Sunday, 15 November 2009
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Equal Pay for All
During these hard economic times it might be very easy to slip into a dog eat dog, every man (or woman) for themselves situation. It is understandable, to a certain extent, if the primary concern of some workers was to just think of themselves if the issue of alteration to pay, terms and conditions and maybe even holding onto a job arises.
I still believe that most people still believe, even during these times, that there should be a basic fairness of treatment in the workplace. Nowhere is this perhaps more the case than in terms of what people get paid, especially in comparison to their workmates. I find it difficult to imagine too many people quarrelling with the assertion that if you do the same or equivalent job as your workmate then you should be paid the same. This sounds very simple and straightforward to all but the most unreasonable person.
The problem is this very reasonable position is in fact a very complicated one. Attempting to define what constitutes equal pay for work of equal value has kept many a lawyer in relative comfort for years. The problem is that many workers, women in particular, have continued to get paid less than some of their colleagues for doing work that is essentially the same value. Aside from the equal pay argument it is also just plain discrimination if women get paid less than men for doing the same work.
Unions, such as UNISON, have always tried to negotiate fair and equal pay through fair and equal grading structures that are sustainable over time. We have all tried to ensure that winning equal pay for our members doesn’t mean losing jobs and services further down the line. Agenda for Change in the NHS and Single Status in local government have established the principle of equal pay but there is still a long way to go before the principle is fully implemented as a reality.
There is still much to do to achieve equal pay at work but unions remain at the forefront of this important struggle.
(This article first appeared in the Birmingham Mail on 11 November 2009)
I still believe that most people still believe, even during these times, that there should be a basic fairness of treatment in the workplace. Nowhere is this perhaps more the case than in terms of what people get paid, especially in comparison to their workmates. I find it difficult to imagine too many people quarrelling with the assertion that if you do the same or equivalent job as your workmate then you should be paid the same. This sounds very simple and straightforward to all but the most unreasonable person.
The problem is this very reasonable position is in fact a very complicated one. Attempting to define what constitutes equal pay for work of equal value has kept many a lawyer in relative comfort for years. The problem is that many workers, women in particular, have continued to get paid less than some of their colleagues for doing work that is essentially the same value. Aside from the equal pay argument it is also just plain discrimination if women get paid less than men for doing the same work.
Unions, such as UNISON, have always tried to negotiate fair and equal pay through fair and equal grading structures that are sustainable over time. We have all tried to ensure that winning equal pay for our members doesn’t mean losing jobs and services further down the line. Agenda for Change in the NHS and Single Status in local government have established the principle of equal pay but there is still a long way to go before the principle is fully implemented as a reality.
There is still much to do to achieve equal pay at work but unions remain at the forefront of this important struggle.
(This article first appeared in the Birmingham Mail on 11 November 2009)
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
A Question of Priorities
There are thousands of worried families across the West Midlands right now. For many months people who have relied on manufacturing, particularly automotive, and other sectors, such as construction and retail, have taken the brunt of the job losses that have hot our region. I don’t apologise for my constant reminder that I give to anyone within earshot that the West Midlands is the region hit hardest by the recession. These workers and their families have had to endure the uncertainty and then realisation that the job they relied on, often without great financial reward, was going and possibly would never come back.
That same job uncertainty has now hit the public sector. Some pundits say that its only right and proper that there should be an equal sharing of the economic pain. I don’t hold with this view for a number of reasons. One reason is because I think that’s an incredibly narrow view of economics that fails to understand that, firstly, the public services could be the sector that helps to drive the country out of recession. A shrunken public service is unlikely to be strong enough to do that. Secondly, in the region hardest hit by the recession, public services provide vital support which would mean even greater hardship without them.
I also do not hold with the view of these pundits because it’s a bit rich for these often very well paid analysts to suggest that somehow they are sharing the same pain as the low paid women workers that make up most UNISON members. I think not somehow.
I think we should have a proper conversation that is non-selective. For example, defence spending is far and away the largest part of the public purse but somehow it is the direct services that people actually need that come under scrutiny rather than the need for Trident missiles.
Its really a question of priorities. Do we want public services or not? If we do then we all have to make our voices heard alongside the million voices in UNISON and other trade unions.
(This article first appeared in the Birmingham Mail on 28 October 2009)
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
