Warning of more Birmingham strikes as equal pay action 'too slow'
"The council will work with GMB to understand the root of the issues now presented in a consultative ballot," a spokesperson for the authority said.They said the vote was not a ballot for industrial action, and added: "We sincerely hope that this will not delay our ability to keep to the timelines agreed with GMB and get payments into the hands of the eligible workers."The issue of equal pay was one of the many factors which contributed to Birmingham City Council effectively declaring itself bankrupt in September 2023.The unions said thousands of women were "paid less than they are worth" and the authority acknowledged it had failed to address all of its equal pay problems.There had appeared to be a breakthrough on the issue late last year when it was announced a "framework agreement" had been reached to settle claims with the city council.
'Missed opportunities'
Rachel Fagan, GMB regional organiser, said members had been promised a settlement by the autumn, but progress was too slow."It's been nearly two years since the council finally admitted they had an equal pay crisis on their hands," she said."Since then we've seen missed opportunity after missed opportunity to do right by women workers."Meanwhile thousands of women are still being short changed and paid less than they are worth."The city council said it was committed to ensuring all staff were treated fairly and paid equitably.Industrial action has already been taking its toll on Birmingham this year due to the ongoing bin strike.Striking workers have raised concerns about pay while the council's leadership has repeatedly insisted that a "fair and reasonable" offer has been made.
This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service which covers councils and other public service organisations.
Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
12 minutes ago
- BBC News
Former Coventry Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson's spending probed
An investigation has been launched by a parliamentary watchdog into whether former Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson breached spending rules. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) probe would look at his spending for accommodation, office and staffing, it said. Mr Robinson, aged 87, served as MP for Coventry North West from 1976 until was paymaster general between 1997 and 1998 when Tony Blair was prime minister, but resigned after it was revealed he had made a secret interest-free loan to Peter Mandelson. The revelation also led Lord Mandelson to resign from his role as trade secretary at the Robinson stood down as an MP in 2019 saying he would not stand for re-election due to ill health. He also owned the New Statesman magazine from 1996 to 2008 and served as chairman of Jaguar and Coventry City FC. Follow BBC Coventry & Warwickshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Britons deliver a devastating verdict on Keir Starmer's first year in power... so what DO they think has been his biggest achievement?
Voters have answered with a resounding 'NOTHING' when asked what has been the biggest achievement of Keir Starmer 's first year in power, a new poll shows. More in Common asked voters to offer their one or two-word responses to Labour 's best and worst actions of the party's first 12 months in power to create a word cloud. And it was pretty brutal, with most people unable to thing of anything good. Only its work on the NHS made much of a dent in people's gloomy assessment. On the flipside, they were very clear in what has gone wrong. The Winter Fuel Allowance row was far and away the biggest cock-up in people's minds. It saw Sir Keir and Chancellor Rachel Reeves try to take away the £300 universal benefit away from all but the poorest recipients, before being forced into a U-turn. More in Common's director Luke Tryl said it was 'one of the most stark word clouds we've seen - the Winter Fuel Allowance drowns everything else out'. The other major problem to stand out for voters was immigration, with more than 20,000 people already having crossed the English Channel in small boats this year, a record. More in Common asked voters to offer their one or two-word responses to Labour's best and worst actions of the party's first 12 months in power to create a word cloud. And it was pretty brutal, with most people unable to thing of anything good. Sir Keir is facing Labour dissent, economic uncertainty and spiralling conflict abroad as he marks a year in Number 10. The Prime Minister led his party back into power with more than 400 MPs on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months.' Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he said. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising in light of the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said.
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
It is time to release prisoners trapped by inhuman endless jail terms
The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, introduced in 2005 under the Labour government, was intended to protect the public from serious offenders deemed too dangerous for a fixed-term release. But nearly two decades on, this law stands as one of the most egregious stains on Britain's criminal justice system. Abolished in 2012 for its inherent flaws, it nonetheless continues to trap thousands of people in a cruel legal limbo, as a debate in the House of Lords today will no doubt highlight. It is long past time that every person still serving an IPP sentence be resentenced. The continued use of this now-defunct punishment is both unjust and, arguably, inhumane. At its core, the IPP sentence allowed judges to hand out indeterminate prison terms for offences that did not justify life imprisonment but were deemed serious enough to warrant extended supervision. Offenders were given a 'tariff' – the minimum time they must serve before being considered for release. Many of these tariffs were shockingly short, some as low as two years. Yet thousands remain in prison long after these tariffs have expired. Why? Because release is dependent not on time served, but on proving to the Parole Board that they are no longer a danger to the public – a nebulous, subjective, and often unreachable standard. This flips the basic presumption of justice on its head. In a fair system, the state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to imprison a person. Under IPP, once the tariff is served, the burden of proof shifts unfairly to the prisoner. It is no longer the state's job to justify incarceration; it is the prisoner's burden to earn freedom. This is particularly problematic when access to rehabilitative programmes, often required for parole, is limited or unavailable – especially in overcrowded prisons. The system sets people up to fail and then blames them for not succeeding. Moreover, the psychological toll of such indefinite punishment is catastrophic. Suicide and self-harm rates among IPP prisoners are significantly higher than average. Many live in a state of constant uncertainty and despair, unsure if they will ever be released, even decades after their offence. It is not unusual to find individuals still imprisoned for minor crimes – such as theft or assault – that would today warrant only a few years behind bars, yet they languish without a release date. The punishment no longer fits the crime, if it ever did. The injustice of the IPP system has been widely recognised. The House of Commons justice committee labelled it "irredeemably flawed" and called for all remaining IPP prisoners to be resentenced. The European Court of Human Rights has also condemned aspects of the sentence as incompatible with human rights obligations. Yet the government has so far refused to act decisively, citing public safety and political sensitivity. This is a failure of courage and leadership. Protecting public safety does not require trampling basic rights or holding people indefinitely for crimes long past. Dangerous individuals can be managed through proper risk assessment and robust parole conditions – not through perpetual punishment without end. Resentencing every IPP prisoner is not only fair, it is necessary. It would give judges the opportunity to reconsider the nature and severity of each offence and impose a proportionate, fixed sentence with clear guidance for release. For many, this would mean immediate or imminent freedom; for others, it would offer clarity, rehabilitation goals, and hope – something the current system wholly lacks. Justice demands consistency, proportionality, and transparency. The IPP sentence undermines all three. Some argue that resentencing might release dangerous individuals back into society. But the risk can be responsibly managed without recourse to indeterminate detention. Modern sentencing tools, community supervision, mental health support, and parole frameworks are all capable of mitigating risk. Perpetual incarceration without due process is not a solution – it is a violation. Britain prides itself on the rule of law, but this chapter of penal policy betrays that principle. IPP sentences should not only be consigned to history – they must be actively undone. Every person still caught in this Kafkaesque trap deserves a proper sentence, a path to rehabilitation, and a chance at freedom. Anything less is a continuation of a deep and unforgivable wrong.
