Brighton Dustcart Drivers

[Westdene Seagull]

The council will use a process to score the 'value' of every job and then put them in a rank order. It will then apply a pay structure across the rank order and jobs within specified score ranges will be paid the same grade of pay. It appears that this process concluded that the two jobs mentioned were of the same or similar value because they are being paid the same rate. The content of the two posts are unlikely to have been directly compared and this is not necessary to establish their respective values.

If the council does not undertake and maintain this process they are vulnerable to equal pay claims. The 'single status' process referred to in other posts was probably the council (like all other local authorities) seeking to correct its pay anomalies (where work of equal value was receiving different pay) to reduce/remove its equal pay risks through collective bargaining with its recognised unions.

It looks like the drivers and unions previously negotiated and accepted the single status pay outcomes but are now seeking to move their pay up again. I assume the council view is that the value of the work they undertake has not altered so their pay shouldn't change either (or new equal pay liabilities will be created).

Or something like that.

But what you've detailed is EXACTLY the problem. Trying to standardise things that can't be. Go and work for a bank - different roles have different grades and pay scales. In fact almost any private sector company does. Strangely you don't see lawsuits happening then. This whole situation has been brought about by public sector mindsets and the drive to 'make every one equal'. By all means make sure that a female teaching assistant earns the same as a male teaching assistant of the same grade but to make grades equal across wildly differing roles is plain stupid. Unfortunately it would appear to be compulsory to have your common sense gland removed if you wish to become a public sector policy maker ..... or maybe they're just f**king stupid ?

 

[Tarpon]

But what you've detailed is EXACTLY the problem. Trying to standardise things that can't be. Go and work for a bank - different roles have different grades and pay scales. In fact almost any private sector company does. Strangely you don't see lawsuits happening then. This whole situation has been brought about by public sector mindsets and the drive to 'make every one equal'. By all means make sure that a female teaching assistant earns the same as a male teaching assistant of the same grade but to make grades equal across wildly differing roles is plain stupid. Unfortunately it would appear to be compulsory to have your common sense gland removed if you wish to become a public sector policy maker ..... or maybe they're just f**king stupid ?

Any public sector pay policy and mindset will be fundamentally driven by the need to adhere to equal pay legislation.

That legislation does not seek to make everyone equal but essentially says that any employer should pay work of equal value the same rate. To do this and defend against equal pay claims organisations must apply a standardised job valuation process.

This applies to private and public sectors alike. There's plenty of case law for equal pay claims in the private sector but the public sector seems to attract more press and is arguably under more scrutiny and risk because it is public money, more heavily unionised and employs a wider variety of posts than the average private employer.

Without undertaking and maintaining a robust evaluation of all jobs the council would incur massive financial liabilities that the likes of you and me would end up shelling out for. Now that would be stupid.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Any public sector pay policy and mindset will be fundamentally driven by the need to adhere to equal pay legislation.

That legislation does not seek to make everyone equal but essentially says that any employer should pay work of equal value the same rate. To do this and defend against equal pay claims organisations must apply a standardised job valuation process.

This applies to private and public sectors alike. There's plenty of case law for equal pay claims in the private sector but the public sector seems to attract more press and is arguably under more scrutiny and risk because it is public money, more heavily unionised and employs a wider variety of posts than the average private employer.

Without undertaking and maintaining a robust evaluation of all jobs the council would incur massive financial liabilities that the likes of you and me would end up shelling out for. Now that would be stupid.

We're clearly going to have to agree to disagree but how the hell do you determine the "value" of work ? It is utterly subjective. I work in IT and am a non-fee earning head. The head of finance is also a non-fee earning head and we're the same 'grade'. Yet we earn completely different salaries. He's paid what industry considers the correct amount for head of finance in an SME while I earn what is considered the correct mount for my role. Our roles aren't compared despite being the same grade and neither of us as run to a lawyer. It is fundamentally wrong for the public sector to attempt to compare utterly different roles.

 

[Chicken Run]

City Clean are not a private company - they are the 'brand' for the council run collection and cleaning services.

Personally I have some sympathy with the binmen. In pursuit of the utterly stupid 'single status' pay structure our authorities have screwed over some workers - in B&H it is the binmen.

Anybody with a brain cell would agree that a binman and a teaching assistant role are not similar in any way. Yet our utterly out of touch public sector policy makers lump those two roles together for grading, pay and allowances. The simple answer would be to have separate grading etc for separate roles.

As for the binmen - I wouldn't do that job for £19k basic and I'd bet a majority on here wouldn't. This dispute is that qualified dustcart drivers have been graded the same as street cleaners - they have a point. I'm in support of the current strike and it will mean my rubbish isn't collected this week and my recycling next week ( somehow they've managed to hit two of my collection dates in their three selected dates ). All I'll do is take my recycling to the point round the corner and hold on to my rubbish as we could now wait four weeks for a collection if necessary thanks to proper recycling and composting.

You might not wish to dirty your hands doing such a job but let me assure you there are plenty who would ffs

 

[Tarpon]

We're clearly going to have to agree to disagree but how the hell do you determine the "value" of work ? It is utterly subjective. I work in IT and am a non-fee earning head. The head of finance is also a non-fee earning head and we're the same 'grade'. Yet we earn completely different salaries. He's paid what industry considers the correct amount for head of finance in an SME while I earn what is considered the correct mount for my role. Our roles aren't compared despite being the same grade and neither of us as run to a lawyer. It is fundamentally wrong for the public sector to attempt to compare utterly different roles.

There are a variety of job evaluation processes. One of the most commonly used and accepted across the world is Hay. Here's a link (useful to read if you have trouble getting off to sleep):

http://www.haygroup.com/uk/services/index.aspx?id=2424

You're probably right that we won't agree but I'm afraid councils are absolutely right to establish the comparative value of all jobs they employ to ensure they comply with legislation.This is what happens if you don't...

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/local-news/birmingham-city-council-stalling-equal-7066029

There are a variety of legal defences to justify paying work of equal value different pay, not sure if any would apply in your case, but any reasonably sized organisation will be conscious of its liabilities under the law. Lastly, although equal pay claims in the private sector do take place, in addition to the reasons stated previously, I'd imagine they are less likely because it tends to be rather career limiting to bring a legal claim against your employer (especially without a strong union and collective of colleagues behind you). Honest.