“I’m proud to be a part of this dispute, as I think every employee should defend their hard-earned terms and conditions.”
Strike Map have released the following article from an anonymous worker taking part in the ongoing dispute involving Birmingham’s bin collection services.
This dispute was born last year, after employees who were performing the WRCO role received statutory notices advising them of a 45-day consultation period proposing the deletion of this particular role. To give it its full title, the Waste, Recycling, Collection Officer was introduced in 2018 to bring a previous dispute to a close after High Court intervention. This involved one of the two loaders taking on extra responsibilities, particularly in regards to safety at the back of the vehicle but also in conjunction with the driver to ensure the smooth running of the service – reporting missed collections, any access issues and promoting recycling being a few examples.
Whilst the original letter suggested the removal of this role was only a proposal, it quickly became clear there was no consultation to be had, just B.C.C (Birmingham City Council) fulfilling their statutory legal obligations. After the role was officially removed, a range of options were made available for affected employees including redundancy, driver training, a move without loss of pay to street cleaning or 6-months pay protection. Whilst on paper these offered a fair range of options, I will attempt to explain why this is not the case.
Redundancy may be attractive if you’re nearing retirement age, but daunting after 30 years of service then trying to find something else. Driver training: great if you enjoy driving and would like to enhance your career prospects, but many of the affected employees don’t even possess a car licence. A move to another department (namely street cleaning) with no loss of pay: this is the most contentious as, though the council claim in their words “nobody needs to lose a penny”, this supposedly equivalent role has still to go through the same evaluation process every job within B.C.C is currently undertaking, with a high likelihood this role will also be downgraded with the same subsequent pay cut.
Shortly after asking employees to explore these options, drivers were paid a visit by senior management and made assurances which were then put in writing to suggest they were not part of these proposals and therefore had no concerns regarding losing any pay, so should not be supporting any industrial action. What B.C.C seems not to understand is frontline staff are a band of brothers and sisters who fight for all our terms and conditions, whether we are directly affected or otherwise. As it turns out B.C.C management acted very disingenuously towards drivers as they face the same evaluation process and potential downgrades, so promises were not made in good faith: it was basically impossible to predict the outcome of this independent process.
After weighing up our limited options a ballot was announced and, despite the depot manager (who ironically was our former convenor) telling everyone in earshot it would fail, it passed comfortably. Industrial action began in January for one day a week, but with a large number of agency staff already employed it meant any work not done was picked up and our impact was limited.
We then moved to a 3 day a week strike and whilst this had more of an impact, B.C.C seemed happy enough to deploy agency staff on the weekend at enhanced pay rates. Finally from March we voted for an all-out strike. This in conjunction with help from Unite’s organisers to facilitate within the law a slow walk protest in front of the wagons soon saw rubbish pile high in the streets and chaotic scenes in our city, whilst more police appeared on a previously peaceful picket line. Despite being no doubt under tremendous political pressure the chief constable confirmed we were acting within the law. After witnessing the effect we were having B.C.C announced emergency measures which included the police threatening a section 14 implementation, which could result in arrest if breached.
I’m proud to be a part of this dispute, as I think every employee should defend their hard-earned terms and conditions. I would like to place on record mine and my colleague’s immense gratitude for the fantastic support we’ve received throughout the dispute, ranging from Unite supporting us financially, members of the public bringing food and drink to the picket line and various organisations doing inspiring work raising funds and offering unwavering support. It’s been a humbling experience during a difficult time. As a sidenote, despite the difficult circumstances we have also been running a barbecue and raised money to fund a bleed kit for a local charity, made donations of Easter eggs to a children’s charity and a local food bank. It’s been nice to give something back to the communities we serve.
B.C.C in my view has behaved disgracefully throughout this dispute, seeming more concerned with waging a propaganda war discrediting long serving employees with genuine financial future concerns and spending millions of pounds on a scab workforce rather than engaging in meaningful negotiations.
They’ve blatantly lied throughout the media with regards to recruitment of new agency staff (unlawful during a dispute), options available to affected employees, the number of those affected by these changes and also stating on local television that compulsory redundancy notices had been issued – to this day not one single compulsory redundancy notice has been issued.
Whatever the outcome of this dispute, I will walk away with my head held high and my morals intact.
- Strike Map have teamed up with Football Lads and Lasses Against Fascism to create badges being sold at £1 each to help show support and raise funds for the Birmingham bin strikers: you can order them here.
- You can follow Strike Map on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X and YouTube.
- This article was originally published by Strike Map on 24/4/2025.
Please tread with caution. The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions. Where they are designed to influence the government, or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.