RUDGE’S "ARMY OF STRAW MEN"

23-02-2008

The Stirrer published exclusive details yesterday of a statement distributed by Cllr Alan Rudge to every Birmingham Council worker claiming to destroy the "myths" of Single Status. One anonymous worker - evidently union affiliated - is now circulating their response to what he (or she) regards as Rudge’s "army of straw men". We’re printing it, below, in full.

Councillor Rudge has set out his position in a statement, ‘Single status: the truth behind the headlines’. His argument is based on a familiar technique: the ‘straw man’.

Faced with a difficult issue or an awkward question, you simply pretend that you have been asked a different (much easier) question – the straw man – which you can then demolish.

In this article Councillor Rudge marshals a veritable army of straw men.

Myth 1: ‘it’s a cost-cutting exercise’

Straw man number one. Birmingham City Council’s pay bill is huge and the review will make it bigger. As far as I’m aware, no-one from the unions has ever suggested anything different – indeed, as you may recall, the unions joined with the Council in calling for additional funding from the Government (oddly, Councillor Rudge doesn’t mention this).

We have also suggested alternatives to the seven-grade structure, of ten, twelve or more grades, which would mean fewer losers and that their individual losses would be smaller. All these suggestions have been turned down flat by the Council because ‘they’re far too expensive’.

Myth 2: ‘it doesn’t generate equality’

Councillor Rudge’s argument seems to be that at least it isn’t as bad as it used to be. The unions’ suggestions for more grades would enable us to reach a position of more equal pay much faster.

Myth 3: ‘more women than men lose money’

Straw man number two. The stated intention of the Single Status legislation is to end the situation where some jobs – employing mainly women – are lower paid than others – employing mainly men – although the work is assumed to be of equivalent value. Simply counting how many men and how many women are losing doesn’t mean anything.

A lot of women are losing out as a result of the review. Union reps have pointed out that this is rather ironic in a review intended to address gender inequality – but I’m not aware than anyone has then made the rather breathtaking leap from this to ‘so single status can’t generate equality’.

Myth 4: ‘the Council is funding pay increases … by cutting wages to other relatively low paid workers’

Straw man number three. Where did that ‘relatively low paid workers’ come from? Our position has been consistent from the start: no member of staff should have their pay cut to fund another’s pay increase.

If I can use my own case as an example: my current salary is £35,500 and I don’t consider myself ‘relatively low paid’. Under the review my salary falls to £29,000.

Councillor Rudge seems to be suggesting this is acceptable because my salary is so high in the first place (your managers offered me this job, Councillor, I don’t set my own salary). As for the ‘historical’ impact of ‘complex bonus systems’: I was appointed in 2005, one grade below the top of my scale, have only ever had one salary increment and receive no bonus.

There are many others in a similar situation.

Myth 5: ‘sacking 41,000 staff and … imposing new contracts upon them’

Councillor Rudge adds, ‘No-one will lose their job through the Council’s action’ – straw man number four, who said anyone was losing their job? – and ‘52% of staff have accepted their new contract’ – straw man number five, how is this relevant?

However, it’s nice to be told that it’s ‘a myth’ that the new contracts are being ‘imposed’ on us – presumably this means we aren’t required to accept them. Thanks Councillor, but you might want to have a word with your Chief Executive about the tone of his letters to staff on this subject.

Myth 6: ‘a special deal with the refuse collectors’

You may have seen Jo Bickley on the TV News on 5 February: ‘We’ve been asked to sign a contract but we haven’t even seen what’s in it’. Did you really spend eighteen months planning that, Councillor Rudge? It all sounds rather back-of-a-fag-packet to me.

Myth 7: ‘the Council has not consulted properly or has been inflexible’

Planners: next time a Planning Inspector asks you whether the consultation you carried out was effective, inclusive and timely enough to meet the ‘test of soundness’, just tell them how many meetings you had. No, I don’t think it’s a very good measure of how effective your consultation is either.

Of course the Council has consulted – when they’ve been made to do so.

Remember the Ipsos/MORI survey? ACAS demanded that. And you can draw your own conclusions about an organisation that will only give a member of staff information on their own job if that person makes a legally-binding request under the Freedom of Information Act.

‘Withdrawal of the termination and re-engagement notices’? Actually, Councillor, you didn’t offer to withdraw them (as we have been demanding), you offered to delay them for six months. Not quite the same thing.

Incidentally, you may also have heard that the Council is ‘constantly’ in negotiations with the unions. They met us yesterday – for the first time since the strike on 5 February. Until now all our letters and calls requesting meetings have simply been ignored.

Our position is still the same: no losers; and withdrawal of the new contracts. Until the Council is prepared to discuss these, all the other ‘offers’ are meaningless.

Myth 8: ‘new terms and conditions … which offer no benefits’

I’m not aware that the unions have been campaigning against increases in leave or a commitment to training and development. We’ve been more concerned about ‘flexibility’ – ie, you do whatever job we tell you to do, at any location we choose, on whatever day we choose. Sounds absurd? Councillor Rudge has just missed his golden opportunity to refute it.

Myth 9: ‘I’ll have to sell my house tomorrow’

Straw man number five. It’s that word ‘tomorrow’. The message seems to be that of course it would be dreadful if anyone lost their house tomorrow but as no-one will lose their house until April 2010 that should be perfectly acceptable.

Of all Councillor Rudge’s bizarre statements this is the one I find hardest to understand. If it is unacceptable to cut my pay tomorrow, why should it be OK in April 2010? (And by the way, Councillor, if you do cut my pay by £500 a month I really will lose my house.)

That word ‘only’ is interesting too. ‘Only 14%’ are losing: based on 41,000 staff that’s 5740 of us dismissed with a simple wave of a Councillor’s hand. How many would need to be losing before Councillor Rudge thought it was significant?

Myth 10: ‘single status has been implemented elsewhere … without strikes’

Yes, because other councils have worked with with their staff and unions and they haven’t tried to impose a whole series of inferior terms and conditions at the same time as they review pay and grading.

I ought to thank Councillor Rudge for thoughtfully reminding us that at Coventry and Staffordshire the councils were forced to withdraw their review as a result of … a concerted campaign of industrial action. Thanks, Councillor, for your ringing endorsement of our strike.

Also see “Single Status: The Truth Behind The Headlines?”

Who is right? Alan Rudge or his anonymous critic?

Leave a comment on the Message Board.