End of industrial action ballot at Southampton City Council

End of industrial action ballot

End of industrial action ballot

First published in News

A BALLOT on a pay deal to end industrial action at Southampton City Council closes today.

Around 2,400 union members have been voting on a deal that would restore most of the mass pay cuts brought in under threat of dismissal last July. The rest will be dependent on savings being found.

But the deal would mean a union legal claim worth up to £12m for a failure to consult would be dropped. Union legal support would also be withdrawn for around 1,000 unfair dismissal claims.

The Labour-run council, which has hailed the offer as a major step to repairing relations with staff, must find up to £2.8m to fund the proposed pay restoration.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:20am Fri 5 Oct 12

aldermoorboy says...

purely a political strike, vote labour and let the unions run Southampton.
purely a political strike, vote labour and let the unions run Southampton. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

8:04am Fri 5 Oct 12

loosehead says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
purely a political strike, vote labour and let the unions run Southampton.
If the refuse collectors I've talked to were telling me the truth this will not be voted for as they feel they've been conned by both the unions & the Labour party.
aldemoorboy the 200 jobs to go they ( the left) all think that's just temps?
the truth is it's 200 permanent posts with those workers moving into the temp posts & after 4 months they could lose their jobs with next to nothing the refuse workers knew this.
I said they should fight to postpone the vote until after November.
If they accept it all those under £17,500 won't get the pay rise & those over £22,000 won't get their pay restored until 2014 so how's this the majority of the workforce?
Now they see small pay cut keep jobs keep pay lose God knows how many jobs & slash school budgets?
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: purely a political strike, vote labour and let the unions run Southampton.[/p][/quote]If the refuse collectors I've talked to were telling me the truth this will not be voted for as they feel they've been conned by both the unions & the Labour party. aldemoorboy the 200 jobs to go they ( the left) all think that's just temps? the truth is it's 200 permanent posts with those workers moving into the temp posts & after 4 months they could lose their jobs with next to nothing the refuse workers knew this. I said they should fight to postpone the vote until after November. If they accept it all those under £17,500 won't get the pay rise & those over £22,000 won't get their pay restored until 2014 so how's this the majority of the workforce? Now they see small pay cut keep jobs keep pay lose God knows how many jobs & slash school budgets? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:14am Fri 5 Oct 12

MGRA says...

loosehead wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
purely a political strike, vote labour and let the unions run Southampton.
If the refuse collectors I've talked to were telling me the truth this will not be voted for as they feel they've been conned by both the unions & the Labour party.
aldemoorboy the 200 jobs to go they ( the left) all think that's just temps?
the truth is it's 200 permanent posts with those workers moving into the temp posts & after 4 months they could lose their jobs with next to nothing the refuse workers knew this.
I said they should fight to postpone the vote until after November.
If they accept it all those under £17,500 won't get the pay rise & those over £22,000 won't get their pay restored until 2014 so how's this the majority of the workforce?
Now they see small pay cut keep jobs keep pay lose God knows how many jobs & slash school budgets?
southampton is a financial mess. They should have outsourced refuse years ago and moved to 14 day collections. It works in Eastleigh.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: purely a political strike, vote labour and let the unions run Southampton.[/p][/quote]If the refuse collectors I've talked to were telling me the truth this will not be voted for as they feel they've been conned by both the unions & the Labour party. aldemoorboy the 200 jobs to go they ( the left) all think that's just temps? the truth is it's 200 permanent posts with those workers moving into the temp posts & after 4 months they could lose their jobs with next to nothing the refuse workers knew this. I said they should fight to postpone the vote until after November. If they accept it all those under £17,500 won't get the pay rise & those over £22,000 won't get their pay restored until 2014 so how's this the majority of the workforce? Now they see small pay cut keep jobs keep pay lose God knows how many jobs & slash school budgets?[/p][/quote]southampton is a financial mess. They should have outsourced refuse years ago and moved to 14 day collections. It works in Eastleigh. MGRA
  • Score: 0

10:10am Fri 5 Oct 12

Rockhopper says...

SCC have to find 2.8m savings?
It is not the temporary staff you should be looking to axe.
Focus on the supervisor/manager posts.
Far too many of them in back office functions on high salaries and pension contributions.
They are 'faceless' to the public and offer very little value for money.
Removing them would have no effect on the services provided to Southampton residents.
SCC have to find 2.8m savings? It is not the temporary staff you should be looking to axe. Focus on the supervisor/manager posts. Far too many of them in back office functions on high salaries and pension contributions. They are 'faceless' to the public and offer very little value for money. Removing them would have no effect on the services provided to Southampton residents. Rockhopper
  • Score: 0

