The Birmingham bin strikes continue, and trade unions are threatening to extend similar strikes across the country. The Government’s response so far amounts to window dressing. Its latest intervention is to deploy the army to logistical roles to support the council manage the situation, but it has stopped short of putting uniformed soldiers on the streets to collect rubbish. That hasn’t been seen since the mid-1970s. Crisis, what crisis?
This will do little to solve the problem. As with so many of Britain’s contemporary troubles, there is a legislative root. That means, thankfully, there is also a legislative solution. In this instance it is a combination of equal pay laws, European Union jurisprudence and our favourite repeat offender, the Equality Act.
Birmingham’s dustmen are on strike following a chain of events caused by these laws. An historic equal pay claim made against the council by a group of female employees culminated in a Supreme Court case in 2012. In this case, a claim was brought against the council under Section 66 of the Equality Act which protects equal work for equal value in law. This found that primarily female council staff like cleaners, carers and cooks, had been discriminated against because they had not been awarded bonuses like dustmen or gravediggers, who are primarily male. Importantly, the 2012 ruling extended the amount of time people could claim back pay from six months to six years.
Backdating the claims increased the council’s liabilities, becoming the primary reason for it declaring bankruptcy in 2023. The bin strikes began after the council attempted to meet these liabilities by restructuring its waste management, leading to cuts to bin collection services and various roles, which trade unions claimed represented significant cuts to dustmen’s salaries. Five weeks on, the strikes continue in a city which had already become infamous for illegal fly tipping and rubbish strewn neighbourhoods.
It may seem odd to the layman that an equal pay claim could be brought by a cleaner or a carer because of the different pay awarded to a refuse collector. They are, after all, different jobs. These jobs, evidently, have different labour markets associated with them — the responsibilities and requirements plainly differ — and if it proves more difficult to recruit and retain for particular positions, then it seems reasonable for employers to offer pay rises or bonuses to ensure the roles are filled, and bins collected and graves dug.
This, however, is not how the law sees it. The Supreme Court decided that these different jobs were “equivalent” because it deemed that the “value” of the work to the council was equivalent in each case, thanks to things like the skill level required of the workers and the sort of responsibilities they had, despite appearing different. The Council itself conducted a “Job Equivalence Survey” which found that these jobs were equivalent, in line with public sector guidance around pay bands. So, while the judgement might fly in the face of all understandings of free markets, the reality is that we do not have a free market thanks to the Equality Act and earlier equal pay laws, bolstered by judgements from the European Court of Justice.
Birmingham isn’t the end of it, however. Similar cases are being brought in the private sector, with predominantly — but not overwhelmingly — female staff making claims against retail businesses because they have been paid less than the predominantly — but not overwhelmingly — male staff working in warehouses. So far, Asda and Next have both lost claims on these grounds, and a similar case is being brought against Tesco. These cases are all being brought under section 66 of the Equality Act and the total claims could run to billions of pounds in back pay. Retail is, after all, the UK’s largest sector by headcount.
As luck would have it, there is currently a perfect Bill making its way through Parliament to which a few sharp amendments could be attached — either by backbench parliamentarians or the Government — which could stop the issue stone dead, and restore a bit of sense to our labour market.
The Employment Rights Bill is introducing some of the most significant increases in labour regulation in the UK in decades. The Government’s own estimates suggest that this Bill will add around £4 billion to businesses in regulatory burdens, though this is likely an underestimate considering the poor record government impact assessments have for accuracy, and this one is no exception considering the damning report it was given by the Regulatory Policy Committee.
While the Government is committed to this Bill — with its increases to trade union power, attacks on free expression in the workplace, bans on zero-hour contracts and expansion of unproductive working practices like the right to work from home — amendments could be tabled to amend the Equality Act and end the concept of “equivalence” in law for different jobs with different labour markets.
The Equality Act … doesn’t just undermine meritocracy and equality under the law, it is now taking the taxpayer for a ride
Rumours in Parliament suggest that the House of Commons has refused to accept such amendments, deeming them out of scope of the Bill. However, the Bill concerns equality matters and indeed amends the Equality Act with the introduction of “equality action plans” in the workplace. Not only that, it amends the same part of the Equality Act as Section 66, the offending clause behind the equal pay claims. Without accusing officials in the Commons of political obstruction, one hopes members of the House of Lords might have more luck in raising the issue in their House.
Or perhaps the Government itself could amend the Bill itself. After all, these claims affect the taxpayer. Birmingham City Council is a public body, and its bankruptcy is ultimately being administered by the country’s beleaguered taxpayers. The Equality Act is turning into a monster. It doesn’t just undermine meritocracy and equality under the law, it is now taking the taxpayer for a ride. With the public finances as strained as they are, it is time for the Prime Minister and Chancellor to act in the interests of growth and sound money instead of just talking about them.
