Is ‘Equal Pay’ Going to Bankrupt Local Government?

If you haven’t been following the story of Birmingham City Council going bankrupt, you need to pay attention. I’d assumed it was a simple case of a Labour-run council running out of other people’s money – perhaps because it’d hired too many busybodies or thrown too much cash at some boondoggle. What actually happened is much more intriguing, and worrying.

In short, the council was sued into bankruptcy by its own former employees. Thousands of them who’d worked in traditionally female professions (such as cleaners and lollipop ladies) sued on the grounds that they’d been denied bonuses that were available to some traditionally male professions (like bin men and grave diggers).

Already by 2010 such lawsuits had cost the council £200 million. But then in 2012, a landmark Supreme Court decision ruled that ‘equal pay’ claims could be heard in the High Court – which has a six-year deadline for launching claims, rather than the six-month window in the employment tribunal. Consequently, thousands of additional workers who’d left their jobs more than six months ago brought claims against the council. As of 2024, Birmingham’s total liabilities from such claims may exceed £1 billion.

After declaring itself bankrupt last year, the council announced earlier this month how it plans to foot the enormous bill: by dimming street lights, selling off assets, raising burial costs, laying off up to 600 workers, hiking council tax by an eye-watering 21%, and reducing the frequency of waste collection to once a fortnight.  

I don’t know about you, but the whole thing strikes me as a farce.

Women signed up to work for the council at a particular wage (no one forced them to work at that wage and they could have taken another job). Now, several years later, Birmingham residents face a huge hike in council tax, along with major cuts to public services, all because a court ruled it was ‘unfair’ that men in completely different jobs were getting paid more at the same time.

I work on a computer. An investment banker at Goldman Sachs works on a computer. Therefore we should get paid the same.

This isn’t how wages are determined in a free society. They are meant to be determined by supply and demand. If bin men or grave diggers are in short supply, their wages need to rise to attract more people into those professions. What people in completely different jobs are earning is irrelevant.

If I were a resident of Birmingham, I’d be furious. In fact, I’d probably move. (An unintended consequence of this ‘equal pay’ racket is that Birmingham’s tax base will be further eroded as savvy residents flee the impending tax hike.)  

But it gets worse. Dozens of other councils across the U.K. could be facing bankruptcy for the same reason. And it isn’t just councils. Six of the country’s biggest retail chains are currently being sued on ‘equal pay’ grounds.

You’d assume it would fall to the ‘Conservatives’ to put an end to this nonsense. But no, they’re doubling down. Rather than rejecting the whole notion that wages can be determined by what seems ‘fair’, and duly scrapping or rewriting the relevant legislation, they’ve made it easier for men in female-dominated professions to sue for discrimination!

The West supposedly won the Cold War, but we’ve somehow been saddled with wage communism.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

22 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
soundofreason
soundofreason
2 years ago

Just because the workers won the right to sue for historic unequal pay it does not enhance their legal case when they do actually make that claim. It seems the courts hearing these cases may be biased against the councils – or perhaps a leftist council would rather go bankrupt than properly contest spurious claims.

Freddy Boy
2 years ago

To view a list of all the claimants surnames would make interesting reading , 😳

huxleypiggles
2 years ago
Reply to  Freddy Boy

Alu Akhbar!

Freddy Boy
2 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Names Appearing many times as per the postal votes 🤫

sskinner
2 years ago

And…
Top Russell Group universities have told staff and students that saying “the most qualified person should get the job” is a “microaggression”, among other examples of woke language policing. The Telegraph has more.

At least five universities have issued guidance or training courses on how to eliminate “microaggressions”, which are defined as subtle or indirect forms of discrimination.

Guidance from the University of Glasgow and the engineering department of Imperial College London states that saying “the most qualified person should get the job” is an example of a microaggression…

varmint
2 years ago
Reply to  sskinner

“The most qualified person should get the job” ——-Seems like a good idea, except in Wokeland where they think the brain surgeon should be emptying the wheelie bins and the binman doing the brain operations.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
2 years ago
Reply to  sskinner

Do they mean most academically qualified, so a PhD, with many years experience in a similar job, is superceded by someone with little experience in the job, but has two PhDs, not related to the job?

Not that it would happen often, if at all, but it highlights how sloppy the statement is. But that’s typical of them, isn’t it.

Or are they talking abstractly about a hypothetical scenario, while in their safe space, of course? It gets fuzzier the more I think about it.

sskinner
2 years ago

The YouTube below is the same discussion about gender pay gaps in Australia. There is a senator Leyonhjelm who is very good at challenging the equal pay assertions.
Leyonhjelm on the gender pay gap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLYf5XgaHGw

And this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdnkbs4l_g
What about the gender workplace hours gap?

huxleypiggles
2 years ago
Reply to  sskinner

I have in the past worked with women nominally employed in the same job. Some of those women were incompetent and bloody lazy. They still took home the same money.