10:27am Fri 5 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

Rockhopper wrote:
SCC have to find 2.8m savings?
It is not the temporary staff you should be looking to axe.
Focus on the supervisor/manager posts.
Far too many of them in back office functions on high salaries and pension contributions.
They are 'faceless' to the public and offer very little value for money.
Removing them would have no effect on the services provided to Southampton residents.
An exodus of Managers like Lorraine Brown last year,would see SCC even further in debt when all of the Golden Goodbyes and Pension Pot promises were called in by those who have them written in to their contracts.
[quote][p][bold]Rockhopper[/bold] wrote: SCC have to find 2.8m savings? It is not the temporary staff you should be looking to axe. Focus on the supervisor/manager posts. Far too many of them in back office functions on high salaries and pension contributions. They are 'faceless' to the public and offer very little value for money. Removing them would have no effect on the services provided to Southampton residents.[/p][/quote]An exodus of Managers like Lorraine Brown last year,would see SCC even further in debt when all of the Golden Goodbyes and Pension Pot promises were called in by those who have them written in to their contracts. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

10:41am Fri 5 Oct 12

Rockhopper says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Rockhopper wrote: SCC have to find 2.8m savings? It is not the temporary staff you should be looking to axe. Focus on the supervisor/manager posts. Far too many of them in back office functions on high salaries and pension contributions. They are 'faceless' to the public and offer very little value for money. Removing them would have no effect on the services provided to Southampton residents.
An exodus of Managers like Lorraine Brown last year,would see SCC even further in debt when all of the Golden Goodbyes and Pension Pot promises were called in by those who have them written in to their contracts.
You refer to director level where the new structure is now in place.
Also the redundancy terms and conditions have now been reduced for all staff.
In any case I am referring to lower managers at supervisor/middle manager level that could quite easiy be cut.
The savings made by axing these posts far out weigh the long term cost to the Council of keeping them employed.
No position at the Council should be exempt from redundancy if they are not providing a value for money service to the tax payer.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockhopper[/bold] wrote: SCC have to find 2.8m savings? It is not the temporary staff you should be looking to axe. Focus on the supervisor/manager posts. Far too many of them in back office functions on high salaries and pension contributions. They are 'faceless' to the public and offer very little value for money. Removing them would have no effect on the services provided to Southampton residents.[/p][/quote]An exodus of Managers like Lorraine Brown last year,would see SCC even further in debt when all of the Golden Goodbyes and Pension Pot promises were called in by those who have them written in to their contracts.[/p][/quote]You refer to director level where the new structure is now in place. Also the redundancy terms and conditions have now been reduced for all staff. In any case I am referring to lower managers at supervisor/middle manager level that could quite easiy be cut. The savings made by axing these posts far out weigh the long term cost to the Council of keeping them employed. No position at the Council should be exempt from redundancy if they are not providing a value for money service to the tax payer. Rockhopper
  • Score: 0

11:46am Fri 5 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Maybe we should go the foreign way?
you agree with collection days & how many a month & then agree terms on costs.
I only need either bin emptied once a month as I compost & don't produce that much waste so I could save a fortune.
but that would also mean lowering my council tax as the council will no longer provide that service,
the people it would hit are the ones who a green & a blue bin isn't enough for weekly collections.
flats could pay more to have twice weekly collections.
But we know that there would be a major kick up if this system was bought in.
Fortnightly collections would leave us with the same mess as the strikes take a walk through the council estate near you & you'd see why.
A 2% pay cut for the category of £17,500-£22,000 with job security seems to be a far better deal than no cut but 1-10 job losses that Williams said wouldn't happen or did he forget he actually said that?
I wouldn't sign up for anything unless I clarified exactly what payment I'd receive if I didn't want to accept a lower paid job or one that was totally different than the one I was doing & was only for 4 months.
Accept this deal find out you are in line for taking the temps job at a reduced rate & have to look for a permanent job in 4moths or your out on your ear on a very reduced package? does this also mean a reduced Pension?
Maybe we should go the foreign way? you agree with collection days & how many a month & then agree terms on costs. I only need either bin emptied once a month as I compost & don't produce that much waste so I could save a fortune. but that would also mean lowering my council tax as the council will no longer provide that service, the people it would hit are the ones who a green & a blue bin isn't enough for weekly collections. flats could pay more to have twice weekly collections. But we know that there would be a major kick up if this system was bought in. Fortnightly collections would leave us with the same mess as the strikes take a walk through the council estate near you & you'd see why. A 2% pay cut for the category of £17,500-£22,000 with job security seems to be a far better deal than no cut but 1-10 job losses that Williams said wouldn't happen or did he forget he actually said that? I wouldn't sign up for anything unless I clarified exactly what payment I'd receive if I didn't want to accept a lower paid job or one that was totally different than the one I was doing & was only for 4 months. Accept this deal find out you are in line for taking the temps job at a reduced rate & have to look for a permanent job in 4moths or your out on your ear on a very reduced package? does this also mean a reduced Pension? loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree