I have been meaning to write about The Chronicles of Bingate for the last few months, but after briefly seeing the light, I thought everything would be okay. It was not. Cut to four minutes ago, when I received a lovely notification from BBC news alerting me to how the council’s deal was seen by binmen as a slap in the face – a cut of up to £8,000 from their annual paychecks.

 

The ‘fair’ partial offer recently proposed by the council – a £2,000 – £8,000 pay cut that could equate to -30% for some – has been the main source of unrest in the refuse community. This follows previous agreements from workers, many of whom had already voluntarily accepted cuts in order to aid the council’s recovery from bankruptcy. These included giving up an already saintly £1,000 in shift pay, whilst Birmingham’s 101 councillors were simultaneously voting for a 5.7% pay increase (equivalent, also, to £1,000). Councillors of all main parties, excluding the Greens, voted – successfully – for the raise, according to BirminghamLive. 

 

“

…the council’s not giving any leeway. They’re not listening to the union. They’re not listening to us.

The reason for the increase? To quote panelist Rose Poulter, “A significant majority of [members and officers] reported that the role and responsibility of councillors continues to be demanding, both financially and emotionally. A number said [it was] too demanding, with some considering their futures.” This is all fine and dandy when considered as an isolated incident – the cost of living has been affecting everyone – but many a binworker are having to reconsider what’s going on right now. Caroline, interviewed by The i Paper – puts it candidly: “The rent’s going up, everything’s going up, gas, electric, everything – they’re going to make me homeless…There’s bags there, bags there, bags there, bags there, bags there. But the council’s not giving any leeway. They’re not listening to the union. They’re not listening to us.”

 

Only trying to keep the same wage, workers like Caroline are already – in my opinion – severely underpaid for the dangerous, grotty job they undertake. “The job doesn’t come without its risks” said one worker, casually referring to the time he was hit by a car.

“

…it is clear to me that this money can be gained without stripping hardworking Brummies of their pay. 

It’s easy enough to complain, especially as a council-tax leeching student. As someone who only lives in Selly Oak part-time, my home county’s main problems of potholes and denying Clarkson planning permission are measly in comparison to Bingate (sorry, Jeremy). However, after spending months on a project about the Council’s bankruptcy – and mere minutes reading and fact-checking online about the bin strikes – it is clear to me that this money can be gained without stripping hardworking Brummies of their pay. 

 

No results will come from politicians skirting around the topic of decreasing their pay. Although radical (though, let’s be honest, that is the only type of change that will work at this point), a full reform of the governmental system in the city is necessary. Similar to Starmer’s proposal to scrap NHS England – an unnecessary middleman – I humbly propose that we “get rid of the fat cats” (Caroline’s words, not mine), and employ only those that the council needs, for a fair amount, no frills. 

 

To illustrate, one example of the Council doing the complete opposite of this is their over-employment of temporary workers in its Waste Operation Service. This story begins with them originally lying about the percentage hired (‘20%’), with the true amount (40%) being released only after the request of a freedom of information (FOI) request by Unite. Life, as it always does, gets in the way. Anyone who has ever done temp work, or knows of anyone that has done temp work (you can’t blame them for bragging) is aware that the allure of the job comes from the massively increased pay, relative to those directly employed by the company one is ‘temp-ing’ at. Employing 493 direct workers full-time would have cost the council £12.3 million per year, yet they opted for the option that was £6.6 million more expensive.

 

“

…other acts of the council still remain awry.

Kindly ignoring this, as well as the (fortunately recently resolved) Equal Pay Scandal, other acts of the council still remain awry. Namely, a cock-up in introducing a new software to help the council run smoother. Initially estimated to cost £19 million in 2022, the Oracle software has ballooned to costing £131 million as of February this year, projected to rise again to £216.5 million until April 26.

 

Instead of shifting the responsibility onto citizens: cutting buses for children with special needs, making pest services work so hard that people gain nicknames like ‘rat man’, dimming lights in a city where those already feel unsafe, and completely cutting all funding to arts, there is now a movement pressuring the government. Their goal of £300,000,000 could have been fulfilled by at least 60% if not for the Oracle disaster; a possible further 40% if the council had paid their Equal Pay claimants fairly to begin with. Although it may not feel like we can do much, the answer to who is responsible for this disaster is as clear as the polypropylene food and drink containers littering the front of my house.

---

If you liked this, try reading…

The Labour Party’s Secret Gambling Problem

Books are Political

Labour soiled by Farmer Strikes