Union urges for ministers to help with Scottish Water pay dispute
Members of GMB Scotland and other unions are striking from Monday for seven consecutive days at the publicly-owned organisation, with a mass rally planned in Glasgow on Wednesday.
Scottish ministers have been urged to get involved in the dispute, which began in June 2024.
Workers at GMB Scotland backed industrial action after the water company reduced the terms of a pay offer that had already been rejected, according to the union, which claimed that executives received record bonuses last year.
Unionised staff voted against an offer of 3.4% or £1,400 covering the last nine months as the company changed the date for annual rises from July to April.
The company branded industrial action 'unnecessary' and said seven offers have been made since June 2024.
Scottish Water's latest offer would see an average pay increase of around 7% over two years (2024/25 and 2025/26), in addition to a 3.5% yearly salary increase. It called for 'sensible' negotiations from the unions, rejecting suggestions that emergency works would be impacted.
In a marginal majority, 51% of Unison workers employed by the water supplier voted to reject the pay offer, and 49% voted to accept. The turnout was 86%.
GMB said 60% of its members voted against the offer, and 40% chose to accept, on a turnout of 78%, while statistics were not provided by Unison.
The strikes will conclude on June 8, and follow two days of industrial action in April.
GMB Scotland organiser Claire Greer wrote to secretary for net zero Gillian Martin, raising concerns about the failure to resolve the dispute.
Ms Greer said: 'It is impossible to know whether Scottish Water is playing games or simply inept, but the relentless progress of this dispute towards industrial action could have been halted at any time with open and straightforward negotiations.
'Instead, we have been given a series of needlessly complicated offers, one worse than the last, as managers spend more time attempting to undermine staff unions than delivering a fair offer.
'It needs to stop and if Scottish Water do not know how, ministers must explain public money is being risked by a dispute that should have been settled months ago.
'The public deserves better and workers deserve a fair pay offer.'
Peter Farrer, chief operating officer at Scottish Water, said: 'This week's industrial action is unnecessary. It will mean union members losing valuable wages and add extra costs to the business which are ultimately paid for by customers.
'We invited the joint trade unions to talk over the weekend but unfortunately they refused to meet without preconditions.
'Given how close the vote against our latest pay offer was, we felt a resolution was possible and would be welcomed by all our colleagues.
'It is now time for the joint trade union leadership to return to the table with a sensible solution that ends this dispute.
'In the meantime, we have robust plans in place to maintain essential services should the trade unions press ahead with their strike action.'
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Ministers have set out their policy in relation to public sector pay.
'It is a matter for Scottish Water and its unions to agree a settlement within the constraints of that policy and affordability.
'The Scottish Government urges both parties to resume negotiations to find an agreement.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
The place in Scotland where 94 per cent of people travel by ScotRail
The train operator says even just talking about improvements boosts passenger numbers Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... I used to think most people in Scotland rarely travelled by train, wedded to the convenience of their cars despite decades of government attempts to persuade them otherwise. But while it is true that the overall proportion of all journeys by rail remains tiny - just 2 per cent compared to half by car - I was taken aback by its popularity in some areas of the country when I saw a ScotRail presentation on Friday. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As someone who travels to Glasgow a lot, it's good to see that the peak-time fares are to be abolished | Jane Barlow/PA It turns out that folk in East Renfrewshire are Scotland's most enthusiastic rail travellers, nearly one third of whom take a train at least once a week. Even more surprising to my mind is that only 6 per cent of people there never travel by train. That's about double the Scottish average for train use, and about two thirds less than the no rail travel rate, of 17 and 16 per cent respectively. By contrast, in areas with fewer stations and less frequent trains, the picture is very different, with just one in 50 Perth and Kinross residents taking the train at least once a week while nearly one third never do. As ScotRail's strategy and planning director Scott Prentice, who presented the figures to the Scottish Association for Public Transport's annual meeting in Glasgow, observed: 'There's a myth out there we need to convert people to use rail. