Threat to sack binmen and street cleaners in Brighton if they don't accept cuts of up to £8000
Pay equality is a good thing, men and women should be paid the same for work that is comparable. Trouble is, this is being used as an excuse to "equal down." Women have fought hard to get equal pay , but not to get the wages of men reduced. These workers, men and women, are usually some of the most low paid . Eddie drew my attention to cuts being proposed in Edinburgh.Seems this is not a one off:
A council has drafted a secret plan to sack 821 workers if they refuse to take pay cuts of up to £8,000 each.
A confidential document seen by The Argus sets out Brighton and Hove City Council's latest move in its attempts to stave off compensation pay-offs which cost it more than £23 million this year.
It sets out proposals to terminate the contracts of 821 workers who are mostly employed either as binmen and street cleaners in its CityClean waste department or in the city's parks service.
Their jobs would be lost on January 1, 2010, unless they accept new lower wage deals.
The document proposed the plan as a contingency if negotiations with trade unions over the pay cuts fail.
The cuts being asked of workers range from £2000-£8000.
Any examples of this happening elsewhere ?
A council has drafted a secret plan to sack 821 workers if they refuse to take pay cuts of up to £8,000 each.
A confidential document seen by The Argus sets out Brighton and Hove City Council's latest move in its attempts to stave off compensation pay-offs which cost it more than £23 million this year.
It sets out proposals to terminate the contracts of 821 workers who are mostly employed either as binmen and street cleaners in its CityClean waste department or in the city's parks service.
Their jobs would be lost on January 1, 2010, unless they accept new lower wage deals.
The document proposed the plan as a contingency if negotiations with trade unions over the pay cuts fail.
The cuts being asked of workers range from £2000-£8000.
Any examples of this happening elsewhere ?
Labels: defending jobs, trade unionism