The Staff Side wish to outline their position with regards next year’s pay award, and wish to explain their opposition to the management proposal to end pay progression for new starters.
Minutes:
The Staff Side Secretary indicted that he wished to discuss the 2015/16 pay award, together with management proposals to end pay progression for new appointments. The Staff Side Secretary outlined several factors that were adversely affecting the living conditions and standard of living for LBB employees:
· the cost of living had increased
· housing costs had increased by 11% in LBB in the last twelve months
· travel to work costs had increased by 7%
· there had been a fall in earnings in real terms
· the RPI had increased by 2.4%
The Staff Side Secretary stated that according to figures provided by the Daily Telegraph, housing costs in Bromley were expected to rise by 25% at 2018.
The Staff Side Secretary further stated:
· the average price on a three bedroom house in Bromley was £381,000
· the average price of a three bedroom flat was £237,000
· the average Bromley rent was £1500.00 per month and rising
The Staff Side were of the opinion that in recent years, LBB employees had in fact experienced an 18% drop in real term living standards, and that if the minimum wage had been aligned with increased living costs, the minimum wage would now be £18.00 per hour. The Staff Side were of the opinion that there was now a big gulf in pay in LBB between the average LBB employee, and senior management.
The Staff Side argued for a £1.00 an hour pay increase across the board, and for a minimum wage of £10.00 per hour.
For the Employer’s Side, the Director of Human Resources expressed disappointment that the Staff Side had not previously raised the matter of their proposed pay award at the officer forum. He added that it did not augur well for good industrial relations if the Staff Side did not raise discussions with management first, before approaching the Committee. The Director of Human Resources stated that in his opinion, the statistics that the Staff Side had mentioned were questionable, and omitted to make any reference to the £60m savings target that the council had to find over the next four years. The Director of Human Resources declared that the proposals of the Staff Side would cost £6m per annum, and that such a proposal was reckless and irresponsible in the current financial climate.
Councillor Carr queried the source of the data that had been provided by the Staff Side, averring that in fact fuel and food costs were currently lower. The response of the Staff Side Secretary was that these were national statistics taken from the Government website. The Staff Side Secretary countered by stating that food costs in particular had increased, and that LBB was one of the lowest paying boroughs in the area. The Staff Side felt that the workforce was bearing the brunt of the council’s cutbacks, and that this was at a time when the reserves of the council were not depleted.
The Staff Side raised the matter of ending the incremented pay scheme for new appointments and argued that this was not fair. They felt that problems could arise for the council with respect to legality and equality, and that this could cause serious problems for LBB. It was argued that staff would not want to work for LBB, and may prefer to go and work in other boroughs if such a scheme was operating. The Staff Side submitted that the changes with respect to incremental pay would be bad for LBB’s financial structure, would not give rise to any savings, and would create a two tier workforce. The Staff Side requested that management withdraw the proposal.
The Director of Human Resources remarked that the way in which the unions had dealt with this matter was wrong, and disrespectful; he felt that the unions were attempting to circumvent the standard LBB protocols. He argued that it was not true that new entrants would always come in at the lower end of the pay scales, and that there existed flexibility from management to appoint at higher rates. The Director of Human Resources stated that the new proposed pay structure was empowering and would not adversely affect recruitment, and that Camden Council was already operating such a structure without any adverse effects.
The Vice Chair (Staff Side) disagreed with the notion of “flexibility”, and stated that this matter may not just be limited to new starters, but may also progress to affecting existing employees on new contracts. The Vice Chair stated that this was a stressful time for staff, who were struggling to live normal lives, and it was an additional burden imposed on staff who were also worried about the effects of commissioning. The Vice Chair suggested that the reason for the various changes being considered by management was to make LBB more attractive when services were being considered for transfer out.
Councillor Wilkins queried why the Director of Human Resources felt that the issues of the pay award and incremented pay should not be on the agenda. Councillor Wilkins stated that the logic in the proposals was hard to see, and could also give rise to issues around equality.
The Chairman responded that a dialogue existed between both sides and that if the Staff Side requested that matter be added, this request was normally accommodated out of courtesy.
The Director Of Human Resources commented that the reason that he had felt the pay matter should not be on this agenda was because the method adopted by the Staff Side on this occasion undermined the consultative process—it was better to talk first, before escalation. He argued that the incremental pay changes would create a culture of empowerment and flexibility, and that the equality issues raised were a “red herring”.
The Staff Side Secretary noted that the Director of Human Resources had expressed “disappointment” in his actions. He stated that as there was only three meetings of the LJCC every year, the Staff Side had to make the most of any opportunity to make their views known. The Staff Side Secretary commented that he was surprised that the Director of Human Resources proposed to censure debate. He stated that the changes to the pay structure at Camden were new and were the result of a voluntary agreement, and that the notion of “flexibility” was false. The Staff Side Secretary stated that LBB was the only council in London that was seeking to stop pay increase and increments, and that it was a fantasy to believe that such a policy would be attractive to new entrants.
Councillor Carr stated that the issue of a two tier workforce was a “red herring” and that it was not the case that LBB had not been supporting workers. The Member stated that LBB had always been up front with the workforce, and that staff were motivated.