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'No, we don't - they're using us, they're just not using us often enough. So it's about frequency of use - that's how we grow our business.' Mr Prentice pointed to some of the fastest growing areas, including Fife, where he said reliability improvements and the reopening of the Levenmouth line had helped increase passenger numbers by more than half to 3.5 million over the last year. Numbers travelling on the Glasgow to Ayr, Ardrossan and Largs lines were up by one third to 7.1 million, assisted by some 135,000 travelling to the Open golf in Troon last July In fact, Mr Prentice said ScotRail only had to start talking about improvements for patronage to increase, which he said had 'put rail at the front of people's minds'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As for the fastest growing stations, some have soared past pre-pandemic highs, even if ScotRail overall has still to achieve that. These include Kennishead, on the south side of Glasgow, whose numbers were up one third on a decade ago to 90,000 even before its total more than doubled again in 2024-25 to 185,000. That's been put down to passengers temporarily switching from the nearby East Kilbride line during its closure for electrification, as well as new housing. The fastest growing was on another adjacent line, at Williamwood in East Renfrewshire, where passengers more than doubled for the same reasons to top 400,000 last year, although they were previously below pre-Covid levels. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Other rising stars are on the secondary Edinburgh-Glasgow route via Shotts, thanks to new and more frequent trains, with Curriehill handling nearly 200,000 passengers in 2024-25 - more than three times as many as ten years ago. Livingston South and Kirknewton on the line also saw big growth. But all that doesn't get away from the fact the network is hugely expensive to run, requiring £800 million a year of government funding.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Here is the real reason River City is being axed by BBC bosses
The letter's subject was BBC Scotland cancelling River City, an act I had previously described as cultural vandalism. My correspondent had a cooler disposition and a better way with words. Summing up how the soap had been brought low in recent years, she wrote: 'Its viewing figures were adversely affected by stop/start production runs, erratic scheduling and a general lack of promotion.' Spot on. And then came this: 'I began watching River City out of loyalty to my city, but came to the view that it makes an important contribution to the culture of central Scotland.' BBC Scotland HQ at Pacific Quay Watching out of loyalty to my city. How wonderful, how generous, how Scottish is that? Of the thousands of words written and spoken about River City, all the BBC statements, the petition to save the show, the debate in the Scottish Parliament, not one sentence hits home as hard as that contribution. Watching out of loyalty to my city. There writes someone who 'gets' what River City means, and why it is not just another programme that can be binned by BBC Scotland because its face no longer fits. But what do you know, no one is listening. Not to my correspondent, not to those who have signed the petition, not to MSPs, or ministers. It seems the main arguments in favour of keeping River City - that it provides jobs and training for working-class Scots who might otherwise never get a start in TV, as well as being a pretty decent drama beloved by its audience - are not enough for BBC Scotland to change its mind. We know this because the executive who made the decision appeared before Holyrood's culture committee at the end of May and said so. Hayley Valentine, director of BBC Scotland, told MSPs that River City, with its 200,000 viewers in Scotland compared to Shetland's 700,000 'did not pass the value for money test'. But the money saved by axing River City would help to fund three new short-run dramas, she confirmed. Though these will 'absolutely cost more to make', the BBC would 'expect' them to deliver much bigger audiences than River City and 'really hope' they will. Expectations and hope. In other words, BBC Scotland is taking a punt. Making all those people redundant on a gamble. Having said that axing River City was a creative decision, it really does come down to money. As for River City being a way into TV, Ms Valentine said opportunities would still be offered across a wide range of other programmes. So that's okay then. Nothing more to see here, folks. Except it is not okay. It is very far from okay. Cancelling River City has always been about more than the end of one programme. It's about BBC Scotland fighting Scotland's corner within the corporation, and making sure the BBC represents and is reflective of all those who pay for it. Read more On the former, was London asked for more money to fund the short-run dramas? Was there ever a chance of building on the UK-wide iPlayer audience for River City by running a promotion campaign? Where are the figures showing potential job and training opportunities lost versus those created? Was there any analysis or was this simply a case of executives thinking they knew best? I understand BBC Scotland's ambition. It wants another Baby Reindeer. It wants the next Adolescence. But it doesn't have the money of a Netflix or an Apple+, which makes it all the more important to ensure that it is making decisions for the right reasons. When it comes to River City, I'm not sure it is. Just as to govern is to choose, running the BBC is all about choice. Who is out and who is in, who gets the money and who doesn't. BBC Scotland decided, ultimately, that River City was expendable. It has made the arguments about viewing figures and opportunities offered elsewhere, but