A very Merry Christmas to all of our readers at Action 4 Equality Scotland - and all very the best to you and yours for 2010!
We will be taking a few days off - along with most other people at this festive time of the year.
But if you have any urgent queries or problems - or any useful information to pass on - please drop Mark Irvine a note at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Normal service will be resumed in the New Year.
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
South Lanarkshire - Union Advice
A reader from South Lanarkshire has been in touch - regarding new advice on equal pay from the trade unions.
Apparently, the unions are having second thoughts about their advice to members.
Up till now the unions in South Lanarkshire have advised members not to pursue equal pay claims to the Employment Tribunals - and, so far, the unions have not brought a single case.
The logic of the unions position is not entirely clear - but what is clear is that this is a very risky strategy.
Because if the unions end up making the wrong call - which they have on other issues, of course - it's ordinary members who will lose out, big time.
And that's making the trade unions very nervous.
Because the unions could end up being sued by their own members in South Lanarkshire - if the advice they've given proves to be negligent.
Hence, the reports about the unions suddenly changing their tune - and going back on their previous advice.
If you have any useful information to pass on, drop Mark Irvine a note at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Apparently, the unions are having second thoughts about their advice to members.
Up till now the unions in South Lanarkshire have advised members not to pursue equal pay claims to the Employment Tribunals - and, so far, the unions have not brought a single case.
The logic of the unions position is not entirely clear - but what is clear is that this is a very risky strategy.
Because if the unions end up making the wrong call - which they have on other issues, of course - it's ordinary members who will lose out, big time.
And that's making the trade unions very nervous.
Because the unions could end up being sued by their own members in South Lanarkshire - if the advice they've given proves to be negligent.
Hence, the reports about the unions suddenly changing their tune - and going back on their previous advice.
If you have any useful information to pass on, drop Mark Irvine a note at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Management Meetings
A relatively small number of readers from North Lanarkshire Council have been in touch - over meetings they have been asked to attend with local managers - to 'discuss' their equal pay claims.
Apparently, these meetings are being arranged at short notice - and the purpose of the meeting is not being made clear in advance - which is all rather odd.
Whilst people may understandably be a bit unnerved at such goings on - there's no need to get upset or worried.
If you are asked to attend such a meeting - by all means go along.
You are, of course, not obliged to say anything - so just listen politely.
Most importantly - don't agree to or sign anything - without taking proper advice.
Might also be wise to make a brief note of who is present and what is said - and keep this safe for future reference, if necessary.
If you are anxious at all about these meetings, drop Mark Irvine a note at:
markirvine@compuserve.com
Apparently, these meetings are being arranged at short notice - and the purpose of the meeting is not being made clear in advance - which is all rather odd.
Whilst people may understandably be a bit unnerved at such goings on - there's no need to get upset or worried.
If you are asked to attend such a meeting - by all means go along.
You are, of course, not obliged to say anything - so just listen politely.
Most importantly - don't agree to or sign anything - without taking proper advice.
Might also be wise to make a brief note of who is present and what is said - and keep this safe for future reference, if necessary.
If you are anxious at all about these meetings, drop Mark Irvine a note at:
markirvine@compuserve.com
Monday, 21 December 2009
Lording It Up
Yesterday's Scotland on Sunday shone a light on the expenses claimed by our politicians - this time on the House of Lords. Read the full article on-line at: www.scotsman.com - but here's a brief summary of what the newspaper had to say:
"Lord Foulkes, the only MSP who is also a peer, has been criticised for claiming almost £44,000 in House of Lords expenses in 2008-9.
Foulkes, Labour MSP for the Lothians, claimed an average of £635 for each of the 69 days that he attended the Lords in the most recent financial year. According to figures recently released by the Westminster authorities, he claimed:
£17,823 in overnight subsistence
£5,684 in day subsistence
£9,052 in office costs
£69 for postage
£11,249 in travel expenses.
The expenses are in addition to the £55,000 salary he draws for being a list MSP.
Under the Holyrood expenses system, he claimed £3,656 – making him one of the lowest claimants at the Scottish Parliament.
Foulkes has long argued politicians should be well rewarded and once said that an MP's salary of £64,000 was "ridiculously low".
When defending politicians' pay, he famously got the BBC news presenter Carrie Gracie to disclose she earned £92,000.
He has also been criticised for attempting to do two jobs at the same time.
But Foulkes defended his expenses claim, pointing out that he did important work on the Lords' Intelligence and Security Committee.
The Lords expenses were published this month and also revealed that Lord Watson of Invergowrie, who was convicted of fire-raising, claimed more than £44,000.
