Comments on: Birmingham Council reveals ‘horrendous’ £757 million equal pay bombshell

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:53:32 +0000

Another good week for the lawyers – however clever they may be, they are accountable to nobody and responsible to nobody for the results of their decisions
They have cost the tax-payers £ millions for hiding Abu Quatada from justice
They have cost tax-payers £1 million to give (apparently bad) advice to Birmingham City Council and now £757 million to pay equal pay compensation
Is that in addition to the £120 million borrowed to settle the equal pay claim about 5 years back ?
And it is all to pay for unequal work – to clean the streets, often dirty heavy work at all times and in all weather, is rather more demanding than the job of pushing a vacuum cleaner around a nice warm office.

By: The Chamberlain Files

The Chamberlain Files — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:31:25 +0000

[...] Birmingham Council reveals ‘horrendous’ £757 million equal pay bombshell » Opinion » Blame Whitby’s coalition for the council’s black hole, says Jilly Bermingham [...]

By: Peter Smallbone

Peter Smallbone — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:35:53 +0000

Much of this shocking financial mess can be attributed to previous Labour administrations, who gave back-door pay rises in the form of ‘bonuses’ to male-dominated, over-unionised workforces such as bin men, for the very reason that they didn’t want (or need) to do it across the board. You reap what you sow.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:29:39 +0000

The idea that the law on equal pay is constantly changing is a myth. General principles have been settled for years – certainly since when SAB was previously leader and he would have known, if he had asked, that BCC was acting illegally then. See the comments of the judge in the cases involving dustmen. Paying bonuses, attendance allowances, higher rates and so on to men and not to women has been contrary to the EPAct since its inception. It is not some, new, surprising development. Nor were there problems, as is claimed, with the EPAct which Single Status was intended to remedy. The problem was enforcement – see below.

Much of the blame for this fiasco can be attributed to the Labour administration. Some acceptance of that would be welcome.

Finally I’m puzzled by your use of words like ‘virulent’ to describe the lawyers used by the claimants. [If in fact they are the words of SAB you should so indicate]. Are you suggesting that the claimants should not be represented? The cozy relationship between the Labour administration and the male-dominated trade unions was a major contributor to the problems BCC now faces.

By: mullaney3

mullaney3 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:54:56 +0000

@ChamberlainFile what nobody mentions is that the ‘horrendous’ equal pay claims are down to the excessive wages the binmen had.

By: X1Sue

X1Sue — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:41:55 +0000

@ChamberlainFile @chamberlainfile @mullaney3 about time Shame on them