I think there is another factor at work here. For my money - £174.50 licence fee - River City was vulnerable because it was a Scottish working-class soap made by working-class casts and crews. No one thought there would be the backlash there has been. It wasn't like cancelling Question Time with its well-connected panellists and audiences (now there's an idea). The class ceiling exists in the media in general - heck, in society as a whole. It's not just BBC Scotland. Indeed, BBC Scotland has done more than most to widen access and should be commended for it. Now and then, a youngster will appear who doesn't sound like your typical BBC sort. They thrive on the attention and encouragement, but then at some point they hit that class ceiling. They don't get invited into the room where it happens, so they can't shape the corporation's future, and the story of inequality rumbles on. Representation matters. As the old saying goes, if you can see it, you can be it. For many working-class Scots, River City was 'their' soap, and therefore 'their' way into TV. Doors opened that had too often been closed, and if it could happen for the guy down the road, it could happen for you. You cannot put a price on that kind of positive PR. The same goes for viewer loyalty. Fans of River City have had their patience tested to a degree that would not have happened with any other show. Yet they've kept faith with the programme. Even now, they trust executives will repay that faith and cancel the cancellation, but will they? Back to you, BBC Scotland. Alison Rowat is a senior politics and features writer on The Herald. Contact
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scots tourism chiefs 'very sceptical about visitor levies'
City of Edinburgh Council leader Jane Meagher has previously declared the levy, capped at five nights in a row, will provide a 'once in a lifetime opportunity to invest tens of millions of pounds towards enhancing and sustaining the things that make our city such a great place to visit – and live in – all year round'. Businesses will be required to apply the levy to any advance bookings made from October 1, 2025, for stays on or after July 24, 2026. While council chiefs agreed to push the start date back by three months to give businesses more time to prepare, the prospect of visitors being taxed on overnight stays, and hotels being handed the responsibility of collecting the tax, is continuing to rankle within the tourism and hospitality industry. Industry chiefs wrote to Minister for Public Finance Ivan McKee last week warning that legislation allowing councils in Scotland to introduce tourist taxes will 'fail at the first hurdle' and harm Scotland's economy and businesses. The letter, spearheaded by the Scottish Tourism Alliance, urged the Scottish Government to change the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act to remove from businesses the burden of collecting the tax by introducing a QR code system paid directly to local authorities. 'We share the Scottish Government's ambitions to build a stronger economy and to make Scotland a world-leading visitor destination but are frustrated and very concerned that the visitor levy in its current form risks undermining that success,' the letter states. 'Taking a different approach to the rest of the UK on this policy is putting the sector at a competitive disadvantage and causing considerable complexity and unnecessary cost to businesses. Unfortunately, it is another example of a well-intentioned policy being badly implement.' Preparations for the levy are being made as hotels, bars, restaurants, and visitor attractions are continuing to battle a cost of doing business crisis which was recently exacerbated by sharp increases in employer national insurance contributions and national living wage that came into in April. Domestic tourism in Scotland has also failed to recover from the pandemic as strongly as the overseas market, as UK consumers continue to feel the pressure of the cost of living crisis. Read more: Leon Thompson, director of UK Hospitality Scotland, told The Herald that the industry is concerned the levy will undermine the competitiveness of Scottish tourism on the world stage, and highlighted the burden it will place on businesses at a time when they are grappling with high costs. 'Our position has always been that we are very sceptical about visitor levies, not just in Edinburgh but generally,' he said. 'The reason for that is just around costs [and] price competitiveness. It is possible for destinations to price themselves out of the market. We are very keen we don't see that happening anywhere in Scotland. 'The levy also comes with some costs for our businesses as well. They will have to collect the money on behalf of the council so therefore I think it is really imperative there is some financial benefit coming to businesses. The most obvious way to do that is to ensure that there is a steady flow of visitors coming to the city so that there are opportunities to increase revenue right across hospitality but particularly for the accommodation businesses that are going to need to collect the money.' Marc Crothall, chief executive of the Scottish Tourism Alliance, raised concern over the cost of the levy due to be introduced in Edinburgh, and shares Mr Thompson's concerns about the responsibility to administer the scheme being delegated to businesses. He told The Herald: 'Whilst there is a recognition that there is a need for more monies to be invested in the tourism and visitor experience and a transient visitor levy is a means to raising such monies, it is all about striking the right balance – both in the timing of the introduction of a levy, the amount that would be charged to the person staying overnight, and fully assessing the economic and competitiveness risk before introducing it. 