HOW TO PLAY TRICKS WITH WORDS
Several of you have pointed to a reply from a Cllr suggesting that agreement had been reached on many comparators. Not even close - no agreement has been reached on anything.
What she actually said was “many comparators had been accepted”.
Did you see that trick. I bet many of you thought ‘accepted’ was the same as agreed. But oh no. It’s something completely different.
So back in May we made an offer to the council to settle identifying named comparators in identified male jobs and with a calculated loss. So 3 elements - job/named man/calculation. We identified comparators for the biggest 24 jobs for both protection and post protection.
The council didn’t respond.
Then a couple of weeks ago they presented us with a single sheet of paper listing the claimant jobs and the suggested comparators marked accept or reject. As usual this was simply produced at the meeting but with no explanation and no negotiations.
Out of 24 claimants jobs they ‘accepted’ 7 of our nominated comparators. I don’t think 7 is ‘many’ but that might just be me.
Does that mean that comparators are agreed for those jobs.
Nope because the council also said that even for those 7 jobs they didn’t accept our named comparator. Again no explanation, no nominated alternative and no negotiations.
Did they accept our methodology? Nope.
Now this is important because if you change the methodology you might change the comparators. Almost with perfect timing they then suggested that to get paid for the ludicrous 37 hour rule we must nominate a comparators that gets nswp. (We don’t agree this and there have been no negotiations on the point, but it’s something they suggested very recently). Guess what, most of the jobs they claim to have ‘accepted’ don’t get nswp. Sly aren’t they.
So that ‘many comparators have been accepted’ turns into 7/24 nominated jobs, but none of the men you named and no agreement on how to calculate loss even if we did agree them. And no negotiations on any of it. But hey I’m sure they just forget to mention all of that when they briefed councillors. They weren’t misleading them. Not at all.