being cheap on admin, while a group largely of men continue to be underpaid even when it’s publicly recognised their job was always worth more. The women working office jobs haven’t demonstrated they deserve more pay, they’re exploiting a blunder by the authority.
Like the WASPI women looking for a payout for having their heads stuck in the ground about their pensions, it’s not about fairness, just gaming a failure in the system for a payout.
I can see both being used to justify eroding someone’s rights later instead of improving pay and pensions.
Solidus27 on
Repeal this idiotic legislation before more councils go bankrupt
MartyTax on
I’m sure it was the Unions that agreed the deals in the first place…
17 Comments
Gleeful old biddies celebrating equal pay for easier work after the inept council brought the city to its knees (in Birmingham’s case)
I wouldn’t want to tar all the claims with the same brush but some of them are utter nonsense. For example, I can fully understand why a bin man would be paid more than someone doing office admin.
Suprised they are happy to show their faces publicly like this after essentially robbing all their neighbours of funding for public services.
Genuinely, why do any of the jobs if they’re paid the same?
Good luck getting bin men now when loads realise the easier more comfortable jobs pay the same
It’s a hard one…
I don’t think you can compare teaching assistants and Mobile Waste collection and Management technicians (dustmen).
Teaching assistants are really valuable roles, playing a key part in educating our children with a good TA being as valueable as a good teacher, they have generally good working conditions, with teen time contracts, start times that work around child care.
Refuse collection is also vital to society and has generally awful working conditions. Physically demanding, out in all weathers, highly repetitive
Am I misunderstanding this?
There are different jobs. Those different jobs get paid different amounts, depending how how physically demanding, dangerous or otherwise unappealing those jobs are.
Some people applied for and accepted jobs that were not very dangerous, physically demanding or otherwise unappealing and got paid for doing them.
But now they are getting back paid as if they applied for and did physically demanding, dangerous and unappealing jobs?
Is that right?
How do you judge that two jobs have equal value…when the jobs are different?
At this point I’m genuinely convinced some of you are intentionally misunderstanding this situation to try and stir up hatred.
Nobody is saying that heavy manual jobs shouldn’t be paid more than simpler less manual jobs. Unfortunately, when the various employers set their pay structures, rather than recognising this basic fact, they instead chose to give each job the same basic rate, and then top-up the pay of manual jobs with extra overtime rates and bonuses. This extra money wasn’t available to those with the less manual jobs, despite them – on paper – doing a job of equivalence to the more manual jobs.
The blame here doesn’t sit with these women, they are entitled to ask for fairness under the rules that existed at the time. The blame lies with the employers who wrote the crappy rules to try and cut corners.
For me, you have to pay me more to be a TA or a cleaner than a dustman so good on them!
You have to admit – this farce will result in councils fortifying themselves to avoid this happening again.
And no, that doesn’t mean paying everyone the bonus just incase.
They should have a rota of duties so everyone on the same band gets one day to work outside and empty bin while those who were doing the bins get to work in a cosy office. It shouldn’t be a problem for those wanting the equal pay if they consider to the work be to of equal value and effort.
The courts decide peoples salaries now instead of employers. We are so fucked.
I said this ages ago so i’ve copied an old comment.
The council rated them as equivalent to allow for bonuses based on performance (i.e. completing the route quickly). Driving a dustbin lorry requires an HGV license (the newer staff work to get it over time) which can get you a lot of money elsewhere for better hours and conditions but no bonus pay. It was just an accounting thing done in the 90s to allow for part of the pay to be bonus-based.
But of course, [lawyers](https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/01/stefan-cross-female-pay-birmingham) saw this and realized it was technically discriminatory. The council’s hands were tied and they either had to pay binmen basically minimum wage with no bonuses (Which would mean stikes and eventually no binmen – why work with rubbish when Tescos pays twice as much to drive their trucks). Or pay everyone the bonuses that would mean take-home pay of 35-40k for every cleaner and receptionist in the council. They of course couldn’t change the skill/work grading during the court cases. The council fought and lost, and so had to give backdated bonus pay of over £100,000 to admin assistants and cleaners which has cost the city billions (of which the lawyers get 25%). Not even to mention the council’s legal fees which will be absurdly high. The council is now bankrupt. I think the main lawyer drives Ferraris whilst claiming he’s an equality champion.
I used to live in Brum it was getting a lot of international investment and finally revitalizing itself. I suspect with a bankrupt council a lot of that investment will stop. The city will become poorer, many will lose their jobs. The council has sold off many assets like buildings to giant holding companies (to pay for this mess) which it rents back from them costing them even more. This case isn’t a much-needed win for equal pay, it’s a £multi-billion cash grab pushed by lawyers that will kill a city.
An analogy someone gave to me was teaching bonuses. There is a shortage of physics teachers and not of art and English teachers. There is also a gender imbalance in these jobs. If in order to attract and retain physics teachers a school gave them bonuses (like the ones they get for doing a PGCE) this would be illegal because it’s mostly one gender teaching the subject and it’s graded as the same work as other teachers. If a school did this they’d then have to give retroactive bonuses to every other teacher which would bankrupt the school. Add in a physics teachers strike and threats to leave and the school would feel forced to keep them and fight to pay the bonuses. This then drags out and further bankrupts the school.
Obviously a part time school cleaner in a dry warm environment should be paid the same rate as a refuse collector driving an HGV clearing the city’s shite in snow, hail rain and wind.
So a group largely of women get compo based the authority being cheap on admin, while a group largely of men continue to be underpaid even when it’s publicly recognised their job was always worth more. The women working office jobs haven’t demonstrated they deserve more pay, they’re exploiting a blunder by the authority.
Like the WASPI women looking for a payout for having their heads stuck in the ground about their pensions, it’s not about fairness, just gaming a failure in the system for a payout.
I can see both being used to justify eroding someone’s rights later instead of improving pay and pensions.
Repeal this idiotic legislation before more councils go bankrupt
I’m sure it was the Unions that agreed the deals in the first place…