'The 5% levy charge being applied on top of the accommodation rate is being mooted by many as too much, [as] most had expected a levy fee to be circa £3-£4pp [per person]. Nor is the percentage methodology approach acknowledged as being simple and easy for business and the visitor to work with, as well as it being costly to administrate. 'It is the firm view of many in the sector and among some local authorities that a much better approach to the charging and collection of a levy would be to apply a flat rate per person and for the levy to be paid via a digital-first approach, using QR code technology. In adopting this approach, the visitor pays straight to the authority, which takes away the cost, time burden and VAT (valued added tax) implications for the accommodation business, and benefiting the authority, who gets the money into their account quicker to spend. Read more: 'Most importantly, when levies are raised, they should only be used for investing in projects that directly enhance the visitor experience. Currently there remains concern [held] by many about where monies will be spent, the cost of administration and that the levy will be too much on top of already high costs, especially for Scottish and domestic visitors but not excluding international tourists, who may well go elsewhere or have a reduced stay. 'We also continue to be concerned that without more weight being given to the visitor levy forums, set up to advise on how the monies raised will be invested in enhancing the visitor experience and made up of representatives from both the sector and communications, then there is a risk that Edinburgh councillors could spend the revenue on local vote winners rather than on how the legislation intends.' Neil Ellis, group operations director Places Hotels in the capital and chair of Edinburgh Hotels Association, agreed that it is vital any revenue raised by the tax is used to enhance the visitor experience in the city. 'Business, leisure and event visitors are all contributing significant sums over the next few years so Edinburgh must communicate its intentions as loudly as possible,' he told The Herald. 'The majority of visitors to a destination don't mind paying as long as they know and can see where their money is being spent. I'm confident the new Visitor Levy Forum will succeed in ensuring a balanced approach is taken when reviewing and proposing levy projects.' Mr Ellis, who runs the Place Hotel on York Place, highlighted business rates and the recent rise in employer taxation were among other challenges currently facing the industry, noting that business rates are higher in Scotland than England, where relief is in place for hospitality firms. Michael Golding, chief executive of the Association of Scottish Visitor Attractions, said a recent survey of businesses had underlined the depth of concern about financial pressures in the sector. Some 78% of Scottish attractions said they were being affected by financial challenges, including the rising cost of energy, staff and reduced funding for the public sector and charities that make up a large portion of the sector. Just over half (51%) of attractions highlighted challenges around transport as a barrier to progress, following by staffing (35%), and seasonality (20%). Mr Golding said: 'There is widespread recognition across Scotland that investment is needed in our infrastructure as well as to fund the ambition of our national tourism strategy to be world leaders in 21st century tourism. However, we are in a post-pandemic economy, with high cost pressures, a lack of funding, staffing issues, seasonality, transport and more. 'Focussing on the combination of the cost of business, and the ability of our visitors to spend, making Scotland more expensive does create a risk that less people visit, or that they stay less long, and most importantly for attractions that visitors ability to spend on activities is reduced. So, we must seek to balance our need for investment, while mitigating the risks, that should be underpinned by a well evidenced economic impact study to show that the benefits.' One other ongoing challenging facing tourism and hospitality operators in the city concerns is access to labour supply. Mr Thompson hopes that the UK and EU reach agreement on a youth mobility scheme which would allow young people from countries within the bloc to sample life and experience work in Scotland. The UK and EU recently agreed to work towards agreement on a youth experience scheme that would make it easier young people from the bloc to work and study and vice versa. 'We still have some issues around workforce supply, so it is quite heartening to see the UK Government is looking very favourably upon an extension to the youth mobility scheme to help ensure our businesses can access young people from the EU to come and work here,' he said. 'I think a place like Edinburgh would do very well from being able to attract that talent from across Europe. That's a positive development in that space. If it does happen, certainly Edinburgh will be well placed to take advantage.'
