Men Are To Pay A High Price For Sexual Equality

Equal pay claims for up to 1.5 million public sector workers could cost the taxpayer more than £10 billion and mean that hundreds of thousands of men will lose up to 40 per cent of their salary.

Town halls are struggling to pay compensation bills totalling £3 billion to fund up to six years’ back pay for women workers after equal wage settlements. But now employers are finding it too expensive to finance pay rises for up to 700,000 women.

Employers told The Times that up to 250,000 men and some white-collar women could have their salaries cut, in some cases by £15,000 a year, as jobs are reevaluated. The new pay structures, due to be completed by the end of this month, are likely to lead to strikes and court cases.

“We are trying to keep the pay bill rise across the country to 4 per cent, which will cost us £1 billion,” one employers’ official said. “If we paid the rises in full without cutting any salaries it would cost us nearer £4 billion. This is the inevitable outcome of job reevaluation. Existing employees will face pay cuts. We may be able to protect them for two or three years, but even this may breach sex discrimination laws. There may be personal unfairness but the Equal Pay Act is the ace of spades and trumps everyone else.”

In real terms, workers’ pay could be reduced by between £2,000 and £15,000. Those most likely to lose out will be earning between £18,000 and £50,000, ranging from street cleaners to electricians and administration staff.

Both employers and unions claim that cutting male salaries is not in breach of existing legislation provided a new contract is signed. In some cases salaries are protected for two to three years until female pay reaches the same level, or the men are given different job titles to get round the problem.

Birmingham City Council, the biggest authority in the country, has announced that 40 per cent of its 40,000 staff will have their pay increased, 40 per cent will have no change and 20 per cent will have their pay cut. Senior social work assistants and even press officers are facing cuts of up to 50 per cent as they have been regraded on the same level as street cleaners. A social work assistant on more than £35,000 will have his or her pay cut by £15,000 to bring it in line with a street cleaner, according to union officials.

The problem is now spreading to the NHS, where tens of thousands of men may have their pay frozen for two or three years while female workers catch up, although no pay cuts have been announced yet.

More than 50,000 male NHS workers, including porters, maintenance staff and clerical staff, could have static salaries for the next three or four years.

Equal pay claims are being pursued by women clerical workers at the Ministry of Defence and by teaching assistants. Public sector unions, such as the GMB, T&G and Unison, are finding themselves in the difficult position of trying to protect male workers while boosting the pay of women staff. They are fighting more than 10,000 cases in England and Wales to get better deals for women.

But no-win, no-fee lawyers, leafleting town halls and NHS trusts, are also persuading women to sue unions for striking compromise agreements to protect male salaries for several years. If lawyers such as Stefan Cross, already representing 7,000 women in the North East, keep winning cases, more men may face pay cuts. Most of the 1.2 million council employees are having their jobs reevaluated, bar top officials who earn more than £70,000. Although in lower-pay grades almost all the workers facing cuts are men, that is not the case in clerical groups, where women have also been told that they will lose pay.

“So far around 20 per cent of staff have been told they will lose pay, which would be equal to about 250,000 staff nationally,” Jon Sutcliffe, the policy officer for the Local Government Employers, said.

Council workers are threatening strike action and some are expected to take their cases to industrial tribunals. A spokesman for the Local Government Employers said that, provided staff signed new contracts, employers are legally entitled to cut pay.

The crisis has come to a head this month because, under an agreement struck by the unions in 2004, all town halls have to evaluate jobs and have new pay structures in place by April 1.

Only a third have done so to date, but until now the focus has been on back-pay settlements of equal-pay agreements. Although tens of thousands of women are entitled to six years’ back pay of up to £30,000, unions are sometimes striking deals with employers to try to protect male staff.

Mr Cross, and solicitors such as Carvers in the West Midlands and Leigh Day in the North West, are all said to be winning extra money for claimants by unpicking union agreements. Last night Mr Cross, who represents only women, said that unions were protecting 10 per cent of the workforce at the expense of 90 per cent of women eligible for pay rises.

In many cases councils have reached a deal with unions to agree to an equal pay structure in return for funding only three or four years’ back pay in compensation.

Millicent Venson, 38, went on strike despite getting a rise when her salary was adjusted. The support worker used to earn £11,000 but that rose to £14,000 after Coventry City Council implemented “single status”, which supposedly ensures pay equality for men and women.

Miss Venson, who cares for elderly residents at a home in the Hillfields area, has worked for the council for six years in various roles. She said: “I am obviously really pleased that I got the pay rise but the situation is very complex. It is difficult getting more money yourself and seeing colleagues who work really hard having their salary reduced. There still needs to be a lot of work done to make things fair. For many people, this is just the beginning of the battle.

The city council is meant to be giving us back pay and there is a large number of women who are actually taking it to court to get what they are owed.

“People just want to be appreciated for what they do. It has affected almost every single person in the council one way or another and created a lot of bad feeling. At the moment the council and the unions all need to get back round the negotiating table and try and move things forward.”

Miss Venson, who is single, went on strike alongside colleagues. She said: “It is the binmen I feel sorry for. They have lost a lot. You hear these horror stories of people who have had to sell their homes because they cannot afford the mortgage. Single status has opened a can of worms.”

The most recent strike over pay, last month, involved support staff at a city primary school and half the parking attendants in Coventry.

Mark Butcher, 30, went on strike after being told by Coventry City Council, which implemented “single status” in 2005, that his pay would be cut from £15,300 to £11,500. The street sweeper had to retrain as a driver-sweeper to keep his original salary.

He said: “I think most of us were actually pleased when we heard single status would be introduced because we thought we would get more money. We were completely stunned when we heard we were actually going to get less.

“I was initially told my salary would be cut to £10,500 and then they looked at it again and came back with a figure of £11,500. We were just disgusted. Our jobs include cleaning up human excrement and dog mess. We deal with the safe disposal of syringes.”

Mr Butcher, who is single and has a four-year-old daughter, has worked for the council since 1998. He said: “The atmosphere has been terrible. Any good will there was has gone. I will be paid that amount until 2009 but none of us have any clue what happens then. I guess a lot will be voting with their feet.”