Economist Alex Tabarrok, appearing on the British CapX Podcast, discussed the UK Equality Act 2010, drawing on his earlier posts Equality Act 2010 and The Apples and Oranges Tribunal. A central focus of the discussion was the Birmingham refuse collection dispute—a case that illustrates tensions between equal pay legislation and labor market dynamics that other UK councils have also confronted. Glasgow City Council, for example, spent years resolving its own equal pay claims involving comparable bonus-structure disputes.

In 2010, an employment tribunal ruled that Birmingham City Council had discriminated against thousands of female workers—including cooks, cleaners, care assistants, and caretakers—by denying them bonuses paid to predominantly male binmen, gardeners, and gravediggers. The question at the heart of the dispute: were these bonuses a product of sexism, or did they reflect what Adam Smith described in 1776 as compensating differentials—premiums paid for work that is physically demanding, unpleasant, or difficult to staff?

Tabarrok argues that the evidence supports the latter interpretation. He notes that nothing prevents women from working in refuse collection; female bin workers exist and earn the same bonuses as their male counterparts, a pattern he says parallels the Next case. The Birmingham situation, he contends, provides a real-world test of the competing theories.

The financial consequences were significant and contributed to Birmingham's bankruptcy in 2023. As Europe's largest local authority by population, Birmingham City Council issued a Section 114 notice—the formal mechanism by which a UK council effectively declares bankruptcy, barring all non-essential spending. The council employed approximately 400 binmen alongside roughly 6,000 women in comparable graded roles. Because equal pay law required that any bonus paid to a binman be matched across comparable roles, each additional pound paid to a refuse worker implied approximately fifteen pounds owed to female staff. Unable to afford equalizing all salaries upward, the council instead eliminated the binmen's premium in January 2025.

The binmen went on strike and, as of the article's publication, remained on strike nearly eighteen months later. Some 17,000 tonnes of rubbish accumulated across the city, prompting Birmingham to declare a major incident.

The council ultimately hired an outside contractor to resume waste collection and now pays roughly triple its pre-strike outsourcing costs—an amount exceeding what it had previously paid its own employees. Tabarrok argues this outcome undermines the sexism hypothesis: the premium reflected the market price of the job rather than gender favoritism.

The arrangement relied on regulatory arbitrage. Because the contracted binmen technically work for a different employer, the Equality Act's comparator rules—which limit equal pay claims to employees within the same organization—do not apply across the employer boundary. UK government officials have signaled interest in closing this loophole by extending equal pay obligations through the supply chain. The consultation reflects a wider policy debate over how equal pay law should function as an increasing share of public services are delivered through private contractors rather than direct municipal employment.

The rubbish, Tabarrok notes, continues to pile up.