Unions have condemned Birmingham City Council’s “bullying” tactics after warnings that new contracts imposing cuts in pay and conditions on nearly 26,000 staff were to be introduced as part of a bid to save more than £330 million by 2014.
Stephen Hughes, chief executive of the country’s largest local authority, has sent legal notices to the council’s entire personnel apart from those employed in education – amounting to 25,837 workers – warning of the move. It follows the broadening of a review of employee allowances and terms and conditions that began earlier this year.
Hughes said: “It is estimated the council will need to reduce its net expenditure by £330 million over the next three to four years, which equates to around a third of our overall net spend. The magnitude of this financial pressure is immense. The council needs to radically review its overheads and expenditure.”
According to Joe Morgan, the GMB’s Birmingham & West Midlands regional officer, workers have been told that failure to accept the new deal will result in dismissal from the council, which is run by a joint Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. Personnel could then be rehired on even worse terms and conditions.
The Council has started consulting with unions over the proposed changes, which include revised employment contracts, the introduction of job groups rather than job descriptions and a review of car allowances. The consultation period is due to end just before Christmas.
But Morgan said: “The council’s chief executive is acting like a school bully by saying that workers have to accept this or they will be sacked without compensation. Our members are in shock and are up in arms.”
He added that unions representing Birmingham City Council workers would co-operate in their response to the letters.
Unison boss Dave Prentis, meanwhile, called on the local authority to withdraw its redundancy notices. “This is a disgraceful way to treat loyal council workers. The redundancy notices came out of the blue and these bullying tactics are not the way to negotiate. The council needs to come and talk with the unions and work out a way through to find a solution instead of going straight for the nuclear option.”
One Response
also
Of course these things need to be done with sensitivity but no-one can really fault the need for some form of action to curb spending in the aftermath of 12 years of ever increasing public sector employment
It is just a pity that any action invariably hits ‘normal’ people rather than those who it should affect (on both sides of the divide)
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2010/04/01/birmingham-city-council-chief-executive-earns-more-than-prime-minister-study-reveals-97319-26152802/
Nevertheless figures are now emerging on the discrepancies between public & private employment which seem to indicate that public sector workers are financially better of than their private sector counterparts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8003324/Myth-of-the-underpaid-public-sector-worker.html
Furthermore, some of the union representatives need the spotlight trained on themselves – (i.e. Derek Simpson – £800,000 grace & favour residence)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4276786/Union-boss-Derek-Simpson-enjoys-perks.html
All in all not a pretty picture but there needs to be a remuneration cull at the top on both sides union/city councillors
Dave Prentise (earned £92,187, plus £35,249 in benefits) and others
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/08/04/51670/top-trade-union-chiefs-enjoy-high-salaries.html
Why don’t these top union people offer to take a pay cut (say 50%) so that their members are not unduly burdened with contributing to their salaries in these times of hardship