Birmingham bin strike staff to hold rally after deal rejected
Striking bin workers are to stage a rally a day after the Unite union members rejected the city council's latest pay offer to end the industrial action.More than 350 refuse collectors have been on an all-out strike since 11 March and this latest stand-off with the Labour-run council, will lead to bin bags and fly-tipped rubbish continuing to pile up on streets.On Monday workers voted to reject the council's latest offer, which Unite said was "totally inadequate" and also did not address potential pay cuts for 200 drivers.The council has said the offer on the table is fair and includes options for affected workers, but .
The rally, due to take place at 10:30 BST outside the council house, will involve handing over a petition in support of the striking workers.More negotiations between the two sides are scheduled to take place on Wednesday. The dispute centres around the council's decision to remove Waste Recycling and Collection Officer (WRCO) roles from some bin workers.
'Let's get back to normal'
As the strike rumbles on, national government ministers have also voiced concerns over the situation in the UK's second largest city."Our message, loud and clear, is that Unite need to call off the strike, accept the deal, and let's get back to normal," industry minister Sarah Jones told BBC Breakfast.The union said its workers were striking in order to prevent pay cuts, not in a bid to get more money than they currently receive."Our members would like nothing better than to be able to call off the strike and get back to work," Onay Kasab, Unite national lead officer, told BBC Breakfast."But as things stand, we still have people who are going to be facing huge pay cuts as a result of this."
Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
27 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump administration continues to target international students. What to know and what could be next.
Lawsuits, next-day countersuits, backtracking and mass confusion. International students find themselves at the center of a dizzying legal landscape as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration. Here's what to know as the Trump administration keeps attempting to put up legal barriers to international students' ability to study in the U.S. What's the latest? Just Wednesday, a judge granted Harvard an extension on an injunction that blocked the administration's attempt last week to stop the Ivy League school from enrolling foreign-born students. An estimated 4,700 or more foreign-born students have been impacted since the Trump administration began revoking visas and terminating legal statuses in March. A few have also been detained in high-profile cases. In just the past two weeks, students across the country were granted a nationwide injunction against the administration. Some scholars have been released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well. Meanwhile the State Department announced that it is 'aggressively' targeting an additional group of Chinese scholars out of national security concerns. But in spite of its legal losses, the federal government has doubled down on its efforts to target international students. On Tuesday, the Trump administration stopped scheduling new student visa interviews for those looking to study in the U.S., according to an internal cable seen by NBC News. Meanwhile, the State Department is preparing to expand its social media screening of applicants, the cable said. The next day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the government would be looking to revoke the visas of Chinese students 'with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.' It's still unclear what 'critical fields' the administration will be looking into and what types of connections to the CCP are under scrutiny. The State Department referred NBC News to comments by spokesperson Tammy Bruce during a news briefing Thursday in which Bruce said the department does not discuss the details of its visa process due to privacy concerns. 'We use every tool that we have to vet and to make sure we know who's coming in,' Bruce said. 'In this particular case, the United States is putting America first by beginning to revoke visas of Chinese students as warranted.' How did the Trump administration revoke the visas and statuses of international students? For months, there was mass confusion among schools and international students about the criteria the government used to abruptly terminate visas and statuses, with little to no notice to students. But in late April, the Department of Homeland Security revealed at a hearing that it used the National Crime Information Center, an FBI-run computerized index that includes criminal history information. The agency said fewer than two dozen employees ran the names of 1.3 million foreign-born students through the index, populating 6,400 'hits.' And from there, many students experienced terminations of their records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), which maintains information about nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors. The method was sharply criticized by legal and policy experts, who pointed out that the database relies on cities, counties, states and other sources to voluntarily report their data. This means that it may not have the final dispositions of cases, potentially leading to errors in identifying students. At another hearing in April, Elizabeth D. Kurlan, an attorney for the Justice Department, said that going forward, Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not be terminating statuses based solely on findings in the crime information center. She also told the court that ICE would be restoring the legal status of international students who had their records terminated until the agency developed a new framework for revocations. Shortly afterward, an internal memo to all Student and Exchange Visitor Program personnel, which is under ICE jurisdiction, showed an expanded list of criteria for the agency to terminate foreign-born students' legal status in the U.S., including a 'U.S. Department of State Visa Revocation (Effective Immediately).' Though students would typically have the right to due process and defend themselves before their status is terminated, visa revocation itself is now grounds for the termination of status, according to the memo. The administration has also taken aim at students who have been active in pro-Palestine protests, including Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who were both detained in March. Öztürk has since been released from ICE custody. 'Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,' Rubio said at a news conference in March. Has anyone been successful in challenging the Trump administration? Students across the U.S. from Georgia to South Dakota have been winning their lawsuits against the Trump administration, with judges siding with plaintiffs and allowing them to stay in the U.S. Last week, a judge issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration from terminating the legal statuses of international students at universities across the U.S. It's