Watson was drunk when he set fire to curtains in Prestonfield House in 2004 and claimed he had no memory of the incident. The damage cost £4,500 to repair. He was unavailable for comment."
Now these claims must be within the rules - but why do they cost so much?
Lord Foulkes spent 69 days at the House of Lords last year - at a cost to the tax payer of £17,823 or £258 per night - plus another £5,684 or £82 per day in daily subsistence.
£82 a day in expenses - in your hand - is more than most council employees earn for a full day's work.
"Lord Foulkes, the only MSP who is also a peer, has been criticised for claiming almost £44,000 in House of Lords expenses in 2008-9.
Foulkes, Labour MSP for the Lothians, claimed an average of £635 for each of the 69 days that he attended the Lords in the most recent financial year. According to figures recently released by the Westminster authorities, he claimed:
£17,823 in overnight subsistence
£5,684 in day subsistence
£9,052 in office costs
£69 for postage
£11,249 in travel expenses.
The expenses are in addition to the £55,000 salary he draws for being a list MSP.
Under the Holyrood expenses system, he claimed £3,656 – making him one of the lowest claimants at the Scottish Parliament.
Foulkes has long argued politicians should be well rewarded and once said that an MP's salary of £64,000 was "ridiculously low".
When defending politicians' pay, he famously got the BBC news presenter Carrie Gracie to disclose she earned £92,000.
He has also been criticised for attempting to do two jobs at the same time.
But Foulkes defended his expenses claim, pointing out that he did important work on the Lords' Intelligence and Security Committee.
The Lords expenses were published this month and also revealed that Lord Watson of Invergowrie, who was convicted of fire-raising, claimed more than £44,000.
Watson was drunk when he set fire to curtains in Prestonfield House in 2004 and claimed he had no memory of the incident. The damage cost £4,500 to repair. He was unavailable for comment."
Now these claims must be within the rules - but why do they cost so much?
Lord Foulkes spent 69 days at the House of Lords last year - at a cost to the tax payer of £17,823 or £258 per night - plus another £5,684 or £82 per day in daily subsistence.
£82 a day in expenses - in your hand - is more than most council employees earn for a full day's work.
Friday, 18 December 2009
Still Crazy After All These Years
A question readers frequently ask is: "Why are the employers able to treat the trade unions with such disdain.
The answer is that from time to time - but far too often - the unions give the impression that the lunatics have taken over the asylum - that there are no union leaders prepared to take responsibility - and call a spade a spade.
Take the recent debacle over this year's the union pay claim for Scottish council workers - they are demanding a 3% increase - at a time when the country, economically speaking, is on its knees.
The employers response was strangely muted - unsure whether to laugh or cry.
The logic of the union 3% pay demand is that they rejected a three-year pay offer recently - the third year of which (if they had accepted it at the time) would have delivered a 2.5% rise.
But they didn't - they miscalculated on which way inflation and the economy would head - so now they're asking for even more: 3%.
At times like this, you can see why the employers look at the unions in complete bafflement at times - as if to ask: "Which planet are you living on?"
Other groups of workers did accept longer-term pay deals - when they were on offer - but they made the right call at the right time.
Imagine the fury of the unions if the employers tried to revisit these pay agreements - made in good faith - because it's akin to changing the rules once the game is over - and in reality just a bad case of sour grapes.
So, the unions are on a hiding to nothing - all this 3% business is just a smokescreen to cover up for their poor judgment previously - a bit of ritual chest-beating to impress the more gullible members.
Yet, it's ordinary members who pay the price - when union leaders make the wrong call - just look at their track record over single status and equal pay.
The answer is that from time to time - but far too often - the unions give the impression that the lunatics have taken over the asylum - that there are no union leaders prepared to take responsibility - and call a spade a spade.
Take the recent debacle over this year's the union pay claim for Scottish council workers - they are demanding a 3% increase - at a time when the country, economically speaking, is on its knees.
The employers response was strangely muted - unsure whether to laugh or cry.
The logic of the union 3% pay demand is that they rejected a three-year pay offer recently - the third year of which (if they had accepted it at the time) would have delivered a 2.5% rise.
But they didn't - they miscalculated on which way inflation and the economy would head - so now they're asking for even more: 3%.
At times like this, you can see why the employers look at the unions in complete bafflement at times - as if to ask: "Which planet are you living on?"
Other groups of workers did accept longer-term pay deals - when they were on offer - but they made the right call at the right time.
Imagine the fury of the unions if the employers tried to revisit these pay agreements - made in good faith - because it's akin to changing the rules once the game is over - and in reality just a bad case of sour grapes.