Steve-Devon
2 years ago

Living in the Past The aspect of this that caught my attention was the change that enabled these claims to go back 6 years rather than 6 months. It seems to me that any claims that go back in history, whether it is equal pay claims or reparations for past injustices, are a stultifying drag on the present, they push money to people in a way that is a distortion of the current economy. Indeed with this issue these claims are threatening to sink Councils and other firms and organisations. If the people making these claims had been paid more in the past, many things may have been different. Paying them today for the economic situation of the past is trying to re-write history. If they had been paid more? would council tax/rates at that time been higher? In which case if any of these claims are successful should the Council not have the right to go back and charge extra rates/council tax for those years? Clearly, whilst this may be logical, it is not practical or possible. In my view we cannot live in the past and re-write history. We need to look to the future and ensure we… Read more »

RTSC
RTSC
2 years ago

That’s why the Uni-Party created the minimum wage. So that everyone at “working class” level, regardless of their sex or their occupation, would be paid the same.

The problem has been caused in Birmingham, and elsewhere, because they didn’t pay everyone the minimum wage. 🙂

sskinner
2 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V60B6QFGFrI
The Minimum Wage Law is Absolutely Devastating | Thomas Sowell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TGkfjaxFWs
Thomas Sowell – Minimum Wage Exploitation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5WYp5xmvI&t=15s
Thomas Sowell on the Myths of Economic Inequality

Chips
Chips
2 years ago
Reply to  sskinner

Much as I agree with Sowell, on this as everything else, it’s even worse than he says.

In a country with artificially constrained housing supply, where most minimum wage employees are renters not owner-occupiers they compete vigorously for housing. If they get a pay rise across the board then they bid up rents, and you’d expect 100% of it to be taken by landlords; those that are forcibly unemployed of course get their rent paid out of housing benefit. In both cases you see a transfer of income from productive capitalists and high-earning labour via lower-earners (productively employed or unemployed) and the tax system to unproductive landowners.

This is not a good thing.

sskinner
2 years ago
Reply to  Chips

Indeed. The modern world began with modern farming and then industrialisation. Both of these provided and underpinned our economy and society. We have de-industrialised and now efforts are being made to end modern farming.

Lurker
2 years ago

I spent 20 years in retail in store. Yes the checkout (mainly ladies) scanned a lot of weight (I think it was averaged to around 1 ton per hour but that was nothing compared to the (mainly male) pickers in the warehouse.

The argument is the work is of “equal value’ as the company needed with but ignores the reality that working in the warehouse is far physically harder and often worse physical conditions so therefore higher wages are needed to attract people (mainly men) to do it.

Supply and demand, nothing more, nothing less

EppingBlogger
2 years ago

If HMRC ever gets around to looking at payroll and VAT tax regulations and how the tax payer funded sectors fail to apply them the costs will be even greater.

huxleypiggles
2 years ago

You’d assume it would fall to the ‘Conservatives’ to put an end to this nonsense.”

On the contrary – No.

If the aim is to destroy this country, and it is certainly the aim of the WEF paid political establishment, then the fact that the fake tories are continuing to push this program seems wholly understandable.

JXB
JXB
2 years ago

Bankruptcy means you can’t meet your liabilities and creditors have to form a queue to be paid out pro-rata from money from liquidation of assets.

Shut the Council down, then nobody gets anything. Let private enterprise take over on a direct pay system for residents according to the services each wants.

As for the public goods free rider problem, leave it to private enterprise to come up with a solution.

Example: lighthouses were originally built and operated by private entities, but the light being a public good, there was no way to charge passing ships who used it. So, a deal with port authorities meant a fee was added to port fees for ships using British ports and this went to the lighthouse companies.

I recall quite a few years ago, a particular stretch of motorway was not lit because the Council through whose territory it ran couldn’t afford the cost.

An electric/electronics/electric light company offered to sponsor the lighting in exchange for being allowed to advertise along the stretch. The Council turned it down, because much better to have deaths and injuries from accidents then besmirch itself with capitalism and commerce.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
2 years ago
Reply to  JXB

It’s likely the Council turned it down because noone there had the ability to understand the advantages.

Grim Ace
Grim Ace
2 years ago

Men do all the shite jobs in councils. They should get extra pay. Females always busy keeping warm in the office and taking days off when they don’t feel up to it.

Jackthegripper
Jackthegripper
2 years ago

This is crazy and actually discriminatory. If a checkout assistant wants equal pay with a warehouseman in a supermarket, she should ask for a job in the warehouse.
If she’s incapable of doing the work, she should not be paid the same.

brightlightsweetown
brightlightsweetown
2 years ago

The problems for the councils etc, is that jobs are ‘graded’ or ‘banded’ and are on the same pay scale. If gravediggers or binmen are graded at say ‘E’ and cleaners or dinner ladies are also ‘E’ then the pay is, or should have been the same. They’ve dug themselves, and by default the taxpayers, into the equal pay fiasco bottomless pit. Complete and utter madness.