the first to provide relief to students nationwide. The day after the Trump administration terminated Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification — a move that would force the university's foreign students, roughly a fourth of its student body, to either transfer or lose their legal status — the Ivy League school sued the administration. And hours later, a judge issued an injunction. In addition to Öztürk, others who were detained are no longer in ICE custody, including Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri and Mohsen Mahdawi, a U.S. permanent resident who was born and raised in a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. The judge in Khan Suri's case ruled that his detention was in violation of the First Amendment, which protects the right to free speech, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects the right to due process. What might be next for international students? Though the recent nationwide injunction provides some relief, students can still be vulnerable to visa revocation. Legal experts say the temporary restraining order blocks the government from arresting or detaining students, or terminating their legal statuses. But it's possible that visas can still be revoked. And many expect the Trump administration to hit back. 'This is a federal district court decision. It is not a final decision, and it seems likely that the executive branch will appeal this decision,' Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. Mukherjee also added that the Chinese international students referred to in Rubio's new statement are likely not protected by the injunction either. 'What they're likely to claim in court in defense of this policy is that the secretary of state and the executive branch deserves deference with regard to quote, unquote, foreign affairs,' Mukherjee said. However, with backlash already brewing, Mukherjee said she expects that the policy will be challenged legally, with immigration attorneys and activists arguing that it is unconstitutional. Legal experts said that with many decisions surrounding international students' fate far from decided, foreign-born scholars should first and foremost remain in the country. She also said it's important to seek legal counsel in the event that students are also eligible for other forms of relief, including asylum or other humanitarian visas. Razeen Zaman, director of immigrant rights at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said it's particularly important for American citizens to speak out against the immigration policies on behalf of foreign-born students, as many of these students may not be able to push back themselves. 'You have to have a certain amount of resources to be able to do that. You have to have a certain amount of connections. There's even some people who are too afraid to seek counsel,' Zaman said. 'U.S. citizens have the most protections. … And the reality is, even if you're stopped at the border, they do have to still let you in as a U.S. citizen.' And given how the Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of more than 500,000 immigrants from four Latin American countries, Zaman said, it's likely that even more groups will be targeted without fierce advocacy and protest. 'This is about the First Amendment today. It's Chinese people, the CCP, whoever they decide is tied to the Chinese government,' Zaman said.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
There's nothing progressive about a ‘bath tax'
We will be lectured that it is fairer, better for the environment, and, of course, 'more progressive'. Labour ministers are supporting plans by the water industry to extend metered supply. In effect, very soon you could be forced to pay more for the amount of water you use. The trouble is, there is nothing 'progressive' about that. All it will do is create pockets of 'water poverty', reward the water companies for not repairing the pipes, further punish those who choose to have a bigger family, and, like smart meters, introduce an unworkable technology. We should scrap it before it even starts. The days when you could run a bath, run the washing machine, or water the garden, without worrying about how much water you are using could soon be in the past. The more water you use, the higher the tariff you will have to pay. Very soon, we may have smart meters in the corner of the kitchen, as most of us already do for electricity, gently nagging us not to fill the kettle too much, or ticking us off for running the dishwasher before it is completely full. Every litre will be a guilt trip. We will be told that the bath tax is more 'progressive', with those with the 'broadest shoulders', or simply people who like to stay clean, contributing more to the maintenance of the water network. The trouble is, that is ridiculous. There is nothing 'progressive' about charging for water – a utility we ought to have in abundant supply. It won't just target people who have swimming pools or larger families, but those who live in the countryside where gardens are bigger, or grow their own vegetables, or just happen to like long relaxing baths. It is completely random. Complaints about 'water poverty' are inevitable, and demands for a complex system of rebates and benefits to compensate for the charges. The whole system will add yet another layer of complexity to a government system that is already breaking down. Next, it rewards the water companies for failure. One of the major problems with the system is the amount of water that is lost through leaking pipes (up to 50 per cent on some estimates). Why bother repairing the network, and maintaining it properly, when you can simply whack up the charges for using more water, even if much of it has leaked before getting to you? A fixed rate per property rewards the companies for looking after the network. Metered changes risks rewarding them for negligence. Finally, does anyone really believe that the meters will function properly? We already know that the roll-out of 'smart meters' for electricity has been a fiasco, with ruinous bills imposed when these devices go wrong, and then huge fines if you don't pay on time. Water is harder to meter than electricity. It will be even worse. There is no shortage of water in the UK (in case anyone hadn't noticed, it rains quite often). The real problem is we have not built a new reservoir since 1992, while adding millions of people through mass immigration. Yet another tax won't fix that. It will just be one more huge charge that people who are already struggling with the cost of living will have to pay – and they won't even be able to afford a relaxing bath to calm down after opening the bill.
Evening Standard
2 hours ago
- Evening Standard
Give prison officers the lethal weapons ‘they need', Jenrick says
Asked whether he could see that the public would want him to take responsibility for failing prisons as a former government minister, Mr Jenrick told the BBC's Sunday Morning With Laura Kuenssberg programme: 'We should have done more, but look, what Labour are doing now is making the problem worse, and they are reaching for the easy lever of letting prisoners out early.'
