Care workers to strike for first time in decade in dispute over pay
It will culminate with a march and rally at the Scottish Parliament on June 12.
Unison said it is a response to 'years of broken promises and delays by the Scottish Government to reform and fund social care properly', and that 'carers have been left with no other option after being consistently let down by ministers'.
It has agreed 'life and limb' cover with the employer during the strike.
Anna Baird, a Unison member and a personal assistant with Enable Scotland for eight years, said: 'I love my job and the people I support, that's why this decision was so hard. But we're at breaking point.
'We've been made promises for years, but nothing changes.
'Our pay doesn't reflect the responsibility we carry and many of us are struggling to make ends meet. We're just asking to be valued for the vital work we do.'
Unison Scotland regional organiser Jennifer McCarey said: 'Strike action is always a last resort.
'But unions representing care workers have been working with the Scottish Government for several years on a plan for social care.
'But not a single promise made by ministers has been kept. In fact, care workers' pay has gotten worse.
'The care sector is in crisis, and that responsibility lies squarely with the Scottish Government. Until care workers are properly valued and paid fairly, the sector will never have the care workers it needs.
'Ministers must fund charitable care properly and act to resolve this issue.'
Social care minister Maree Todd said: 'We value the vital role social care workers play in delivering high-quality care.
'Pay negotiations are a matter for trade unions and employers and I urge both parties to continue to work together to reach an agreement which is fair for the workforce and affordable for Enable.
'Our 2025-26 Scottish Budget provides an additional £125 million to enable adult social care workers, delivering direct care in commissioned services, to be paid at least the real living wage of £12.60 an hour. This takes our total investment in improving social care pay to £950 million.'
Enable Scotland have been contacted for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Swinney rules out SNP cabinet reshuffle before 2026 election
Speaking at an event hosted by Enlighten and Charlotte Street Partners, the SNP leader was emphatic that there would be no reshuffle of his senior ministers before voters head to the ballot box in 2026. 'I have no intention of reshuffling my team before the election,' Mr Swinney said. 'I made that clear when Mairi McAllan returned to cabinet in May. At that point, I decided actively and purposefully that I had people of experience and expertise in a number of roles which would help me deliver the government's programme before the election.' His remarks come at a time when speculation has been mounting about whether the SNP might attempt a refresh. The First Minister argued any significant shake-up of the cabinet would be counter-productive, forcing ministers to spend valuable months finding their feet rather than pressing ahead with government priorities. READ MORE: John Swinney: Rebel independence plan will not work Fury as rebel indy plan debate blocked by SNP officials 'If I put in a whole list of new faces,' he said, 'it would have taken a while to bring them up to the level of experience and knowledge that I already have focused in the cabinet. I believe stability is the best way to achieve what we have set out to do.' Since taking over the leadership, Mr Swinney has sought to present himself as a steady hand at the helm, in contrast to the turbulence of recent years within the SNP and the Scottish Government. Mairi McAllan's return to the cabinet earlier this year as housing secretary was one adjustment Mr Swinney made to his cabinet since taking office. Discussing Ms Sturgeon's memoir, Mr Swinney said: "Undoubtedly, and I've not read Nicola's book, it does chart an absolutely fascinating period in Scottish political history. One that will delight some people and really, really annoy a whole rang of other people." A significant amount of senior SNP MSPs are stepping down including Mr Swinney's deputy first minister Kate Forbes and former first ministers Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf. Speaking about the loss of SNP colleagues at the event on Tuesday evening, Mr Swinney said: "I regret the loss of a number of my colleagues because they are stepping down with a lot of experience...I'll miss them. The first minister singled out Ms Forbes' decision to step down, saying he "very much regrets" her loss, however, added he "very much understands" her reasons for stepping down for family reasons. Mr Swinney also highlighted the "climate is tough" in particular for young women in scottish politics. He added: "Particular for younger women the climate is pretty horrendous. Social media endurance is hard to bare for some and it leads public service to look pretty unattractive." Although the First Minister said he tries to be an "ally" to colleagues experiencing abuse, he "ultimately cannot protect people from what is going to happen" on online spaces and "appalling behaviour."
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction
Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping. The injunction sought by the council meant the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. In his judgment, he said that while the council had not 'definitively established' that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He continued that the 'risk of injustice is greater' if a temporary injunction was not granted. A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.' Mr Coppel continued: 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be 'hardship' caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Mr Riley-Smith said: 'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. 'Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.' Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.' He continued: 'Home Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents. 'Today we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.' Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the 'substantial impact' caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in 'extremely short order' would cause a 'very significant operational burden' and 'particular acute difficulties' for the Government. But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was 'not necessary'.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction
Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping. The injunction sought by the council meant the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. In his judgment, he said that while the council had not 'definitively established' that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He continued that the 'risk of injustice is greater' if a temporary injunction was not granted. A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.' Mr Coppel continued: 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be 'hardship' caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Mr Riley-Smith said: 'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. 'Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.' Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.' He continued: 'Home Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents. 'Today we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.' Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the 'substantial impact' caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in 'extremely short order' would cause a 'very significant operational burden' and 'particular acute difficulties' for the Government. But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was 'not necessary'.
