Recently in Pay Category

Many public sector employees, including social workers, can only dream of the prospect of a 2.3% pay rise. That is the going rate, according to figures from IDSPay.co.uk, published on Left Foot Forward in a blog by Unite assistant general secretary Tony Burke.

With inflation hovering around 5%, October's figure is a comparatively paltry sum - yet one that is lower than the 2.4% average awarded in September.

The publication of these statistics could not have been better timed. This week, the High Pay Commission reported that top earners have enjoyed - and "enjoyed" truly is the word - a piss-taking rise of 4,000% over the past 30 years as the average wage increased just threefold.

Mind you, it didn't deter headhunter Dr Heather McGregor from telling Radio 4's Today programme that anyone who thought the disparity unfair ought to consider moving to Cuba.

A more enlightening piece of analysis from a person who holds a doctorate is difficult to imagine...

...Enter Vince Cable (pictured, thinking), seemingly intent on rubbing the entire deposits of a salt mine into a gaping wound before adding a squeeze of lemon. The business secretary has concluded that employers are finding it too difficult to shed staff and employment law should be reformed to make it easier for them, the poor lambs.

Two-and-a-half million people might disagree with his assessment of employment law, of course.

His call prompted Unite to describe the proposals as a "charter for bullies and rogue employers".

So next week, when trade union members strike about proposed changes to public sector pensions, it may be worth them also bearing in mind the signals sent from those who very much have - like the top earners and their apologists - and those who want to remove what workplace rights you have - like Cable.

Because when the pensions fight is won, another battle will inevitably start.

Picture: Rex Features

Labour leader Ed Miliband came in for some flak two months ago when he told trade union members caught up in the local government pensions dispute that they should desist from striking during negotiations.

Whether you agreed with Miliband or disagreed with him, it was a point of view honestly held (I hope). But it was also a standpoint that one could imagine the employers nodding along to, much like those toy dogs that were once the must-have accessory for rear parcel shelves of Ford Cortinas. 

If Miliband's way is the key to a solution, what explanation could Doncaster Council possibly have for sending Section 188 redundancy notices to staff in the middle of talks about the authority's proposals to cut pay and introduce inferior terms and conditions?

The talks were planned to conclude on 14 November but Doncaster, in what looks suspiciously like an act of sabotage, is attempting to force the hands of 10,000 staff, or even cynically provoke industrial action in order to dismiss them more easily and re-employ the chosen few as it sees fit.

If it is wrong to take industrial action in the middle of negotiations, as Miliband believes, then it is equally wrong for employers to threaten thousands of staff with their livelihoods during talks that ostensibly are being held to seek a solultion.

The only message it sends is that the employer, in this case Doncaster Council, has no intention of thrashing out a deal.

Ed Miliband may wish to clarify that statement he made to the TUC conference. 

Picture: Rex Features

The care workers' equal pay dispute in Sheffield looks to be over with the city council agreeing to recompense about 1,100 staff, a group that also includes cleaners and dinner ladies. 

Sheffield, armed with a team of lawyers, was threatening to take the case to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the employees but has now backed down, perhaps in the interests of the public purse as much as any moral propriety.

However, we may not have heard the last of this.

Although the Local Government Group does not expect a wave of similar settlements to follow - "we do not believe it will have a far-reaching effect", said a spokesperson - Unison, which represented the staff, may have other ideas.

General secretary Dave Prentis told The Guardian: "This decision has implications for around 400,000 other women's cases across the country."

Whether other local authorities will dig in where Sheffield left off we will have to wait and see.

Picture: Rex Features

Much has been spoken and written this week about the gender pay gap at executive level and the unlikelihood of it closing for at least 100 years.

So it is with impeccable timing that a pay battle at the other end of the scale - involving care workers and dinner ladies employed by Sheffield Council - will arrive at the doors of the Supreme Court next month. 

It will be the first time the court has ruled on sex discrimination involving pay.

Trade union Unison says the ruling could affect up to 40,000 cases.

The care workers' case started in an employment tribunal and centres on productivity bonuses paid to gardeners and street cleaners, most of whom are male.

In the most recent hearing, at the Court of Appeal, the ruling went in favour of the dinner ladies and care workers, most of whom are female.

Sheffield feels the bonuses have nothing to do with gender but are paid to increase productivity.

The Supreme Court awaits...

In recent years, local authority employees have become accustomed to pay freezes and generally have accepted them, albeit reluctantly. The price some are now paying for this acquiescence is to be victims of a creeping macho style of management: take a pay cut, councils are telling them, or face the sack. 

First it was Southampton Council with its apparently non-negotiatable 5.5% pay cut, an intransigence that has resulted in a city today "buried beneath about one million bin bags".

Next week a massive wave of strikes involving 600 employees will disrupt services further.

Southampton's muscular approach to industrial relations has now been followed in the West Midlands.

Shropshire Council has threatened to sack all 6,500 employees if they do not accept a pay cut of 5.4% under new contracts.

This is a crucial moment for local authority staff. If the Shropshire workers agree to their employer's proposal, it will hand carte blanche to councils throughout the land to start driving down pay.

And remember, a pay cut will also reduce contributions to the final pension pot, a source of dispute in any case.

But I do wonder what would happen if none of the 6,500 staff in Shropshire re-applied for their jobs? Okay, this is an unlikely scenario, but it would put the employer in an impossible position to maintain services. Moreover, it would need an amazing display of unity to engineer this protest and, some would argue, a stubborn streak of foolhardiness.

But could you blame them if they all wanted out? On the other hand, it could force a climb-down.

Oh for the halcyon days of a generous pay freeze.

As a postscript, my colleague Kirsty McGregor reports that Southampton is now offering its children's social workers - but not adults' social workers - a £1,400 payment. Divide and rule? Sounds like a particularly transparent attempt.

The prospect of a 0% pay rise for local authority social workers and care staff earning more than £18,000 a year is now a given if - or when - the Conservatives are elected to power next year.