So, the unions are on a hiding to nothing - all this 3% business is just a smokescreen to cover up for their poor judgment previously - a bit of ritual chest-beating to impress the more gullible members.
Yet, it's ordinary members who pay the price - when union leaders make the wrong call - just look at their track record over single status and equal pay.
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Feeding the MPs' Expenses Monster
The government tells us that MPs' expenses are being reformed - on a root and branch basis - a new 'improved' system will ensure there are no more dodgy claims - or so we're told.
But the latest reports from the Daily Telegraph suggest that many MPs are exploiting a loophole in the system - which allows them to claim thousands of pounds in expenses - without the need to produce receipts.
The House of Commons is not demanding proof of purchases for items costing less than £25 - so what' s happened is that MPs have started submitting claims for household goods and bills - for £24 or just under that amount.
MPs are resourceful lot, you have to admit - especially when it comes to claiming their expenses.
Many MPs submitted several claims each month for miscellaneous items valued between £20 and £25, which have been automatically paid - because the parliamentary fees office did not have the power to ask to see receipts.
Records just released by Parliament also show that an attempt to reduce claims for food has failed, with MPs regularly claiming up to £400 a month for meals — the same amount they were allowed under the old system.
Among those who submitted unreceipted claims for just under £25 was Kali Mountford, the Labour MP for Colne Valley. She claimed exactly £25 for phone bills, cleaning, service/maintenance and repairs, but in June 2008 the fees office refused to pay, saying she had to submit documentation to back up each claim.
The following month she claimed £23 for her phone and £24 each for utilities, cleaning, service and repairs - all of which were all paid.
Sir George Young, the shadow leader of the House, submitted a claim for £25 for cleaning. When he was told he would need a receipt, he replied, “I will forgo cleaning for May” — then started claiming £20 per month.
Meanwhile, a decision to replace a £400 monthly food allowance with a £25 per night subsistence allowance appears to have backfired.
The Labour MP Ann Clwyd claimed £400 for food in April, only to be told she must claim £25 subsistence for each night she had spent away from her main home. She sent in a “revised” claim for 16 nights, which totalled £400, and which was paid.
But the latest reports from the Daily Telegraph suggest that many MPs are exploiting a loophole in the system - which allows them to claim thousands of pounds in expenses - without the need to produce receipts.
The House of Commons is not demanding proof of purchases for items costing less than £25 - so what' s happened is that MPs have started submitting claims for household goods and bills - for £24 or just under that amount.
MPs are resourceful lot, you have to admit - especially when it comes to claiming their expenses.
Many MPs submitted several claims each month for miscellaneous items valued between £20 and £25, which have been automatically paid - because the parliamentary fees office did not have the power to ask to see receipts.
Records just released by Parliament also show that an attempt to reduce claims for food has failed, with MPs regularly claiming up to £400 a month for meals — the same amount they were allowed under the old system.
Among those who submitted unreceipted claims for just under £25 was Kali Mountford, the Labour MP for Colne Valley. She claimed exactly £25 for phone bills, cleaning, service/maintenance and repairs, but in June 2008 the fees office refused to pay, saying she had to submit documentation to back up each claim.
The following month she claimed £23 for her phone and £24 each for utilities, cleaning, service and repairs - all of which were all paid.
Sir George Young, the shadow leader of the House, submitted a claim for £25 for cleaning. When he was told he would need a receipt, he replied, “I will forgo cleaning for May” — then started claiming £20 per month.
Meanwhile, a decision to replace a £400 monthly food allowance with a £25 per night subsistence allowance appears to have backfired.
The Labour MP Ann Clwyd claimed £400 for food in April, only to be told she must claim £25 subsistence for each night she had spent away from her main home. She sent in a “revised” claim for 16 nights, which totalled £400, and which was paid.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
McAvoy Judgment
A number of readers have been in touch about the McAvoy judgment - so here is the post from 25 June 2009 explaining the significance of this case.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Good News for Male Claimants
Good news from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) – a recent landmark case has upheld the rights of male workers to bring ‘piggyback’ equal pay claims.
So the stance taken by Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross has been completely vindicated – and significantly the trade unions were not even involved in this hugely important EAT case.
In McAvoy v South Tyneside Borough Council the EAT has held that a man may validly pursue a 'piggyback' equal pay claim by comparing himself with a woman - who herself has succeeded in an equal pay claim with a higher paid male comparator.
The present claims arose in the context of multiple equal pay claims, brought against councils in the North East of England, mostly by women employed in predominantly female jobs – the position is just the same north of the border, thanks to the work of Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross.
The women succeeded in claiming entitlement to 'productivity bonuses' paid to male comparators working elsewhere and they were accordingly awarded arrears of pay.
The EAT held that the men could claim equal pay AND sex discrimination based on being excluded from settlements - this means that the mere fact that there has been a settlement is enough to give the men a claim.
Men working alongside the female claimants brought contingent equal pay claims on the basis that, if and to the extent that the women's claims succeeded, they would be entitled to equivalent payments using the successful women as comparators.
An earlier employment tribunal upheld the men's claims, establishing their entitlement to the higher pay won by the female claimants, but only from the date on which the relevant female claimants presented their claims. The councils' appealed the tribunal's decision that the men were entitled to bring such claims at all, and the male (Stefan Cross) claimants appealed the decision to limit their entitlement to arrears of pay.
The EAT examined the case by reference to a simplified example: a woman (F1) and a man (M1) are working alongside one another on the same work, but the man is being paid £9 per hour, while the woman - by virtue of a previous successful claim by reference to the pay of a man doing a different job (M2) - is receiving £10.
The EAT held that these facts clearly triggered the operation of the equality clause. It rejected the Councils' argument that the pay disparity between M1 and F1 was due to a genuine material factor other than the difference of sex, namely that F1 was the beneficiary of a tribunal award and M1 was not.
The only reason M1 could not also have brought such a claim was that both he and the comparator, M2, are men. In other words, 'but for ' M1's sex, he would be entitled to the same pay as F1.
The EAT rejected the councils' appeal and the argument that the men's claims were premature, and went on to uphold the male claimants' appeal against limiting their arrears of pay. Referring back to its simplified example, the EAT noted that the arrears awarded to F1 represent pay, albeit paid late and only as a result of her bringing a tribunal claim.
The male claimants were therefore entitled to arrears for the full period that arrears were awarded to their comparators.
NB with thanks to the Employment Lawyers Association and IDS Employment Law Brief for some of the background information contained in this post.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Good News for Male Claimants
Good news from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) – a recent landmark case has upheld the rights of male workers to bring ‘piggyback’ equal pay claims.
So the stance taken by Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross has been completely vindicated – and significantly the trade unions were not even involved in this hugely important EAT case.
In McAvoy v South Tyneside Borough Council the EAT has held that a man may validly pursue a 'piggyback' equal pay claim by comparing himself with a woman - who herself has succeeded in an equal pay claim with a higher paid male comparator.
The present claims arose in the context of multiple equal pay claims, brought against councils in the North East of England, mostly by women employed in predominantly female jobs – the position is just the same north of the border, thanks to the work of Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross.
The women succeeded in claiming entitlement to 'productivity bonuses' paid to male comparators working elsewhere and they were accordingly awarded arrears of pay.
The EAT held that the men could claim equal pay AND sex discrimination based on being excluded from settlements - this means that the mere fact that there has been a settlement is enough to give the men a claim.
Men working alongside the female claimants brought contingent equal pay claims on the basis that, if and to the extent that the women's claims succeeded, they would be entitled to equivalent payments using the successful women as comparators.
An earlier employment tribunal upheld the men's claims, establishing their entitlement to the higher pay won by the female claimants, but only from the date on which the relevant female claimants presented their claims. The councils' appealed the tribunal's decision that the men were entitled to bring such claims at all, and the male (Stefan Cross) claimants appealed the decision to limit their entitlement to arrears of pay.
The EAT examined the case by reference to a simplified example: a woman (F1) and a man (M1) are working alongside one another on the same work, but the man is being paid £9 per hour, while the woman - by virtue of a previous successful claim by reference to the pay of a man doing a different job (M2) - is receiving £10.
The EAT held that these facts clearly triggered the operation of the equality clause. It rejected the Councils' argument that the pay disparity between M1 and F1 was due to a genuine material factor other than the difference of sex, namely that F1 was the beneficiary of a tribunal award and M1 was not.
The only reason M1 could not also have brought such a claim was that both he and the comparator, M2, are men. In other words, 'but for ' M1's sex, he would be entitled to the same pay as F1.
The EAT rejected the councils' appeal and the argument that the men's claims were premature, and went on to uphold the male claimants' appeal against limiting their arrears of pay. Referring back to its simplified example, the EAT noted that the arrears awarded to F1 represent pay, albeit paid late and only as a result of her bringing a tribunal claim.
The male claimants were therefore entitled to arrears for the full period that arrears were awarded to their comparators.
NB with thanks to the Employment Lawyers Association and IDS Employment Law Brief for some of the background information contained in this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
